New Shun 1730

There is a central axis for conservative, reactionary, and radical things, and this central axis is constantly moving with the times and reality, so it is impossible to distinguish them in a rigid way.

The Tories are reactionaries because they are the beneficiaries of land rent and support the restoration of the monarchy. But if they were in Dashun, they would be conservatives; and the reactionaries in Dashun at this time were those retro Confucian scholars who tried to disintegrate the unified market of the empire, return to the well-field recommendation system, and re-feudalize.

Pitt was classified as a conservative here, maintaining the existing system. A conservative by right.

Although his actions were bombarded by the mainstream Tories and Whigs in Britain, saying that he was trampling on tradition, he was actually the guardian of tradition.

Because he knew that Britain's "tradition" - if the reason for Britain's prosperity in recent years is attributed to the magical concept of "tradition" - then his approach is indeed to maintain tradition.

Of course, the article that Grenville read, the article that had already caused an uproar in Britain, was still very ironic in wording, and mixed with a lot of personal attacks.

It is said that [in the near future, Pitt will be made into a statue and worshiped by smugglers and monopoly dealers].

In this article, the issue of consumption tax is discussed.

It is said that Pitt opposed consumption tax, but he did not oppose the Navigation Act and the navigation tax levied on each merchant ship.

Then, his attitude towards consumption tax is ridiculous.

Pitt believed that the tax on cider was harmful to the interests of the people.

Then, the tax on a ship full of cider was considered by Pitt to be the foundation of Britain's strength.

Then, the tax on cider was ultimately paid by the British.

Was the tax on a merchant ship full of cider paid by the ship owner?

From this logic, it can be said that those who supported the Navigation Act were either nobles and big capital with monopoly rights, or smugglers with smuggling channels.

And Pitt always regarded himself as a "great commoner", so he was naturally not a great noble.

This proves that in Pitt's eyes, "smugglers" are equal to "civilians"; in fact, only smugglers are civilians.

This article is mainly used to attack people, incite dissatisfaction, and instigate the Irish, Scots, North Americans, Jews, Catholics, normal Puritans and Anglicans who do not engage in smuggling trade to resist Britain together.

But the scraps outside of incitement still pointed out that Pitt was guarding the old era and was a big conservative. He knew nothing about the new era and just took past experience as the golden rule.

Of course, there are a lot of private goods mixed in.

For example, satirizing British policies, because "the protection is too good, so the factory owners who make money have no motivation to improve their technology, and it is inevitable to be left behind by the times" and so on.

Of course, this is bullshit at this time.

Because there is nothing wrong with the truth, no one can say this sentence, which is wrong in a perfect world.

But if Britain had not protected before 1800, it would have been unlikely to upgrade technology. It was possible that all textile factories would have closed down due to the "India with one-fifth of the labor price", and the merchant shipping industry would have been bankrupted by the Netherlands.

Although, in fact, the tricks that Dashun is playing now are essentially the same as those played by Britain, but the skin has changed, and they look very different.

To put it in a broader sense, this is the difference between the internal debate in Dashun over "being the emperor" and "each taking care of one's own business and being a hegemon".

In fact, the essence is the same.

It's just that it's said differently.

Being a hegemon means not having the "rituals and laws" of the world, or the rituals and laws themselves are "those with strong soldiers and horses enclose their own land".

You, Spain, take care of South America, the east of the Cape of Good Hope belongs to Dashun, Britain takes care of the three islands, the Caribbean and the thirteen states, and France takes care of the French Caribbean, Canada and West Africa.

No one should touch your own backyard.

Everyone is playing with the same set of things, and they are all localizing the "Navigation Regulations": only domestic ships and domestic crews can trade in their own empires, and the rest will be attacked; the trade goods of each country are produced by their own country and sold to their own empires.

And the meaning of being the emperor is to come up with a set of "rituals and laws" to add a layer of sacredness to colonization.

Why is it said that the current set of Dashun and the set of Britain are essentially the same, but only different on the surface? It is because of the huge difference in production efficiency and labor costs of industrial products between the East and the West at this time, which led to Dashun being able to hold up "rituals and laws" without hurting itself.

For example, what is the fundamental reason for the British Honey Act in 1933?

It is that the price of British honey is higher than that of Spain and France. And there are so many people engaged in planting in the UK, and honey can't be sold at all, so a bill was introduced to increase high tariffs on honey not produced in the UK, thereby forcing domestic producers, brewers, etc. to use sugar from domestic plantations.

For example, the production efficiency and cost of British woolen cloth are actually not as good as those of Ireland. But Ireland had no army to protect itself, so Britain banned Ireland from producing woolen cloth by law. If free trade was implemented, then Irish woolen cloth would make Britain very uncomfortable.

Why is Dashun special? The logic of Dashun is the same as that of British colonization, except that Dashun's labor costs and production efficiency are there.

So Dashun could criticize Britain's trade protection system, tariff system, and navigation regulations.

The reason why Dashun supports free trade so "progressively" is not because Dashun really believes in free trade, but because even if free trade is liberalized, your goods cannot be sold in, even if no tariff is collected.

In essence, it is all "let the sphere of influence buy domestic products".

On the surface, some require force, warships, laws, and administration; others rely solely on cost, quality, and production efficiency.

So this leads to the fact that Dashun looks very different from this side on the surface.

So, Dashun, which is obviously the most conservative and the real base of conservatives, can pretend to be the most radical and progressive in economy.

And it can stand on the commanding heights and speak out against Britain.

Of course, this is not the most uncomfortable thing about Dashun for Europe.

What really makes Europe uncomfortable is the time point chosen by Dashun.

Liu Yu's evaluation of Pitt is not high because Liu Yu thinks Pitt still bets the future on sugar, tobacco, and cod, which is a conclusion drawn from past experience.

The focus of the war between Britain and France was also the islands in the Caribbean, especially the sugar-producing islands of Barbados and Guadeloupe.

In other words, at this point in time when the European Industrial Revolution had not yet arrived, Europe's "industrial capital" was still far from becoming the ruling class.

At this time, the people who really had major interests and had the right to speak were still the group of people in the old era.

In other words, those who made a fortune from tobacco, sugar, wine, honey, cod, etc. were the most influential capitalists.

But, did Dashun sell fish?

No, because if Dashun fished from the Yellow Sea and sold it in Europe, it would lose its pants.

Similarly, Dashun did not sell sugar, brown sugar, sugarcane wine, tobacco, wool, corn...

Of course, Dashun sold luxury goods such as tea and porcelain, but the question is whether it was sold by Dashun or the East India Company for the buyer, is there any difference?

Therefore, although there were some British who opposed the slogans that Dashun shouted the most, in the end, the majority of them supported it or were indifferent.

Although this war, which was fought from Europe to America, to Manila, and to India, can be regarded as the First World War.

However, the logic of this war is different from that of the First World War in history. That war was a massacre aimed at destroying the industrial capacity and excess productivity of the other side.

This time, Dashun wanted to strangle the industrial capital of Europe "before it was about to break out of its cocoon."

Can it become a developed country by selling sugar, raising cattle and sheep?

In fact, it is not impossible. For example, there was a developed country called Argentina in later history. The geography textbooks at that time also specifically introduced the difference between "northern and southern countries", and especially emphasized that Argentina was a "northern country".

Haiti, which sold sugar, was also very rich.

Therefore, if Dashun really wanted to make a breakthrough in trade, the pressure was not that great.

Because there were indeed many people affected, but it was not to the point where they were fully affected after industrialization.

Since Pitt regarded primitive accumulation as an end rather than a means, he should also thank Britain's previous colonial policy for cultivating a nearly perfect market for Dashun.

An Ireland where the textile industry was eliminated, a North America that was restrained by the Navigation Act before the industrial cocoon, and an England where the self-cultivating peasant economy was eliminated.

To be precise, if Dashun really got free trade.

Within ten years, the feelings of this generation of people in Britain and North America will be "improved living standards, reduced living costs, and more consumer goods can be bought with more valuable silver in hand."

Moreover, this feeling of improved living standards will be real and tangible.

As for the future, that is a matter for the future.

However, for the time being, this change is different from the past.

Conservatives are the most afraid of change.

Sometimes, it is not necessarily a rational fear, analyzing the disadvantages of change one, two, three, and then worrying about change.

Rather, conservatives themselves are naturally afraid of change in their emotions. They are more familiar with the past model. For example, the current situation in Britain where customs consumption tax and land tax are the main taxes has changed.

The reason why Grenville used this article to criticize Pitt was because he felt that what was said in the article seemed to make sense, and the reason why Pitt was so vigilant was because of his conservatism.

Of course, the discussion about free trade has been going on for a long time in Britain.

After hearing the arguments in this article and the evaluation of his "conservatism", Pitt asked disdainfully: "If Chinese goods really pour in, where will our taxes come from?"

Grenville replied according to the article: "Don't the current large amounts of income also come from monopoly trade rights and tariffs, tea taxes, and sugar taxes?"

"In fact, didn't the East India Company also argue that if the tea tax is reduced, a large number of people who drink smuggled tea will drink tariff tea. Although the unit tariff has decreased, the overall tax revenue has increased."

"It is not impossible for us to impose tariffs on the influx of Chinese goods. As long as a certain amount of tariffs are imposed, the government's fiscal revenue can be guaranteed, and it may even increase fiscal revenue."

Among the things Grenville said, the argument about the East India Company was raised by the East India Company to Liu Yu after the opium case and the teaching case broke out, when Liu Yu threatened the East India Company and forced the East India Company to invest in India and drive away France. A vision: that is, they would lobby domestically to lower tea taxes, increase tea consumption in Britain, thereby expanding the trade volume between the East India Company and Dashun, and request Liu Yu not to close trade like he did with the Danes or the Portuguese. The pavilion cut off trade.

Peter asked again: "This will lead to the outflow of a large amount of precious metals. Is this also a good thing?"

Grenville nodded.

"That article said that conservatives always regard some status quo as inevitable. The article said that mercantilism must be right? Or is it because everyone has always done this, so it is considered right by conservatives? It has always been like this , right?"

"The article says that for the UK, the outflow of silver is actually a good thing."

"Because silver itself is not wealth, but the equivalent of wealth. It will eventually be turned into food, cloth, sugar, tea, glass, wine, etc. It is just a circulation medium."

"If British silver flows out, labor costs can be reduced. For example, for the landed aristocracy, they originally needed to pay 12 shillings per week in order for the agricultural workers working on them to survive and have money to buy clothes and food. , to wear, to use.”

"And if the silver flows out, then they only need to pay a salary of 8 shillings to maintain the same standard of living as before."

"In the same way, a large outflow of silver can allow the UK to find the right direction from the 'wrong maze of tariff protection'. Only then can we determine what are the truly competitive industries in the UK and can truly contribute to the development of the UK. ’s guidance.”

"The article said that the weavers in Lancashire, Manchester and other places are a group of 'giant babies protected by British tariffs. They should be eliminated so that Britain can be better'; 'they should be driven away like landless farmers. To the mines, glassworks, and plantations, instead of enjoying the protection brought by the British tariff, they became a group of incompetent people who were left behind by the times."

"So, the outflow of silver is very beneficial to the UK. 100 pounds in the future is equivalent to 500 pounds now, so although the silver is flowing out, the wealth of the UK has increased."

"When the outflow of silver reaches a certain level, even if navigation regulations are not required, the colonies will use British products because they are cheaper than other countries."

After speaking, Grenville smiled.

"I may not really believe it, but that doesn't matter."

"What's important is that a lot of people believe it."

"Moreover, this method can indeed give us the possibility of a decent peace - if the Chinese go to war because of trade. You and I both know that because of the stimulation from India, this reason is very questionable."

"And, more importantly, this method can really alleviate the frenzy of running on national debt. At least, it can allow the government to come up with a plan to pay off the national debt. That is, use future tariffs to pay off this 150 million pound debt."

"Pete, you should know that you cannot go back to the past. If you want to go back to the past, you must not only defend the strait, but also invest more troops in North America, the Caribbean, and West Africa."

"And the East India Company's 150-year investment in India, Persia and other places since it was squeezed out of Southeast Asia by the Dutch in 1620."

"Securing the strait cannot go back to the past. And we do not have the ability to push it back to India."

"Since it is impossible to go back to the past, you who think about strategies based on past thinking must make changes."

"I, or rather, we, hope that you can come up with a practical proposal to solve the problems of peace, Hanover, North America, tariffs, and national debt. Submit it to the cabinet for discussion and dedicate to our respectable new king his first day as king. A 'gift' from Parliament."

Peter pondered Grenville's wording and questioned the word with a cold hum.

"us?"

"Yes. We." Grenville did not hesitate and reiterated the word "we". Obviously, this "we" did not include Peter.