New Shun 1730

Since the textile industry in Manchester and Lancashire cannot be regarded as a typical example of development due to free trade.

So, is it true that the textile industry in Lancashire and Manchester must have developed in the wrong way?

This is a question of whether to regard "free trade" as the Bible.

If "free trade" is regarded as the "Bible" of the new era, many problems can be solved.

That is, because it does not conform to "free trade", even if its textile industry has developed, it is wrong.

Once you hold the idea of ​​"free trade" as the "Bible", you will often have a very special idea.

This idea, in simple terms, can be roughly described in one sentence:

It is better to cede land and pay compensation to keep a clean name in the world.

It is better to have a nationwide unemployment to combine the true scriptures in all directions.

Generally speaking, new doctrines generally appear in two situations.

Take the UK as an example.

One is to catch the Frisbee.

The typical example is the Whig view of history - the current situation is that I am very powerful, so why am I so powerful? Because I have always been very powerful.

The other is to oppose the current situation.

The typical example is the free trade trend in the UK.

The theory of free trade is a typical example of "what you lack is what you shout about".

It is a classic example of what you lack is what you shout about.

Because there is no free trade in the country at all, we need to call for free trade.

Therefore, even if the two "suggestions" at the beginning of this pamphlet sound very outrageous.

But in fact, including George III, they were not too surprised or too difficult to accept.

Because this is not the first time they have heard similar views.

On the contrary, they often hear similar views, and many of them are even more radical and outrageous than this.

After hearing it more, the threshold is higher. If you listen to these two suggestions, which are not outrageous relative to the radicals in the UK, you will not feel that there is anything unacceptable.

In other words, even Liu Yu, who wrote the core of this pamphlet behind the scenes, thinks that these two suggestions are too outrageous.

But in fact, people in the UK have proposed ideas that are dozens of times more outrageous than this, and Liu Yu's small suggestion is not even at the forefront of outrageous.

Why does this happen?

To understand why such a radical free trade doctrine emerged in Britain, or why the free trade doctrine in Britain is different from the Whig historical view that explains why Britain is awesome, but is actually radically anti-British system?

To understand this, we must first know what kind of country Britain was at that time.

No need to flip through history books, just think about it with simple thinking.

Under the technological conditions of the 18th century, what kind of country would a country that could receive fiscal revenue of "13.5% of the national GNP" be?

In fact, let's put it this way.

At that time, Britain, at least in terms of trade issues, was almost the ideal country of "Qin Law".

It was the closest real country to the book "Guan Zi".

It was a country that truly implemented those legendary harsh punishments in the countryside. It was a country that could make imperial monarchs such as Ming and Dashun, whose imperial power did not go down to the county, envious.

Let's give a few simple examples. We will not use the Christian calendar here, but the reign.

For example:

[In the eighth year of Elizabeth, the third decree stipulates that anyone who exports sheep, lambs, and old rams will have all his goods confiscated, be imprisoned for one year, have his left hand cut off in the market, and nailed to the town for public display]

[If he commits the crime again, he will be declared a felon and sentenced to death.]

Another example:

[Owners of wool within ten miles of the coast must report the amount of wool sheared and its storage to the nearest customs in writing within three days after shearing]

[The report should include: How many sheep were sheared? How many sheep are raised at home? How much wool was sheared? Where are you going to sell it? 】

【Before any part of it is sold, the same report must be made with the number of bales, weight, name and address of the buyer, and the destination of the transfer】

【No one living within 15 miles of the sea may buy any wool without giving a guarantee to the king and showing a report to the west】

【If wool is transported to the sea without making such a report and guarantee, it will be confiscated once discovered, and the offender will be fined three shillings per pound... If someone claims it after seizure, he must give a guarantee to the treasury. If he loses the case, in addition to all other penalties, he must pay three times the Litigation costs]

Another example:

[Edict of the eighth year of William III: In any wool trade, wool shall not be packed in boxes, barrels, or boxes to prevent escape]

[It can only be packed in cloth or leather, with three-inch long characters "wool" or "wool yarn" written on the outside, otherwise the goods and containers will be confiscated, and a fine of three shillings per pound will be paid by the owner or packer]

[Except between sunrise and sunset, wool cannot be transported by horse or carriage, nor can it be transported by land within five miles from Haida, otherwise the goods and carriages will be confiscated]

If you say that this is not like "Qin law".

Then, add the following two items, and it will definitely be true.

[Any illegal sale of wool will be fined...]

[Any two residents will be judged, and the fine will be repaid by the taxation of their entire village]

[If someone secretly communicates with officials of a small town to reduce the fine, he will be sentenced to five years in prison]

[Anyone can report]

[The informer is exempted from punishment and punishment]

Another:

[According to the provisions of Article 20 of the Act of the 8th Year of William III: The export of looms or machinery is prohibited. Failure to comply will not only confiscate the exported or attempted export of looms or machinery, but also a fine of forty pounds]

[This law encourages reporting. A fine of 40 pounds, half to the king and half to the informer]

[Another decree... If sold privately, the goods will be confiscated, and the offender shall be fined 200 pounds. The captain who fails to report the knowledge and uses the ship for transportation shall also be fined 200 pounds]

[Half of the fine goes to the whistleblower]

These laws are only a small part of the many laws.

One leaf falls, and you know the arrival of autumn.

And that's just the wool part.

If you add salt, wood, indigo, rosin, grain, etc., it can be said to be a magnificent sight.

Read these laws.

It is understandable why a book like "Leviathan" was written by a British person.

People can only imagine things they have seen. What do they think about things they have never seen?

Those eastern monarchies that are "caricatured" as Leviathan, whether it is the Ming Dynasty, Dashun, or even the earlier Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty, can really only say that: I am a shitty Leviathan? If I were Leviathan, would I be like this?

It can even be said that all the bullshit Baidai practiced the Qin method. How can a broken-down household like Dashun in the Ming Dynasty deserve to say that he practiced the Qin method?

Read these laws.

It is understandable why those people in North America yearn for "freedom" so much.

Why did the British send people to rule North America? It was so scary.

Why did Franklin want to turn Pennsylvania into a royal colony? It was originally to better deal with taxation and land allocation issues. As a result, the people of Pennsylvania would rather let the Penn family continue to be the big landowners in Pennsylvania, and opposed Franklin's plan to turn Pennsylvania into a royal colony. idea.

It can even be said that the UK at this time was extremely strict in terms of laws. Reporting was encouraged in various ways and whistleblowers were encouraged to share in the fines.

Economically, it is the closest country on earth to the things in "Guanzi".

Not one.

Only by understanding this background can we understand why the Whig view of history is said to be a Frisbee. I am good because my policies are right; while the free trade theory is anti-British system and believes that everything the British do is wrong.

If the free trade theory is understood as "the explanation for why the sun never sets on Britain," then it is exactly the opposite.

The introduction of the free trade theory is precisely "if the UK did not care so much, the UK would have taken off long ago, and it would definitely fly higher than now."

Although, judging from Liu Yu's three views, he would think it was pure nonsense.

If Britain had not done this, Britain would not have taken off, but Britain would have exploded long ago.

From wool to woolen fabrics, from shipbuilding to sugar making, from cotton to bone china, if there were no protection and restrictions, it would have been destroyed long ago.

If you really want to play free trade, how can your British shipping industry compete with the Dutch sea coachmen?

How can the British textile industry compete with India?

How can the quality of British wool compete with that of Spain?

How can the British sugar industry compete with France?

Even Adam Smith, a true Englishman of this era, said that the British sugar industry could not compete with the French.

Because: [(The Sugar Island Colonies)) Laws which afforded slaves some slight protection against the intrusions of their masters seemed likely to be more enforced in a colony with a very despotic politics (despotic France) than in a colony with complete political freedom. More effective. 】

[In countries with unfortunate slave laws, such as France, the magistrates, in protecting slaves, interfered to a certain extent with the management of the private property of their masters. 】

[In a free country, the master is either a representative of the colonial assembly or an elector of the representative, so the local governor dare not interfere with them without full consideration. The local governor had to put them in his eyes, which made it difficult for him to protect the slaves]

[The autocratic nature of the French government allowed them to have better management methods for black slaves, giving them slight protection so that they were less likely to be abused by their masters...]

In short, enacting laws to prevent the upper class from exploiting the lower class without any bottom line is autocracy.

However, if you don't dare to interfere, the upper class is the local powerful, and you can't interfere with the master's disposal of "private property (slaves)", which is freedom.

Therefore, in the Age of Enlightenment, when you read words such as "freedom" and "autocracy", you must first think about whether you understand the meaning and why the thought suddenly pops up in your mind. Gangyin felt that it meant what he understood.

And why, when the French High Court faced the issue of "inventorying acres", they said that this violated the French tradition of freedom since ancient times. The "freedom" mentioned here is not freedom in the philosophical sense.

Why could the British write "Leviathan"?

Why were those who fled to North America so afraid of direct British rule?

Why is it that the UK can collect 13.5% of its GNP from its finances, while France cannot even achieve half of it? It is hard to say whether the Ming Dynasty in China can collect 1.35% of its GNP, let alone 13.5% of its GNP.

Why did the overwhelming free trade trend begin to emerge in the 1700s?

Why do the two seemingly most outrageous suggestions among the six suggestions proposed this time have a wide audience in the UK, and even the King of England does not find them too shocking?

Is the original version of The Wealth of Nations an explanation of reality? Or is it intended to change reality?

Is the original version of The Wealth of Nations published because Britain has free trade, and the book is published to prove that free trade is good? Or is it because Britain has gone to the absolute opposite of free trade, so the book is published to promote free trade?

The original version of The Wealth of Nations is more about rational thinking, reasoning, logic, and deduction.

At this moment, the 2.0plus version of The Wealth of Nations, annotated by Liu Yu, adds some real verification and evidence.

Or, distorted advocacy.

This makes this booklet even more convincing.

Most people admire the strong.

And many times, or in this era, economics and even philosophy are busy explaining the world and history.

Just as Voltaire and other "proficient scholars" and even the French Physiocrats talked about the superiority of the Eastern system...

From the Ming Dynasty to the Dashun Dynasty, until now, its prosperous image, magical porcelain, silk, cotton cloth, elegant tea and lacquerware, etc., have made many Europeans wonder what exactly caused the prosperity of the East.

Is Dashun poor?

Poor.

Sent to the mountainous areas of the southwest, to the desolate land of Gansu, to the Lianghuai salt households before the salt reform, and experience it, you will know what poverty is.

Is Dashun rich?

Rich.

At least the external image is rich. Tea, silk, and exquisite cotton cloth are standard cultural exports, all of which promote the prosperity of Dashun overseas.

There must be a reason for prosperity, right?

Since it is to explain the world, there are always different angles.

What is the angle of this booklet, or Liu Yu's distorted commentary on the scriptures?

Whether it is the Ming Dynasty or the Dashun Dynasty, does land have exclusive ownership?

Whether it is the Ming Dynasty or the Dashun Dynasty, can the land with exclusive ownership be used to fulfill tax obligations and debt obligations when the owner is unable to fulfill tax obligations and debt obligations?

Whether it is the Ming Dynasty or the Dashun Dynasty, did they subsidize the cotton textile industry? Did they provide subsidies to support the cotton textile industry?

Whether it is the Ming Dynasty or the Dashun Dynasty, did they have special laws prohibiting Sichuan from spinning cotton or prohibiting Guangdong from spinning silk?

Whether it is the Ming Dynasty or the Dashun Dynasty, did they impose consumption taxes on almost all commodities?

Whether it exists in reality is one thing.

Whether it exists in theory, law and in name is another thing.

In theory, the Ming Dynasty has an internal unified market.

In reality, there is a banknote customs every thirty miles and a tax every fifty miles, so that there are cases where people go to a place to sell things, and halfway through they feel that they will lose their pants if they go any further, so they run away overnight without even taking the goods.

But this is not important. What is important is that in name, including the Dashun Dynasty, its "tax rate" is very low.

The localities had no money, so whether it was apportionment or fire consumption, the court was a standard "gentleman stays away from the kitchen", and the nominal tax rate of the court was low.

Even nominally, it did not even reach Mencius's 10% tax rate. You know, if it was less than 10%, Mencius would directly identify it as barbarians, because barbarians had no organization and no administrative agencies, so they could only tax 10% of the land. If a normal country taxed 10% or 130% of the land, it would soon slide into incompetent barbarians with low administrative capabilities.

To put it bluntly, even in the era of extremely developed information dissemination in later generations, many people's understanding of distant places was based on their own imagination, and they even thought of it as an ideal country.

At this time, let alone.

And Liu Yu's distorted "Commentary on the Classics" grasped this point.

The prosperity of the East in the West through tea, silk, etc. was attributed to "free trade".

Or, it was attributed to many contents of the original version of "The Wealth of Nations".

For example, according to the original version of The Wealth of Nations, when talking about why the North American colonies were rich, there was such a reason:

[In Pennsylvania, the eldest son's inheritance rights were abolished, and the land was distributed equally to all children in the family like movable property]

[The laws of the three New England states, like the Law of Moses, allowed the eldest son to get a double share... But after one or two generations, the land could be fully divided and distributed to all children in the family...]

So, whether it was the Ming Dynasty or the Shun Dynasty, you can find out by flipping through the history books that in the folk, the equal division inheritance law was originally used.

Often, after several generations, the big landlords became small landlords, and then became self-employed farmers...

Obviously, if Liu Yu wanted to distort the scriptures, he could completely compare the many contents of the original version of The Wealth of Nations with the many policies of the Shun Dynasty.

In fact, there is basically no difference.

Land trading, private ownership of land... these things have been played for a long time.

He can cite countless examples, as long as they are slightly distorted.

As for whether he believed it or not...

It can only be said that Liu Yu's reforms were based entirely on the four words "primitive accumulation", which was the most ruthless of mercantilism and Colbertism.

It was so ruthless that even the size, specifications, number of guns, and academic qualifications of merchant ships trading with Japan were strictly controlled. Relying on Japan's closed-door mentality and the Tokugawa shogunate's desire to monopolize trade for profit, the two sides jointly brutally suppressed the "free hero merchants" who broke through the strict monopoly of Dashun with "free trade".

It's not that he didn't believe it, in fact, he believed it quite a lot, at least in this era, he believed it more than most people relatively speaking.

It's just...

At home, if you believe in this, you can't resist the private ownership of land and the exclusive ownership of the sale, which has led to land annexation, a cycle of chaos and chaos, and a wave of major uprisings in the past 200 years.

Relying on chanting, the people who can't chant will starve to death, maintaining the sanctity of free trade.

Abroad, if you believe in this, you can't resist the British self-issued cotton cloth ban and the French administrative order requiring the French East India Company not to import lacquerware and silk, which seriously affected the exports of Dashun.

Relying on chanting, at least, you can't chant away the British "Cotton Cloth Ban", "Tea Tax", "Hemp, Silk, Canvas, Pine and Cinnamon Oil, Indigo and Other Listed Goods Subsidy Method".

It is precisely because he believes in part of it that he can come up with this "The Wealth of Nations" 2.0plus version according to his ideas and prescribe such a prescription for Britain.

And in this prescription, the suggestions about letting Britain "increase the trade deficit" and "strive to outflow two-thirds of the domestic silver within 20 years" can also use a higher-dimensional perspective to gain the support of the British people.

Just as in the original version of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith criticized the British perspective-

[It is not difficult to identify the designer of this system. I believe that it is definitely not the consumer, because the interests of consumers are completely ignored]

[It must be the producer, because the interests of the producer are so thoughtfully considered... The interests of consumers or rather other producers are sacrificed for the interests of manufacturers]

[Consumption is the only purpose of all production, and the interests of producers should only be taken into account when they can promote the interests of consumers. This principle is completely self-evident and does not need to be proved. ]

Since consumption is the only purpose of all production.

Then, why didn't Britain consume all the silver it has accumulated over the years?

Why not reduce or even cancel tariffs to allow cheap Dashun cotton cloth, French wine, French molasses, Spanish tobacco, Dashun porcelain, North American grain, etc. to flood in, thereby boosting the living standards of the British people?

Wouldn't it be wonderful to make a 10-pound family live the life of a 30-pound family?

After all, it has been 150 years of accumulated wealth.

As long as it is released, within a few years, this way of eating up the wealth will surely satisfy most people, and even many years later, some people will miss this time of eating up the wealth and call it the golden age.

Since Spain began to issue banknotes, Britain has suffered and worked for 150 years, and the accumulated wealth is thick enough. It is time to spend well, and strive to spend all the silver accumulated for 150 years within 20 years.

This is a tempting option for most British people.

And the opponents... the opponents, that is, the emerging class, new aristocracy, and industrial capitalists in Britain, have been beaten to death by the industrial capital of Dashun, and they no longer have much power to oppose.