Hacker News Reader

Comment by solidsnack9000 | Hacker News Reader

It's important to distinguish between what Chinese people wanted and what the administration wanted. The imperial administration's pursuit of mercantilist policy didn't mean that "The British could offer little in return that Chinese merchants wanted to buy." as the article incorrectly states.

China had been purchasing opium abroad from other countries for several centuries. The importation of opium was banned in the 1700s, but opium was still legal for sale in China. The effect was that foreigners were barred from participating in the business. Chinese merchants smuggled British opium into China and sold it as Chinese opium.

Chinese people definitely wanted British opium and Chinese merchants definitely wanted to sell it to them. If opium had been illegal, you might have a point; but it was legal for sale in China until 1799.

View on HN

Opium was made illegal in China since 1800 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen). The government even appointed a commissioner to solve the Opium issue and the commissioner proceeded to destroy huge amounts of Opium, which was the trigger point of the Opium war.

> Chinese people definitely wanted British opium and Chinese merchants definitely wanted to sell it to them.

As in the Americans want substances banned by their federal government, and Escobar and others definitely wanted to sell it to them?

Will that justify another country dumping those in America?

It's not correct to say that Chinese people didn't want things from the west, or that imperial trade policy -- restricting all trade to Canton and so forth -- was representative of a lack of interest in goods that westerners had to trade.

Opium is the obvious case.

"It's important to distinguish between what Chinese people wanted and what the administration wanted. The imperial administration's pursuit of mercantilist policy didn't mean that "The British could offer little in return that Chinese merchants wanted to buy." as the article incorrectly states."

Yes, of cause. I did not point it out explicit. I am also not surprised nor do I care that my post got downvoted.

"Useless to talk with someone where the hint of an idea is not sufficient" Gomez da Vila.

It is all pretty well explained in "The rise and fall of great powers" by Kennedy or "On China" by Kissinger.

I think it is mentioned in "On China" that, when they saw an army steam ship heading upwards a river in the war they realized, the west had something they should have bought: Technology and weapons.

>If opium had been illegal, you might have a point; but it was legal for sale in China.

China made opium trade and cultivation illegal in 1799.

This is not relevant, because the British began trading opium before that. The opium market was a normal and legal part of commerce in China for several hundred years; the British did not need to manufacture demand.

>This is not relevant, because the British began trading opium before that

So what? The fourty years after that still saw the British smuggle in opium against the wishes of the Chinese empire, eventually declaring war for the right to deal drugs.

That China had some opium use without British influence doesn't mean the British did not manufacture a demand for it. They massively reduced the price of an addictive substance, making it available to a whole new market.

China had rising opium demand prior to British involvement.

That China had some opium use without British influence doesn't mean the British did not manufacture a demand for it.

We can't take it as given, without proof that the British did manufacture a demand for it. This is a form of "argument from ignorance". Lowering prices is not manufacturing demand. How could the British have manufactured demand, if they could not even enter China outside of Hong Kong?

>We can't take it as given, without proof that the British did manufacture a demand for it.

We know that the British increased poppy cultivation and manufactured a monopoly on opium for the purpose of export to China. Without it, I don't see how the Chinese demand would grow at the level it did. I have no idea what "proof" would be, an alternate world without British interference?

>How could the British have manufactured demand, if they could not even enter China outside of Hong Kong?

Guessing you meant Canton here, by smuggling/buying off locals.

How do these things increase demand for opium?

Having a monopoly on opium doesn't make people want more of it. Smuggling doesn't make more of it, either. What you're describing are both forms of taking control of supply, and don't speak to demand.

By taking control of supply they were able to lower the sale cost, allowing more people to partake in the addictive substance. Making more people want opium isn't difficult.

The arrow of causality runs in the other direction. Lower prices meet unmet demand.

When one supplier takes control of supply, that doesn't generally lead to lower prices; but expanding production -- which the British did -- certainly can.

The interesting thing is that Napoleon made that famous quote about China, because of the British shenanigans in opium dealings in China.

“China is a sleeping lion. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.”

He was trying to warn the Europeans to not destroy the good thing that they had going with China: Trade and Commerce.

Sadly, the British were too corrupt and greedy, and they had to destroy it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com