MICRO SECTION NOTES 1/26
TA: Kevin Hassani
khassani@jhu.edu
office hours:
monday 2:30-3:30
merg 466
Thursday, January 25, 2007
OCC CIV NOTES 1/25
most of the books are on 2-hour reserve at the library or on e-reserve (dickens)
interpretations of the french revolution
1. Bourgeois
2. Marxist
3. Burke & Conservatives
4. Furet/totalitarians
5. Hunt and the other revolution
6. 21st century
for a long time, the dominant view of the french revolution was the first- bourgeois
sieyes
guizot saw the revolution as a method to overthrow the aristocracy/monarchy and establish a constitution
revolution hastened not liberal constitutionalism, but centralization and order (epitomized by Napoleon)
marxists-
all you need to run a country is some smart people, and you put them in charge (not too hard)
-why didnt this happen?
marx explained that this was because all human society goes through 5 stages
-primitive
-slaveholding
-feudal
-capitalist
-communist
in each system, marx hypothesized that the nature of the economic system determines the nature of the superstructure above it
-economics determines not only government structure, but also church teachings, etc
why do you need a revolution to switch from feudal to capitalist?
-because the monarchy would never willingly give up power
the (political) right demonized the revolution
-they were fans of security and stability, not revolution
burke was a huge critic of the revolution
-said the english revolution was great, french not so much
the right-wing criticism of the revolution morphed into cults of religion and race
-aided the spread of facism
totalitarian
this view started to get popularized after documents and evidence started coming out of the soviet gulag
-there ended up being an intellectual revolt against communism in europe
-leader of the revolt was francois furet
when leftists start to slide to the right, they dont know when to stop
-eventually the leftists drifted rightward
Hunt
looks for the 'true idea of the revolution'
-finds human rights
how far is too far in the dehumanization of enemies by the state?
human rights woo. ok. continue...
most interesting feature of the french revolution is not the effort to make a better society, but the massive violence
calls napoleon a despot, usurping the power of the people
huge uprising called the 'vendee' that had huge punishments for any counter-revolutionary activities
most of the books are on 2-hour reserve at the library or on e-reserve (dickens)
interpretations of the french revolution
1. Bourgeois
2. Marxist
3. Burke & Conservatives
4. Furet/totalitarians
5. Hunt and the other revolution
6. 21st century
for a long time, the dominant view of the french revolution was the first- bourgeois
sieyes
guizot saw the revolution as a method to overthrow the aristocracy/monarchy and establish a constitution
revolution hastened not liberal constitutionalism, but centralization and order (epitomized by Napoleon)
marxists-
all you need to run a country is some smart people, and you put them in charge (not too hard)
-why didnt this happen?
marx explained that this was because all human society goes through 5 stages
-primitive
-slaveholding
-feudal
-capitalist
-communist
in each system, marx hypothesized that the nature of the economic system determines the nature of the superstructure above it
-economics determines not only government structure, but also church teachings, etc
why do you need a revolution to switch from feudal to capitalist?
-because the monarchy would never willingly give up power
the (political) right demonized the revolution
-they were fans of security and stability, not revolution
burke was a huge critic of the revolution
-said the english revolution was great, french not so much
the right-wing criticism of the revolution morphed into cults of religion and race
-aided the spread of facism
totalitarian
this view started to get popularized after documents and evidence started coming out of the soviet gulag
-there ended up being an intellectual revolt against communism in europe
-leader of the revolt was francois furet
when leftists start to slide to the right, they dont know when to stop
-eventually the leftists drifted rightward
Hunt
looks for the 'true idea of the revolution'
-finds human rights
how far is too far in the dehumanization of enemies by the state?
human rights woo. ok. continue...
most interesting feature of the french revolution is not the effort to make a better society, but the massive violence
calls napoleon a despot, usurping the power of the people
huge uprising called the 'vendee' that had huge punishments for any counter-revolutionary activities
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
PoR SECTION NOTES 1/24
Philosophy of Religion
TA- Alex James
ajames13@jhu.edu
Gilman 460 monday 12-1
find this thing of some sort to print out. oy vey.
guidelines for writing a philosophy paper is online and other stuff too
www.jimpryor.net/teaching
^^that's the website
assignment for class was to brainstorm all the different ways to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist
Philosophy of Religion
TA- Alex James
ajames13@jhu.edu
Gilman 460 monday 12-1
find this thing of some sort to print out. oy vey.
guidelines for writing a philosophy paper is online and other stuff too
www.jimpryor.net/teaching
^^that's the website
assignment for class was to brainstorm all the different ways to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
AFP NOTES 1/23
LECTURE 2: The Main Themes of AFP
The source of American Exceptionalism
Identity (in order following list)
race
religion
distance
internal balancing
the frontier
North America c.1750
-three major powers
-to the north- FRENCH CATHOLIC
-to the south- SPANISH CATHOLIC
-stuck in between- WASPy brits
religion played a role
-the protestant puritanism/calvinism contrasted starkly with catholicism surrounding it
-americans believed themselves the chosen instrument of God
-woo american exceptionalism
North America c.1783, territory had changed
-to the north- british empire
-to the south- spanish empire
-stuck in the middle once again, AMERICAN COLONISTS
because of this, americans denied legitimacy to the two european powers, because they weren't indigenous
-said that america had a legitimate sphere of influence over the north american continent
-culminated in 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine- European powers can have NO SAY in any territory they don't already control in the western hemisphere
Note that america is only exceptional in relation with other white nations (non-white nations were never respected anyways)
americans treated indians not as a foreign power, but as an internal group revolting and to be put down
Distance played a huge role in maintaining american independence
-many people tried to emulate the american experience
-France, Latin America
france FAILED
why?
-America had a lot of experience already with self government, because even while it was under royal subjugation it had a great deal of autonomy
-france had no experience at all with this, being ruled by an absolute monarch
-legitimacy of opposition
-after an election, there is a peaceful transfer of power
-this legitimacy broke down in the 1850s, with civil war, but since 1865 this hasn't happened
-france has no experience with this at all
-space and time (distance)
-America had the space and time to deal with revolutionary issues at its own pace
-america even had time to go through two different governments before getting it right
-the cycle in europe was monarchy/oppression, brief burst of liberalism, back to monarchy/oppression
-this just didn't happen in america
-the space/time separation led to the idea of 'america invulnerable'
-wars are something we do to other people, not something other people do to us
-american soil was not touched in any real way from 1815-2001
Internal balancing-
-example of a failure- roman republic
-started out as a republic, but the infrastructure just failed and it led to the empire
-two ideas for dealing with this
-stay small, keep republican tradition, but you're small enough to be picked off
-expand, but lose republican tradition
-hamilton and madison argued that this model didn't apply
-the philadelphian system was a 'confederate republic'- and as such a republican ideal could be maintained
-governing bodies were small enough (states) to be effective republics, but all linked by a federal republic
frederick jackson turner wrote the significance of the frontier (1893)
-argument is that the existence of free land (or a frontier) is the stabilizing force on the american state
-america expanded away from europe and towards autonomy
-independence leads to democracy in america. woot.
reasons for revolution?
-'no taxation without representation'
-somersett's case- 1772
-royal proclamation of 1763
-at the end of the 7 years' war
-indian chief pontiac was owning frontier settlements, makes them very expensive to defend
-the proclamation imposed this geographic line on the Appalachians, no settling past it
-this kept the colonies very centered on the eastern seaboard, near british industry
-uh oh, the frontier closed in 1890, no more real land on the american mainland
-america looks somewhere else... 1898- spanish-american war
-american foreign policy extremely frontier-oriented
America as Realist Power
one of the main expectation of realism- powers will balance against eachother to maintain stability
external balancing
americans were EXTREMELY prejudiced against alliances-
-GW argued against even temporary alliances, only under extraordinary circumstances
around 1800, balancing really plays no role at all
-US doesnt balance- (french/UK wars)
1846-8 - mexico doesnt balance against US
-why?
-only power that mexico could have used to balance the US was the UK
-UK policy post 1815 was one of appeasement
balancing occurs to meet the POSSIBILITY of a threat
-US has the mindset that this possibility doesnt exist
US was essentially at detente with the UK, the only power capable of doing damage to the US
monroe doctrine codifies this
-europe no longer has influence over western hemisphere
-essentially, US becomes monarch over west. hem.
acts as a great power
-louisiana purchase 1803
-mexican-american war 1846-48
these sorts of territorial gains would nto be possible in europe, other powers would have balanced against it
post civil war- 1865-1900
-us population more than doubles
-becomes a major industrial power
-coal production up 800%, steel up 523%, railroad track mileage up 567%
-by 1885, US passes UK in total manufacturing output
-1890- surpasses UK in total energy production
-ends up being as powerful as much of europe combined
US embarks on traditional domination of western hemisphere
-embodied on the roosevelt corollary of 1904
-US becomes 'international police power' of the hemisphere, protecting it against europe
-this is UNILATERAL power, in keeping with american traditions
-key manifestation of this is Roosevelt's takeover of the panama isthmus, specifically in order to build the canal
-pure US self-interest
-US still does this, Grenada and Panama in the 1980s
1898 onwards- america does the same on an international scale
-1899-1902- America gets an actual colony- the Philippines from spain
-since then, US has done this again and again, vietnam, iraq, etc.
this relates to the jeffersonian ideal that the revolution is 'not for ourselves, but for the entire human race'
America as Liberal Power
Heir of the Enlightenment
Foreign Policy Options
Example vs Force
LECTURE 2: The Main Themes of AFP
The source of American Exceptionalism
Identity (in order following list)
race
religion
distance
internal balancing
the frontier
North America c.1750
-three major powers
-to the north- FRENCH CATHOLIC
-to the south- SPANISH CATHOLIC
-stuck in between- WASPy brits
religion played a role
-the protestant puritanism/calvinism contrasted starkly with catholicism surrounding it
-americans believed themselves the chosen instrument of God
-woo american exceptionalism
North America c.1783, territory had changed
-to the north- british empire
-to the south- spanish empire
-stuck in the middle once again, AMERICAN COLONISTS
because of this, americans denied legitimacy to the two european powers, because they weren't indigenous
-said that america had a legitimate sphere of influence over the north american continent
-culminated in 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine- European powers can have NO SAY in any territory they don't already control in the western hemisphere
Note that america is only exceptional in relation with other white nations (non-white nations were never respected anyways)
americans treated indians not as a foreign power, but as an internal group revolting and to be put down
Distance played a huge role in maintaining american independence
-many people tried to emulate the american experience
-France, Latin America
france FAILED
why?
-America had a lot of experience already with self government, because even while it was under royal subjugation it had a great deal of autonomy
-france had no experience at all with this, being ruled by an absolute monarch
-legitimacy of opposition
-after an election, there is a peaceful transfer of power
-this legitimacy broke down in the 1850s, with civil war, but since 1865 this hasn't happened
-france has no experience with this at all
-space and time (distance)
-America had the space and time to deal with revolutionary issues at its own pace
-america even had time to go through two different governments before getting it right
-the cycle in europe was monarchy/oppression, brief burst of liberalism, back to monarchy/oppression
-this just didn't happen in america
-the space/time separation led to the idea of 'america invulnerable'
-wars are something we do to other people, not something other people do to us
-american soil was not touched in any real way from 1815-2001
Internal balancing-
-example of a failure- roman republic
-started out as a republic, but the infrastructure just failed and it led to the empire
-two ideas for dealing with this
-stay small, keep republican tradition, but you're small enough to be picked off
-expand, but lose republican tradition
-hamilton and madison argued that this model didn't apply
-the philadelphian system was a 'confederate republic'- and as such a republican ideal could be maintained
-governing bodies were small enough (states) to be effective republics, but all linked by a federal republic
frederick jackson turner wrote the significance of the frontier (1893)
-argument is that the existence of free land (or a frontier) is the stabilizing force on the american state
-america expanded away from europe and towards autonomy
-independence leads to democracy in america. woot.
reasons for revolution?
-'no taxation without representation'
-somersett's case- 1772
-royal proclamation of 1763
-at the end of the 7 years' war
-indian chief pontiac was owning frontier settlements, makes them very expensive to defend
-the proclamation imposed this geographic line on the Appalachians, no settling past it
-this kept the colonies very centered on the eastern seaboard, near british industry
-uh oh, the frontier closed in 1890, no more real land on the american mainland
-america looks somewhere else... 1898- spanish-american war
-american foreign policy extremely frontier-oriented
America as Realist Power
one of the main expectation of realism- powers will balance against eachother to maintain stability
external balancing
americans were EXTREMELY prejudiced against alliances-
-GW argued against even temporary alliances, only under extraordinary circumstances
around 1800, balancing really plays no role at all
-US doesnt balance- (french/UK wars)
1846-8 - mexico doesnt balance against US
-why?
-only power that mexico could have used to balance the US was the UK
-UK policy post 1815 was one of appeasement
balancing occurs to meet the POSSIBILITY of a threat
-US has the mindset that this possibility doesnt exist
US was essentially at detente with the UK, the only power capable of doing damage to the US
monroe doctrine codifies this
-europe no longer has influence over western hemisphere
-essentially, US becomes monarch over west. hem.
acts as a great power
-louisiana purchase 1803
-mexican-american war 1846-48
these sorts of territorial gains would nto be possible in europe, other powers would have balanced against it
post civil war- 1865-1900
-us population more than doubles
-becomes a major industrial power
-coal production up 800%, steel up 523%, railroad track mileage up 567%
-by 1885, US passes UK in total manufacturing output
-1890- surpasses UK in total energy production
-ends up being as powerful as much of europe combined
US embarks on traditional domination of western hemisphere
-embodied on the roosevelt corollary of 1904
-US becomes 'international police power' of the hemisphere, protecting it against europe
-this is UNILATERAL power, in keeping with american traditions
-key manifestation of this is Roosevelt's takeover of the panama isthmus, specifically in order to build the canal
-pure US self-interest
-US still does this, Grenada and Panama in the 1980s
1898 onwards- america does the same on an international scale
-1899-1902- America gets an actual colony- the Philippines from spain
-since then, US has done this again and again, vietnam, iraq, etc.
this relates to the jeffersonian ideal that the revolution is 'not for ourselves, but for the entire human race'
America as Liberal Power
Heir of the Enlightenment
Foreign Policy Options
Example vs Force
OCC CIV NOTES 1/23
Max Weber defined a state as such-
3 components
-disinterested bureaucracy
-legit monopoly on violence
-ability to uphold that monopoly
french revolutionaries sought out a sort of 'superstate' that intruded on all aspects of life
revolutionaries replace monarchy with popular sovereignty
-put government in the hands of the people, rather than the monarchs
representatives of the revolution called a meeting with representatives from three groups
first period- estates general- May 1789 to 1791
second period- the convention -1792-95- this contained the terror, killing of the king
third period- the directory- 1795-99
-ends with napoleon
estates general-
-after may 5, political parties appeared (real quick)
-summer of 1789, estates general declared itself a legit assembly, most members abandoned designations of noble, commoner, etc
-nationalized all sorts of church lands, etc
-ended censorship
-was supposed to produce a constitution
by 1791 the king and pope were starting to not like the estates general
during the convention
-war solidifies the revolution
-war is initially successful
-new body formed to govern
-european powers saw the french revolution as a big threat
-once the convention voted in 1793 to execute the king, england was like oh shit
-1793 on saw the TERROR
-new french republic owned everybody except england
-1794 brought a revolution against the revolution (counterrevolution)
-robespierre, etc, were executed (there was a new terror)
Max Weber defined a state as such-
3 components
-disinterested bureaucracy
-legit monopoly on violence
-ability to uphold that monopoly
french revolutionaries sought out a sort of 'superstate' that intruded on all aspects of life
revolutionaries replace monarchy with popular sovereignty
-put government in the hands of the people, rather than the monarchs
representatives of the revolution called a meeting with representatives from three groups
first period- estates general- May 1789 to 1791
second period- the convention -1792-95- this contained the terror, killing of the king
third period- the directory- 1795-99
-ends with napoleon
estates general-
-after may 5, political parties appeared (real quick)
-summer of 1789, estates general declared itself a legit assembly, most members abandoned designations of noble, commoner, etc
-nationalized all sorts of church lands, etc
-ended censorship
-was supposed to produce a constitution
by 1791 the king and pope were starting to not like the estates general
during the convention
-war solidifies the revolution
-war is initially successful
-new body formed to govern
-european powers saw the french revolution as a big threat
-once the convention voted in 1793 to execute the king, england was like oh shit
-1793 on saw the TERROR
-new french republic owned everybody except england
-1794 brought a revolution against the revolution (counterrevolution)
-robespierre, etc, were executed (there was a new terror)
MICRO NOTES 1/23
Comparative Advantage- even though state F is the best corn producer of them all, it should still make wheat, because it has a comparative advantage in doing so
the reason the table only contains two goods is because the blackboard is 2D, and everything said is applicable to more dimensions (it's just more complicated)
the way you make sure the right goods are produced is by assigning prices to goods, and letting the producers decide for themselves.
-They want to make the most profit, so they'll naturally go towards the PPF
-to move along the PPF, just change the prices of the goods to incentivize the production of one or the other
R = PcC + PwW
R = revenue
Pc = price of corn
Pw = price of wheat
C = amount of corn produced
W = amount of wheat produced
C = R/Pc - Pw/Pc * W
only legitimate profits and revenues able to be obtained are the intersections of the revenue line and the PPF
SUPPLY CURVE
A supply curve is a curve that answers the following set of questions
-when the price of wheat is announced, how much wheat do producers want to deliver to the marketplace?
-has NOTHING TO DO with demand or who's gonna buy the wheat
| State | C | W | DeltaC/DeltaW |
| A | 10 | 10 | -1 |
| B | 20 | 5 | -4 |
| C | 5 | 20 | -.25 |
| D | 5 | 0 | XXXX |
| E | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| F | 25 | 40 |
Comparative Advantage- even though state F is the best corn producer of them all, it should still make wheat, because it has a comparative advantage in doing so
the reason the table only contains two goods is because the blackboard is 2D, and everything said is applicable to more dimensions (it's just more complicated)
the way you make sure the right goods are produced is by assigning prices to goods, and letting the producers decide for themselves.
-They want to make the most profit, so they'll naturally go towards the PPF
-to move along the PPF, just change the prices of the goods to incentivize the production of one or the other
R = PcC + PwW
R = revenue
Pc = price of corn
Pw = price of wheat
C = amount of corn produced
W = amount of wheat produced
C = R/Pc - Pw/Pc * W
only legitimate profits and revenues able to be obtained are the intersections of the revenue line and the PPF
SUPPLY CURVE
A supply curve is a curve that answers the following set of questions
-when the price of wheat is announced, how much wheat do producers want to deliver to the marketplace?
-has NOTHING TO DO with demand or who's gonna buy the wheat
MICRO NOTES 1/22
econ- study of use of scarce resources in the most efficient way possible
State = actual states in a country, eg
C = plant state with corn
W = plant state with wheat
if you plant all corn and no wheat, you get 40 corn, also the same way for wheat
if you want a little wheat when you're making all corn, the obvious thing is to tell state E to plant wheat, because there's no opportunity cost
after you tell state E, the next rational thing is to tell state C to make wheat, because the opportunity cost is the least
the slope of the production possibility curve for each change in production is DeltaC/DeltaW
-question on the midterm exam
-would it have been possible to tweak the numbers on the graph (the C and W) to make an inward bowed PPF?
-it is possible to get a straight line, but not an inward curve
econ- study of use of scarce resources in the most efficient way possible
| State | C | W | DeltaC/DeltaW |
| A | 10 | 10 | -1 |
| B | 20 | 5 | -4 |
| C | 5 | 20 | -.25 |
| D | 5 | 0 | XXXX |
| E | 0 | 5 | 0 |
State = actual states in a country, eg
C = plant state with corn
W = plant state with wheat
if you plant all corn and no wheat, you get 40 corn, also the same way for wheat
if you want a little wheat when you're making all corn, the obvious thing is to tell state E to plant wheat, because there's no opportunity cost
after you tell state E, the next rational thing is to tell state C to make wheat, because the opportunity cost is the least
the slope of the production possibility curve for each change in production is DeltaC/DeltaW
-question on the midterm exam
-would it have been possible to tweak the numbers on the graph (the C and W) to make an inward bowed PPF?
-it is possible to get a straight line, but not an inward curve
AFP NOTES 1/22
American foreign policy founded on the idea of American 'exceptionalism'
john winthrop (1630)-said something about a 'city on a hill'
manifest destiny is the underscoring of the debate on american exceptionalism
-how should america fulfill its manifest destiny (force or example?) (imperial or republican model?) (expansion vs perfection?) (interventionist vs isolationist)
Lead by example-
-Federalists, then whigs, then republicans
Lead by force-
-Democratic party
in 1844, there was an actual battle between the two parties (Polk for democrats and Clay for republicans), polk owned
in 1898, the parties flipped, but the prevailing view stayed the same- still massively expansionist
1913-1921 Woodrow Wilson
-wwi, league of nations
there were on one side interventionists/unilateralists
on another side the isolationists/unilateralists
-what WILSON did was introduce a third side- multilateralism- in the search for american security
American foreign policy founded on the idea of American 'exceptionalism'
john winthrop (1630)-said something about a 'city on a hill'
manifest destiny is the underscoring of the debate on american exceptionalism
-how should america fulfill its manifest destiny (force or example?) (imperial or republican model?) (expansion vs perfection?) (interventionist vs isolationist)
Lead by example-
-Federalists, then whigs, then republicans
Lead by force-
-Democratic party
in 1844, there was an actual battle between the two parties (Polk for democrats and Clay for republicans), polk owned
in 1898, the parties flipped, but the prevailing view stayed the same- still massively expansionist
1913-1921 Woodrow Wilson
-wwi, league of nations
there were on one side interventionists/unilateralists
on another side the isolationists/unilateralists
-what WILSON did was introduce a third side- multilateralism- in the search for american security
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
