15 ms·

A lot of the British global trade advantage came from transport and logistics advantages — growing opium in India, moving that to China, tea being transported b

A lot of the British global trade advantage came from transport and logistics advantages — growing opium in India, moving that to China, tea being transported back to Europe. Alongside this, a strong navy to ensure the safety of shipping routes. The quantity and value of resources they extracted during that time really are staggering. A similar logistic marvel was the transport of ice from North America and Europe — this wasn’t a business where industrial scale was the primary complexity, but a challenge of supply-chain construction in an age without local refrigeration and cooling. The article’s joining of “capitalism” and “industrialisation” is, in my opinion, a narrowing of reality that naively ignores all the other contexts in which capitalism has been quite successful. Large ships are capital intensive, mercantilism in general has been a long-term, capital intensive business far longer than industry has been.

paleotrope 6y ago
If you don't tightly link an idea of capitalism to an idea of industrialism you can't write an article that says there is a paradox involved somewhere.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
The biggest advantage was their military success IMO, capturing India, the Middle East, areas all over the world ... taking on China. The violence was completely necessary because as the article said, because without force "The British could offer little in return that Chinese merchants wanted to buy."
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  Just to riff off this a bit more, it got me thinking along the thought “What if machines of war are really the greatest investment of capital”. I think there is at least the seed of something to explore there, though the tools of war have traditionally been expensive irrespective of system (A uniform in the 1800s was orders of magnitude more expensive than today’s variety, for example).
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > “What if machines of war are really the greatest investment of capital” Then it would negate modern History, specifically in regards to the collapse of the Soviet Union, wherein a country with 100s of ICBs with nuclear warheads, warehouses churning out AK47s and ammunition surplus that still are being exported to this day (Viktor Anatolyevich Bout), tanks and war ships in such quantities that they'd trade Pepsi for them [1]! And still end up destitute, with a plutocracy and a massively disenfranchised population both at home as well as much of the former satellite nations. Capital investment is best spent on a sound currency, strong local manufacturing base and a strong legal system to protect both from corruption as well as the Human rights of its populations; unfortunately no nation Western or Eastern seems intent on doing that... like ever in History. Thus proving that Humanity is not capable of not giving into the intoxication of ending mutually beneficial collaboration with others for extended periods of Time in exchange 'for more of their share.' It may occur for short windows, but so long as a Human entity remains in charge of those aspects of Civilization it will always succumb to the same avarice and corruption regardless of whatever the rhetoric is espoused of National Brotherhood or Patriotic duty. Hence the argument for currencies and economic models outside the control of centralized systems like Governments. I'm sure many of you are seeing visions of Westworld or Psycho pass type dystopias but I'm convinced there is a middle ground between the two we just haven't been able to arrive to due to constant conflicts, and endless wars that drain the World of Human capital and technological resources best used for this end. But I also find it funny how some of Elon Musk's, an openly declared Utopian Anarchist, biggest proponents haven't realized the fact that all of his and Kimbal's businesses are aimed to help establish a colony on Mars where he has gone on record to say one of the biggest reasons to do so it try and re-do all of this non-sense on Earth with a blank slate canvas approach, and this is the extreme one has to go to do it. People keep accepting that War with China is inevitable, as it were some unavoidable deterministic outcome, but I disagree and have hope that Humanity can come to reason and refuse to participate. War is never in anyone's best interest, I really wish that we'd have learned that by now. 1: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the...
    - 6y ago
- bodono 6y ago
  Then immediately says "Tea was traded, directly and indirectly, for Patna opium, Peruvian silver, Caribbean sugar, English textiles and Burmese rice." This article is very confused.
  - novaleaf 6y ago
    once the british had the tea, they traded it for these goods. not buying tea from the chinese with them.
bsanr2 6y ago
>growing opium in India, moving that to China I think, in understating socioeconomic dynamics of this portion of the trade, you overstate the impressiveness of the rest. The British forcefully drugged an entire country and then compelled it in this weakened state towards its model of an economic monoculture. They didn't so much build their own advantage as tear down China's. In that light, one has to wonder the character of the trade in terms of its benefits for the populations involved and civilization as a whole. The imperialist regard for trade and diplomacy alike lead directly to multiple devastating wars, and the distortion of the economic model in vassal states arguable retarded resource cultivation (outside if what was useful for Europe) and encouraged bloody revolutions that further warped society in these regions. Taking the long view, it's possible that these "marvels" of global trade were actually examples of colossal mismanagement of resources on a grand scale.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  All of that ignores the dynastic decline and corruption at the same time by the Qing. One could argue that the west made China weak, but it was also more likely that the west was taking advantage of a weak China. Also, the Chinese invented opium and the British didn’t introduce the opium dens, they used that a a a vector to massively increase supply that the Qing restricted before. That doesn’t by any means absolve they west, but it doesn’t absolve the Qing dynasty either, Empress Cixi was quite the villain in China’s decline herself.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  I think the feedback is generally fair — the comment as a whole was definitely lacking a lot of nuance and did not explain itself well in context. The key thesis for me is that this was the local optimum for British control of the tea trade, and I would say Asia writ large. Controlling the source of opium in a local-ish way gave them an easier time moving it to China, while also allowing them to extract additional wealth from their previous conquests in Asia. In a meta sense, it may be very inefficient, but I’m less convinced that from a British perspective it was at all sub-optimal. Their input costs were primarily capitalistic: Ships, guns, bribes. This is where the marvel comes from, the magnitude with which Europe successfully extracted grand value out of Asia (Just as it had previously done with Africa, South America, and North America to varying degrees). Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade.
thrower123 6y ago
The whole engine was driven by Peruvian and Mexican silver. The opium trade is notable for being one of the only times in recorded history when China had a negative balance of trade.

paleotrope 6y ago

If you don't tightly link an idea of capitalism to an idea of industrialism you can't write an article that says there is a paradox involved somewhere.

Synaesthesia 6y ago

The biggest advantage was their military success IMO, capturing India, the Middle East, areas all over the world ... taking on China. The violence was completely necessary because as the article said, because without force "The British could offer little in return that Chinese merchants wanted to buy."

alextheparrot 6y ago
Just to riff off this a bit more, it got me thinking along the thought “What if machines of war are really the greatest investment of capital”. I think there is at least the seed of something to explore there, though the tools of war have traditionally been expensive irrespective of system (A uniform in the 1800s was orders of magnitude more expensive than today’s variety, for example).
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > “What if machines of war are really the greatest investment of capital” Then it would negate modern History, specifically in regards to the collapse of the Soviet Union, wherein a country with 100s of ICBs with nuclear warheads, warehouses churning out AK47s and ammunition surplus that still are being exported to this day (Viktor Anatolyevich Bout), tanks and war ships in such quantities that they'd trade Pepsi for them [1]! And still end up destitute, with a plutocracy and a massively disenfranchised population both at home as well as much of the former satellite nations. Capital investment is best spent on a sound currency, strong local manufacturing base and a strong legal system to protect both from corruption as well as the Human rights of its populations; unfortunately no nation Western or Eastern seems intent on doing that... like ever in History. Thus proving that Humanity is not capable of not giving into the intoxication of ending mutually beneficial collaboration with others for extended periods of Time in exchange 'for more of their share.' It may occur for short windows, but so long as a Human entity remains in charge of those aspects of Civilization it will always succumb to the same avarice and corruption regardless of whatever the rhetoric is espoused of National Brotherhood or Patriotic duty. Hence the argument for currencies and economic models outside the control of centralized systems like Governments. I'm sure many of you are seeing visions of Westworld or Psycho pass type dystopias but I'm convinced there is a middle ground between the two we just haven't been able to arrive to due to constant conflicts, and endless wars that drain the World of Human capital and technological resources best used for this end. But I also find it funny how some of Elon Musk's, an openly declared Utopian Anarchist, biggest proponents haven't realized the fact that all of his and Kimbal's businesses are aimed to help establish a colony on Mars where he has gone on record to say one of the biggest reasons to do so it try and re-do all of this non-sense on Earth with a blank slate canvas approach, and this is the extreme one has to go to do it. People keep accepting that War with China is inevitable, as it were some unavoidable deterministic outcome, but I disagree and have hope that Humanity can come to reason and refuse to participate. War is never in anyone's best interest, I really wish that we'd have learned that by now. 1: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the...
  - 6y ago
bodono 6y ago
Then immediately says "Tea was traded, directly and indirectly, for Patna opium, Peruvian silver, Caribbean sugar, English textiles and Burmese rice." This article is very confused.
- novaleaf 6y ago
  once the british had the tea, they traded it for these goods. not buying tea from the chinese with them.

bsanr2 6y ago

>growing opium in India, moving that to China I think, in understating socioeconomic dynamics of this portion of the trade, you overstate the impressiveness of the rest. The British forcefully drugged an entire country and then compelled it in this weakened state towards its model of an economic monoculture. They didn't so much build their own advantage as tear down China's. In that light, one has to wonder the character of the trade in terms of its benefits for the populations involved and civilization as a whole. The imperialist regard for trade and diplomacy alike lead directly to multiple devastating wars, and the distortion of the economic model in vassal states arguable retarded resource cultivation (outside if what was useful for Europe) and encouraged bloody revolutions that further warped society in these regions. Taking the long view, it's possible that these "marvels" of global trade were actually examples of colossal mismanagement of resources on a grand scale.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago
All of that ignores the dynastic decline and corruption at the same time by the Qing. One could argue that the west made China weak, but it was also more likely that the west was taking advantage of a weak China. Also, the Chinese invented opium and the British didn’t introduce the opium dens, they used that a a a vector to massively increase supply that the Qing restricted before. That doesn’t by any means absolve they west, but it doesn’t absolve the Qing dynasty either, Empress Cixi was quite the villain in China’s decline herself.
alextheparrot 6y ago
I think the feedback is generally fair — the comment as a whole was definitely lacking a lot of nuance and did not explain itself well in context. The key thesis for me is that this was the local optimum for British control of the tea trade, and I would say Asia writ large. Controlling the source of opium in a local-ish way gave them an easier time moving it to China, while also allowing them to extract additional wealth from their previous conquests in Asia. In a meta sense, it may be very inefficient, but I’m less convinced that from a British perspective it was at all sub-optimal. Their input costs were primarily capitalistic: Ships, guns, bribes. This is where the marvel comes from, the magnitude with which Europe successfully extracted grand value out of Asia (Just as it had previously done with Africa, South America, and North America to varying degrees). Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade.

thrower123 6y ago

The whole engine was driven by Peruvian and Mexican silver. The opium trade is notable for being one of the only times in recorded history when China had a negative balance of trade.