.webp?h=8 "Top Hat (black) - Traditional. Classy. Elegant.")
So, I started reading Moby Peepee, and I didn’t expect this book would be so funny. I’m currently on chapter 13, and up to this point Ishmael and Queequeg had so many “no homo” moments. Can’t wait for the Captain Ahab chapters.
I’ve also finished “It” by Stephen King. It was my first King book, and god, I didn’t expected for it to be 50% filler, so many pointless 
and endless backstories of side characters that never show up again, plus the creepy child gangbang 
near the end had some “50 shades of Grey” tier writing. A friend of mine recommended me “The Shining” but l’m not quite sure anymore.
What do you guys recommend?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Interesting, I read Kissinger’s “on China” long ago and he talked about about that period on the first couple of chapters. Do you think the chinks could have done what Japan did during the Meiji era?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Absolutely. I think the biggest takeaway from the book is that there wasn't anything inevitable about the first opium war, which is how its often portrayed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I haven’t read that book yet so I’m completely talking out my butt (I have a copy tho so I will get to it)
I’ve heard the “it wasn’t necessarily inevitable” argument for the Brits vs Indians thing as well. That seems awfully coincidental. Perhaps it wasn’t inevitable that the Brits specifically would BTFO these different cultures but it seems inevitable that someone would have eventually.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not really familiar with the arguments as they pertain to India.
I definitely think that trade relations between China/west would have had to be renegotiated in a post Napoleon world, but I don't think it to take the form of the opium wars.
The book argues that the Chinese trade was so valuable to the British that they were extremely reluctant to do anything to risk it. Which is pattern you see through most of their diplomatic history up to that point.
It took a particularly ambitious Chinese anti opium commissioner who took the step of stopping all western trade in Canton to get the point where Britain considered war a long with a completely unqualified British Superintendent who exaggerated their bad treatment by the Chinese.
And even then, the article written to start the war barely passed parliament.
It's definitely possible that both Britain and China could have settled the problems of the Opium crisis without the war.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Was the opium crisis really as bad as it’s normally told? Because there’s a lot of talk today about legalization or decriminilazation, while China has the death penalty for drug trafficking as according to them there were so many junkies to the point society was no longer functional, or were there other economic or political reasons to stop the opium trade?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's funny that you bring up legalization, as this was an idea that both some Chinese intellectuals and anti opium westerners considered and advocated for before the war.
The Qing government was pretty weak at this point and despite the death penalties smuggling, China was most powerless to do much to stop it. At least if it was legalized (for non officials and soldiers) it could be taxed.
Unsurprisingly after the wars, when opium use became defacto legal and poppies were grown in China itself, rates of usage and addiction would become way worse then what they were pre ear
In terms of addicts, the book estimates that there were at most 1-3 million users at various levels of functionality out of a population of about 350 million. A lot, but hardly enough to cripple the country. Through I suppose the users were more likely to be relatively prominent.
To many Chinese officials, the biggest problem from opium was that it was hurting their trade balance. Because of it's illegal nature, the Chinese smugglers were using silver to purchase it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Less silver in the country would have a deflationary effect, so people can buy more goods with the same amount of silver. This is bad somehow....
Spain had the opposite effect during its colonial days. Bringing back all that gold and silver inflated their currency and wrecked it for a good few years.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's silver leaving china from the smugglers using it to purchase. This reduces the amount of coinage available to the country. Gold was almost always used by the nobility or merchant massive purchases so silver is the most common coinage for everyone to use. Shortage of coinage seriously fricks up countries.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Which, all else equal, has a deflationary effect on your currency, thus you can buy more goods with less. It depends on how drastic the deflation can be for this to become bad. You have any examples in mind?
The biggest frickups from coinage was whenever they devalued it too quickly or too steeply (inflation), but this tends to go hand in hand with other problems going on (debt from war).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
By the way, 1493 is an excellent book about the Colombian exchange, it talks a lot about Spanish trade with China using Potosi silver and it’s consequences, highly recommend
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I am not good at explaining economic policies
but my understanding: is that the smugglers pay for opium with silver which isn't subject to Canton taxes and duties > silver drains from China, flipping a trade balance which has favoured China for centuries and makes the gov big mad.
Through I guess if you were hoarding silver as a Chinaman all of this worked out quite well for you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Neither are historians.
Trade balance is basically the total value of exports minus total value of imports. So, a "positive trade balance" or "trade surplus" is seen as a 'good' thing while importing more than exporting (trade deficit) is a 'bad' thing. Still, it's net effect isn't clear since countries like the US and many other 1st world countries can have a trade deficit without having any problems. It depends on other policies and the type of currency involved, such as being open to foreign direct investment (and how well the local state can tax that). I'm assuming the foreign trade zones didn't capture much in taxes for the Qing, but they also granted such favors (albeit at gunpoint, kinda), so
.
The deflationary effect still happens, and even if you're poor and trade in silver coins or whatever, you'll get some of that benefit. To make it more complicated, the Qing can also inflate their currency by devaluing the silver (putting more lead in coins), so there's that going on too.
Not being able to tax the imports on drugs is a problem from the state's POV, but that's not really a trade policy issue that directly relates to account balances.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Very interesting, I’m gonna put it on my reading list
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Very neat
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not a good writer so I'm probably not explaining this eloquently
but I strongly recommend it.
platt's book on the Taiping Rebellion is also fantastic
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, the bongs weren’t the only ones on India, Portugal was first with their outpost in Goa, then the Dutch and also the French. But the bongs had the largest navy and the East India Company was at its peak in the 1700s
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context