New Shun 1730

When a country or a person catches up with the trend and suddenly becomes developed, a sense of anxiety will naturally arise.

This feeling of anxiety stems from the fact that they don’t know why they are developed.

Because I don’t know, I am anxious about whether it can be maintained and passed on.

The entire British society at this time is in such a state of anxiety.

Once faced with this kind of anxiety, there are only three main ideas.

One is religion. Because we are the chosen people, God’s chosen people, we have become stronger and more developed.

One is tradition, the classic one is the Whig party. Everything at this moment is destined by the traditional past, and our tradition has destined everything.

Another way is to reflect on, for example, the China fever set off by the European Enlightenment Movement, including the British Marquis Temple, and try to find rules from an equally powerful country to avoid this kind of "development without knowing how." of anxiety.

The overall atmosphere in Britain at this time is one of such anxiety.

When this kind of anxiety faces war, it will show its fanaticism and short-term nature.

Like the Miracle Years, full-scale fanaticism, fanatical support for Pitt's Infinity War.

Just like after the Miracle Year, there was a general panic and various attacks on Pitt's policies.

Pitt made his fortune by inciting public opinion, which can even be said to be populist. Naturally, when things go wrong, he will suffer huge backlash.

He loves Britain, although many of his actions are political speculation. For example, he has always regarded himself as a "big commoner", and for this he has gained a lot of support from the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, because they are the people at this time. But historically when the situation was reversed, he accepted the canonization of Earl of Chatham and immediately lost so much support that Financial Street canceled celebrations for his return to power.

However, he really believes that only he can save Britain.

Because he believed that the power of commerce and trade was greater than the power of landowner rent.

And all his strategies are centered around expanding commercial and trade power.

So he was convinced that only he could save Britain, and that the rest of the cabinet were just bugs.

Because of this, he was more sensitive than others to the purpose of Dashun's participation in the war, and what kind of disaster it would bring to Britain once what Dashun wanted was achieved.

The stuff that Dashun shouts at the top of their lungs: "The Indian issue caused Dashun's security anxiety and therefore joined the war" is enough to deceive the common people, or to deceive those who are self-reflective, but William Pitt I definitely don’t believe it.

Different from the self-mythology of Britain after it gained the right to speak in the world in later history, some relatively sober people in Britain at this time still know how they became developed.

Taking textiles as an example, the UK has made several adjustments to textile tariffs so far.

In 1685, a 10% tariff was imposed on Eastern textiles for the first time.

In 1690, a list of 55 oriental commodities was drawn up, and taxes must be increased by another 20% on the basis of the previous ones.

1701, the first cotton ban:

[Since 1701, all wrought silks, Bengals, and things mixed with silks or herbs, made in Persia, China, or the East India; and all printed cottons, and all there painted, dyed, or dyed, shall be locked in In a warehouse designated by the Customs Commissioner. Therefore none of the above goods shall be used, and in England, whether clothing or furniture, shall be confiscated, and the penalty of two hundred pounds shall be imposed on the person who possesses or sells any of them]

In 1702, taxes on Oriental textiles were again increased by 15%.

In 1707, a list of 27 oriental goods was issued, with tariffs increased by 50%.

1721, second cotton ban:

[An Act for the Protection and Encouragement of the Manufactures of Wool and Silk in this Kingdom, prohibiting the use and wearing of all printed, dyed, or dyed materials in clothing, household articles, furniture, or otherwise, after the twenty-fifth day of the second month of the month, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-two. or batik cotton]

The appearance of a certain invention advocated by later generations immediately made Britain invincible completely different.

Simply put, the truly sober people in the UK know very well that the development of British industry is the most typical example of infant industry protectionism or modern import substitution industrialization.

Or to be more clear, it was the East India Company that used violent means to destroy Indian industry.

This is very different from the situation in China later. China's handicraft industry was defeated by large-scale machine production and the high efficiency of the second industrial revolution.

The Indian handicraft industry was destroyed by bayonets, cannons, troops, and muskets.

Now that Dashun is participating in the European war, the problem of cotton smuggling, which was already very serious before, has forced Britain to face a difficult problem at this time.

This difficult problem is not a simple theoretical issue of rationality or experience.

Rather, people's thoughts and cognitions can be distorted for a long time.

There is a saying in China, which is to shoot oneself in the foot.

The problems the UK is facing now can be explained by this sentence.

The root of this problem is the East India Company.

The East India Company had shot itself in the foot before.

Because, the East India Company's "import problem" had previously led to a serious currency shortage and precious metal crisis in Britain.

At that time, the British were criticizing the East India Company, saying that the crisis was the East India Company's responsibility.

Thomas Mun, a director of the East India Company and a famous economist, used two great articles and his economic theory to prove one thing:

[The loss of precious metals is not harmful to the economy in itself. The East India Company's practice indirectly benefits the economy. Not only do some imported goods generate greater profits when they are re-exported (mainly to the European continent as middlemen), but the growth of the shipping industry and the employment of dock workers have also greatly increased, which has promoted the development of the financial industry. ]

[Therefore, the loss of precious metals itself is not harmful to the economy. On the contrary, to some extent, it is still very beneficial. ]

This is the "legitimacy" of the existence of the East India Company.

Moreover, the East India Company has been spending a lot of money over the years to support a group of advocates to prove that the East India Company's act of sending silver to India and China is very beneficial to the economy.

Talk about it every day.

Talk about it every month.

Talk about it every year.

How good is Thomas Mun?

Let's put it this way, he believes that [the reason why Britain is not as successful as the Netherlands is because of the bad nature of the British people. The British do not have the Dutch professional ethics, restraint on conspicuous consumption, and vibrant business spirit, ordinary and great national character. These are all things that the British do not have, so the British trade is not as good as the Dutch. 】

His two great articles have always been the theoretical basis of the East India Company.

It is also the theoretical basis for the East India Company to obtain trade concessions again.

It can't help but talk about it every day, every month, and every year. For decades, the propagandists hired by the company have been promoting it.

In Britain, this theory is really believed by some people, and there are quite a few people who believe it.

Then the problem of "moving stones" arises.

How does the East India Company make money?

Sell foreign goods back to their own country and send silver to India and China, thereby ensuring the company's profits.

Dashun chose to participate in the European war. If it wanted to sell goods to Europe, who would suffer the greatest loss?

East India Company.

Does the East India Company's theory support imports and the outflow of precious metals?

Support.

For Chinese industrial capital, is there any difference between buying goods from the Dashun Western Trade Company or the British East India Company?

No.

For Chinese commercial capital, is there any difference between shipping goods from the Western Trade Company controlled by them or from the East India Company?

The difference is huge.

For the British people, is there any difference between selling tea from the East India Company or selling tea from the Dashun Company?

No.

The rationality of the economic explanation for the existence of the East India Company, after refining, is it to explain "the outflow of precious metals is reasonable"? Or "the existence of the East India Company is reasonable?"

When the East India Company is equal to the seller, this is one thing.

But if the East India Company is no longer equal to the seller, these are two different things.

Why is this called shooting oneself in the foot?

If the economists of the East India Company had stood up from the beginning and said: Poor bastards, you can't get a share, and you are jealous of us making money, so you are just complaining. Our company is a comprador, and we get rich by importing goods to attack our own industry, and the king still has shares. You don't even ask who the major shareholders are, and you just sit here in poverty, thinking that we are the ruling class and we are not convinced.

This is called shooting yourself in the foot.

But it is obviously a very simple matter, but you have to let the board members become economists and write articles to prove that the outflow of precious metals is not necessarily a bad thing.

From a higher economic perspective, the rationality of the existence of the East India Company is deduced.

This is shooting yourself in the foot.

The East India Company talks about it every day and every year, and many people in Britain believe in this theory.

According to this theory, it is nothing more than Dashun replacing the East India Company as a supplier of goods. Since the outflow of precious metals is not necessarily a bad thing, why can't we accept it?

Is William Pitt the new Thomas Mun's theory?

Obviously not.

Before, people who believed in this theory obviously would not oppose the East India Company.

And people who don't believe in this theory obviously oppose the East India Company.

But before, there were two kinds of opposition to the East India Company.

One is a pure three-view problem: Are you talking nonsense? In this era when precious metals are universal and paper money cannot be printed, you tell me that the outflow of precious metals and the import of foreign goods may not be a bad thing? Does this make sense?

The other is not a question of values, but a question of interests: Why does the East India Company occupy the Eastern trade goods? Such a big piece of meat, why do you eat it all by yourself? I want to eat it too.

The first type of people is easy to say, their values ​​determine their attitudes, and the behaviors derived from these values ​​can be determined. They opposed the East India Company before, and now they oppose the import of Dashun's trade goods.

The second type of people, that's troublesome.

Is it a good thing that the East India Company exploded?

Of course it is a good thing.

Dashun shipped goods to London or Amsterdam, and liberalized customs duties and trade protection, okay?

Of course it is good.

I can sell tea, you can sell silk, he can sell cotton cloth, everyone has a bright future, why not support the liberalization of customs duties?

I am not a weaver in Lancashire, I do not run a textile workshop in Manchester, I do not raise sheep, I do not spin wool, and I do not make pottery. Why shouldn't I support the liberalization of trade?

Textile workers lose their jobs? They can go to North America to be indentured servants. If they work hard for seven or eight years, they can have their own piece of land, right?

For some middle-class families, especially those who bought national debt, this is not a bad thing in itself, right?

For example, national debt can be repaid with tariffs, which is better than losing the national debt they bought, right?

William Pitt was not afraid of anything else, but he was afraid that the purpose of Dashun's participation in the war was trade issues.

Basically, Britain can defend the strait, and he is confident of this.

The situation in North America is not a big problem, and the Puritans will not accept the rule of Catholic France.

As for countries, there are ups and downs, wins and losses.

If the basic base is not lost, there is always a chance to get other things back.

If it is something else, such as the loss of Hanover, it may be a good thing, which can completely decouple Britain from Germany and become a real Britain, not a German Britain.

For example, the sugar-producing islands in the Caribbean are certainly a loss if they are lost, but at worst they can be taken back later. Even if I die and have no chance to be in politics again, there will always be successors who can train the navy and go to war again in the future.

This will not threaten the foundation of Britain, it is just a temporary failure.

The fear is that the purpose of Dashun's participation in the war is trade issues, then Britain will really be doomed.

Is there a way to break the deadlock now?

In theory, there is.

But...

Just like the Indian issue that Liu Yu was worried about at the beginning, if Britain gave India to France and let China and France go to war for India, driving the tiger to swallow the wolf, Britain could at least keep the Atlantic sea power.

However, it is feasible in theory, but not in practice.

The same.

At this time, if Pitt can make Britain give up Hanover, cede Caribbean islands such as Barbados, issue a decree to prohibit North American colonists from crossing the border, give up support for Prussia, support the demilitarization of the Austrian Netherlands, and withdraw fishing rights from the Newfoundland fishing grounds...

Then, make a separate peace with France and disintegrate the Sino-French alliance.

In theory, it can also keep the foundation.

But is this possible? Even if he is willing to take the blame for the long-term benefit of the country, I will bear the blame. Will the king and parliament let him bear it?