New Shun 1730

George III agreed with the two people's views.

Especially on the issue of tariffs, he was more inclined to think that if Dashun could really control the monopoly of oriental goods and ensure that countries would distribute tariffs according to sales, then he would quite agree with this trade model.

In the world, Dashun was not the only one who talked about "learning from history".

Britain also talked about it.

Especially they were more inclined to talk about more recent history.

After all, Europe is not a stable society. The past history is too different from the present, or the productivity level is too different, and the social structure is also completely different. If the history that is too long is used as a mirror, it is inevitable that it will be like a rusty bronze mirror, and I am afraid that nothing can be seen.

And with more recent history, George III is indeed a little scared about the issue of taxation.

An important reason why Walpole was opposed by everyone was that Walpole wanted to increase consumption tax and reduce land tax.

And because of the limitations of the technical level at that time, Britain was surrounded by the sea and smuggling was as windy as a mud wall in winter.

This led to the "Search Act" that the whole of Britain hated very much.

And the backlash that led to the popularity of the "Castle Doctrine" protested against the decree that went to the house with a search warrant to search for smuggled goods.

This matter is not a simple so-called tax resistance issue, nor is it a simple issue of smugglers' resistance.

Rather, the mercantilism of Britain itself has reached an all-pervasive level. The dissatisfaction and resistance of the British people, including the Irish people, the Scottish people, and the North American people, are justified.

And then, the failure of the "Molasses Act" in 33, that is, the reality that the money was basically confiscated after 20 years of implementation, made George III very headache about the taxation issue.

Simply put, because of the insufficient technical level and insufficient anti-smuggling means at this time, coupled with the excessive mercantilism in Britain, the smuggling profits were too large.

Therefore, it can only lead to Britain's tendency to tax at the production end.

The "Cider Act" that caused the Patriot Party's George Grenville to be laughed at in history is also an extension of this problem-it is impossible to tax at the sales end and the transportation end. Then we can only think about taxing at the production end, which greatly intensifies the contradiction.

This contradiction is bound to be intensified. You want to levy liquor tax, but you can't control sales and transportation. As a result, you go to whoever grows apples to collect taxes. Isn't this nonsense?

The taxation at the production end has made some industries in the UK make many strange technological changes.

For example, the glass tax is levied at the production end, and it is levied according to weight.

So the British glass industry began to use the "hollowing" technology to reduce the weight of glass.

Is it possible to realize this idea of ​​levying taxes at the production end?

Yes.

For example, the Lianghuai salt and Chuanjing salt after the Dashun Salt Administration Reform are standard production-end taxes.

But the premise is to support large enterprises and strangle handicrafts. Through the high efficiency, low price and intensiveness of large enterprises, new technologies such as steam engines and large salt ponds are launched, thus forming an institution similar to a "national monopoly trust", and then taxes can be levied directly at the production end, while relying on high efficiency and intensive production to make product prices no higher than before.

However, the UK obviously cannot do this.

Take the "Molasses Act" as an example. If you want to solve it, how to solve it?

Hamilton gave a solution, using violence and tax regulation to force small workshops to death, strengthen large factories, and use the efficiency of large factories to ensure that after taxation, they still have a crushing price advantage over small workshops, forming a few big heads, and then reducing the taxation cost, and taxing these big heads.

This is a purely technical low-cost taxation plan, which must be adapted to the administrative capacity and anti-smuggling technology level at that time.

But now, Britain can't do it.

Brewing workshops of all sizes in New England have sprung up like mushrooms after rain, relying on the markets in North America, Central America, the Caribbean, and West Africa, and are growing.

Britain dared not to levy taxes, nor was it able to levy taxes, because taxation meant resistance.

The administrative efficiency and technical level at that time also determined that either the East India Company was set up, or taxes were levied on the production end, or real estate was taxed like window taxes and land taxes.

For example, window taxes, after the house was built, you can't hide the windows.

Checking windows from outside can reduce conflicts. The existence of the Castle Doctrine makes the British generally more tolerant of checking windows and collecting taxes on the street without entering the house. After all, you don't have to enter the house to check the windows.

In this case, Dashun proposed a behavior similar to "collecting customs duties on behalf of others", which undoubtedly sounded like a feasible, reliable, non-nonsense and achievable method to George III.

If tea, cotton cloth, etc. are regarded as "regularly refreshed in Amsterdam in June and July every year", then this can be regarded as an efficient model of taxation at the production end.

As for whether this model is "free trade"...

First of all, we need to define what "free trade" means.

However, no matter how it is defined, this thing is not so much "free trade" as it is a deformed, Illich-mentioned "international monopoly cartel".

Take the very typical international monopoly cartel in history, the 1884 World Rail Cartel, as a comparison.

The railroad cartel of 1884 was due to a relative overproduction. The countries sat down to talk and finally decided that Britain would take 66%, Germany 27%, and Belgium 7%.

And now what Dashun is doing is indeed like a deformed cartel.

Take tea as an example.

Originally, it was the disorderly competition of the East India companies of various countries, and smuggled tea from various countries was running around everywhere.

And now, Dashun has directly monopolized the production and transportation of tea.

After the refresh in Amsterdam, the standard landed price was unified across Europe, and its price included a unified tariff.

For example, 3 pence per pound was taxed.

Then, the tariff ratio of each government depends on how much each country sells.

That is, how much consumption capacity the colonies and the mainland of European countries have in total, then how much tariff the governments of each country can take, and how much profit the merchants of each country can get.

The governments of each country are actually the beneficiaries of "profit".

And how much each country can sell depends on how many people, colonies, and spheres of influence each country has.

Of course, if you don't think this is a deformed cartel.

Then, it can also be considered a kind of "free trade".

After all, after arriving in Amsterdam, the CIF price is unified throughout Europe.

In theory, isn't this just a comparison of whose shipping industry costs are lower, whose shipbuilding costs are lower, whose navigation technology is higher, and who has more market construction and sales channels?

How to explain it does not affect the result.

Whoever collects high tariffs, then those who do not collect tea taxes will smuggle to high-tariff areas.

The key here is whether Dashun can guarantee regular refreshes in Amsterdam in June and July every year? And no refreshes in other places?

These are two questions.

The former is whether Dashun's tea garden production end can ensure sufficient supply? Can Dashun's navigation skills guarantee annual voyages?

The latter is whether Dashun can do it without others secretly transporting tea here?

The former is easy to say.

The latter is also easy to say.

After Portugal, Denmark, Britain, and France go away, Dashun can actually do it. In addition to refreshing in Amsterdam, it will not refresh in other places west of the Cape of Good Hope.

Because tea had not been stolen to Ceylon and India at that time, Dashun would never leave the mountains in Hunan, Hubei and other places alone and go to Ceylon to grow tea. Therefore, it was still difficult for tea to flow to Europe by smuggling.

This is the practical reason why Dashun and Britain can talk.

Chanting does not mean that negotiations can be made by chanting.

The key is to chant while coming up with a less ridiculous plan, and to take into account the reality that "the country still exists and the government needs taxes."

If you have to chant, it is not unreasonable to say that Dashun's actions are "free trade" and do not conform to the characteristics of an international cartel monopoly alliance caused by relative overproduction.

Since it is technically feasible to raise a toast - in fact, it is also feasible, countries can only go to Amsterdam to get goods, and to get goods, they must register their subordinate countries in order to share tariffs afterwards, so in fact, the sales scope of merchants from various countries can only be their own country and its colonies.

The reason why the Dutch smuggled tea so rampant before was because the Netherlands was completely rotten, and the merchants obtained the ruling power of the Federal Parliament. They did not need to maintain a standing army, nor did they build a navy, let alone a naval port. Therefore, the Dutch tea had no tea tax and could be sold all over the British colonies.

Although the end of the Dutch playing this way in history ended with the British defeat in the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the forced purchase of British government bonds by Dutch commercial capital, and the transfer of the European financial center to London.

But now... Isn't the Netherlands alive and well? Who said that there must be defense and government spending?

Dashun's actions in North America, supporting France and supporting Indians, were to educate the North American people and make them more in line with Franklin's Albany idea: it is impossible without defense spending, and the situation in North America is not universal.

But the actions of the Netherlands created another kind of magic: without defense, without navy, and without a standing army, several major powers all protected my independence, and life was also good, wasn't it?

However, in fact, except for the Dutch, Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia would not think so.

Therefore, Dashun's negotiations were only feasible in Britain, because Dashun took the initiative to propose tariffs to Britain.

As for asking Britain to collect tariffs, or what to do with the tariffs, that was too sinister.

Obviously, the British themselves knew that once the old system collapsed, many industries would collapse, and of course there would be many people who were unwilling to be hungry and dead.

How could they do without tariffs and money?

Even the previous enclosure movement did not rely on the British national consciousness, and the farmers did not consciously give up space to the landlords.