New Shun 1730

If this distorted "free trade" is regarded as a scripture, how can it be most effectively spread?

Hume at this time put forward a very interesting view on this issue.

As a "pan-atheist" or "deist", Hume was hated by people in Britain at that time.

As a result, he fell into a mud pit when he went out. He was too fat to climb out, so he called for help. Several farmers came around and said, "I'll save you, but you should believe in religion."

Hume said I don't believe it, and the farmer said, "Then you should continue to lie in the mud pit."

Hume said, "Okay, then I believe it." So he was pressed down and recited a passage of "The Lord's Prayer" and "Westminster Creed", and many people around him testified, so he was freed.

Therefore, if you want people to believe in the scriptures, you have to rely on disasters.

If there is no disaster, then create it artificially.

And what Dashun is doing now is to artificially create an economic collapse disaster for Britain.

After this disaster, Britain could no longer restore its original system, because the original trade system required a strong navy to support it.

The way Britain played before had completely exhausted Britain's war potential. This was a standard "island country fighting the mainland" model, a gamble.

If they won, everything would be fine.

If they lost, the national debt of 450 million taels of silver would leave Britain with no more money to gamble.

This was not as simple as whether they could default on their debts, because most of the creditors were members of Congress, and the main body of compensation was the British government. How could the creditors themselves erase their debts?

Not only had Britain's war potential been exhausted, but also its potential to maintain the mercantilist system with the Navigation Act as its core.

All kinds of mercantilist laws and regulations also require resources to maintain. Without resource maintenance, they would just be a pile of waste paper.

After being hit by Dashun, the cost of maintenance would be several times higher than before. Britain's old trade system could no longer be supported.

In this case, who can prescribe a prescription?

Dashun gave a prescription. How effective it is is unknown, but it seems that Dashun's wealth can serve as evidence.

What prescription can the rest of the people give? Mobilize the whole nation? Such a prescription doesn't even need to be given, because this is not Britain 30 years later. This is Britain where the problem of "legitimacy" has not been solved. Ten years ago, the Jacobites broke out a large-scale uprising to welcome orthodoxy.

The prescription given by Dashun can at least solve the problem of national debt repayment in a very realistic way. Because when Pitt asked to expand the war, the interest repayment promise of the newly issued national debt was the tariff on trade goods such as tea.

How many people are there in Britain? Pitt's new national debt involved 300,000 households.

Moreover, the more critical thing is the lesson of the "Molasses Act of 33" - and further back, the lesson of the collapse of the spice monopoly during the Yongle period of the Ming Dynasty:

If you are too close, you can't control smuggling.

The farther away, the more you can control smuggling.

If they are separated by half a world, it is definitely easier to control smuggling than if they are separated by a hundred miles.

As long as Dashun can provide enough low-priced goods, then, with the cooperation of both sides, they can really collect all the tariffs.

Although according to the new "scripture", in fact, no tariffs should be collected.

In fact, according to the theoretically most favorable demand for Dashun's industrial development, no tariffs should be collected.

However, there is always a huge difference between reality and imagination.

Dashun is not yet capable of stationing its fleet in London.

Moreover, even if it has this ability, it is more cost-effective to sell less goods and let Britain collect some tariffs, so as to raise troops to suppress resistance.

Guarding the land, guarding the land, if there is no guarding the land, then don't you have to rule, suppress, and arrest yourself? It is tiring and unpopular, and it costs more.

If you don't give people some benefits, who will be your guarding land?

Besides, Britain has to spend money to raise troops and soldiers to suppress the uprising.

If Britain does not impose tariffs, it can only collect land taxes if it wants to support the government and violent institutions.

At that time, if the land taxes are collected too harshly, the British landlords and gentry will also be forced to the side of the revolutionaries, which will be even more disadvantageous to the emerging bourgeoisie of Dashun.

It is true that any policy cannot satisfy everyone, but it is better not to make everyone dissatisfied.

The old system was maintained by someone in Britain, so it could last for more than a hundred years.

The new system must also be maintained and benefited by someone in Britain, and the beneficiaries must be strong enough in political power.

As Adam Smith said: In order to maintain this old mercantilist system, we in Britain spent nearly 200 million pounds on a war. If free trade had been implemented earlier, the 200 million pounds would not have to be spent at all, and Britain would have become more prosperous and strong, all walks of life would have flourished, people would have lived and worked in peace, and national wealth would have increased.

As Adam Smith also said: Our neighbor in Britain, France, has excellent wine. But we go far away and buy Portuguese wine. Why not just open up trade and buy French wine? Why go so far to buy Portuguese wine? If you buy French wine, can people drink cheaper wine? After all, France is closer to the UK than Portugal.

It should be said that Adam Smith certainly understood free trade.

But Adam Smith certainly did not understand capitalism.

Because for capitalism, whether it is free trade, protectionism, colonial expansion, or monopoly, they are just tools, not principles.

Use it when it is beneficial, and treat it as a classic.

Abandon it when it is not beneficial, and discard it like a worn-out shoe.

Free trade is free trade, and capitalism is capitalism.

Just as private ownership is private ownership, capitalism is capitalism.

Did Adam Smith know why Britain wanted to import Portuguese wine?

Did he know the specific content of the Methuen Treaty? Did he know that British capital began to control Portugal's grape plantations and wine industry, and directly defeated Portugal's textile industry, providing a relatively good life for at least 200,000 British families engaged in wool, sheep farming, textiles, woolen cloth, alkali production, carpentry, machinery manufacturing, etc.?

Why did Spain's excuse for going to war with Portugal was "to save Portugal from Britain's economic colonial rule"?

He may know, or he may not know, but it doesn't matter.

What's important is that many people think his words make sense. Yes, why spend 200 million pounds to fight a war? Why must we go far away and import Portuguese wine when France next door is rich in wine?

Of course, for the British ruling class such as George III, they understand the reason.

However, reality is helpless, the old system is doomed to collapse, and they can't do anything about it.

In the eyes of these core members of the royal party, this pamphlet must be problematic.

But just like many events that happened not long ago - in Scotland, smugglers were caught by the army, and officers were retaliated by the Scots afterwards, hanging officers with ropes like dragging dead dogs, and finally it was impossible to find out who did it; just like the slogan that is circulating in Ireland at this time: either free trade or armed uprising; or the extreme dissatisfaction with mercantilism policies in North America in recent years, and smuggling has become a noble and respected profession.

Originally, these people who opposed mercantilism and smuggled a lot lacked theoretical support.

Now, they have got the "scripture" they have been dreaming of. Through this scripture, every smuggler can stand up straight and proudly tell those who come to arrest them: My cause is just.

Come on, shoot me. I will not be ashamed, let alone embarrassed. Instead, I can still proudly raise my head before I die: My cause is to seek the welfare of the British people. Britain pursues the philosophy of producers, not the philosophy of the nation and consumers! I am fighting against the wrong, dark, shameful, and oppressive old Britain in my own way - smuggling - for the cause I think is just!

Smuggling is not a crime!

Tax evasion is justified!

This is the terrible thing.

This is the role of scripture.

Before there was "scripture", the smuggler was not so righteous. Although he vaguely felt that he might not have done anything wrong, he still had some moral guilt because of the lack of systematic theoretical support.

After having "scripture", the last moral issue was eliminated. As for morality, different times have different morality. The morality that mercantilism tried to shape is definitely different from the morality in an environment where free trade is correct.

Therefore, the core members of the royal party must understand what they should do at this critical moment of historical turning point to ensure that the royal party can truly sit firmly in the position of the ruling party.

Therefore, the core of the core of the royal party, George III, asked his close ministers about the content of this pamphlet.

In fact, George III only read two of the six suggestions, and he did not read the rest. But these two are the essence of the entire pamphlet.

He wanted to ask his ministers for their opinions.

Lord Bute could only shake his head and say, "My Lord, defeat is inevitable. The latest news from the navy is that the Chinese have once again sent reinforcements here, adding several more warships, and even brand new battleships."

"Sadly, there is no France or Spain around China, that is, no enemy country that can threaten them. They can calmly transfer all their main battleships here."

"This pamphlet, obviously, has the shadow of the Chinese behind it. Just like they incited free trade and rebellion in Ireland."

"But this may not be a completely bad thing."

"At least, it is certain that the bottom line of the Chinese is that we lose the war and lift tariffs. As long as we agree to their bottom line, it is certain that they should not help the French land. London."

"Of course, the premise is that we agree to their conditions."

"My lord, this is not a dilemma."

"Because the dilemma is that the two are close."

"And now..."

"Let the French land in London and let the usurpers collude with the Tories to restore the throne?"

"Or agree to China, admit defeat, and accept China's tariff and national debt repayment plan?"

The Earl of Halifax added: "Perhaps, we can understand it this way: the Chinese only want trade. If we open tariffs and allow Chinese goods to be sold in every corner of Britain..."

"Does this mean that China will protect us from French invasion?"

"My lord, just like every Machiavellian, will inevitably oppose Machiavelli."

"And every true Colbertist must be most opposed to Colbert if he is not French."

"Even if China and France form an alliance now, it is not necessarily that the Chinese will like France with high tariffs and obsession with domestic industrial substitution."

"Although the Duke of China has been clamoring for free trade. But the free trade he refers to is Chinese cotton cloth entering Britain, but definitely not French woolen cloth entering Britain, even if the latter is also free trade."