So in short, the British wanted stuff from China, but had nothing China wanted, so they resorted to smuggling drugs to China, and when the government objected and burnt a large amount of Opium, the British went to war against China for their right of "dealing drugs".

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.

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.

"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."

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.

S'pore ought to be glad that all the US wanted to do in a recent trade agreement was ("for medicinal purposes only", of course) sell chewing gum?

well yes, but the british, like any astute drug dealer, pushed the product on the buyer. it wasn't like the chinese had huge latent demand that wasn't being fulfilled. it was largely induced to loosen the stockpiles.

There was, in fact, huge demand. The delivery of British opium to China required a lot of help from Chinese merchants. Opium was legal in China and had been brought in from abroad for several hundred years by that point. Importation was banned in the 1700s after the Portuguese got into the business; but excluding foreigners did not actually exclude foreign opium, since Chinese merchants would bring it in and pass it off as Chinese-sourced opium.

none of those assertions provides any relevant rationale for huge pre-existing demand prior to the british desire to extract riches in exchange for drugs.

Demand for opium was on the upswing in China before the British entered the trade.

The British did not have a power to manufacture demand in China and in fact could not place personnel in China. British opium was smuggled into China by Chinese merchants.

again, all assertion, no rationale.

besides, the british didn't need to be in the interior of china en masse to induce demand.

I don't have a rationale for the increasing demand for opium in the 1700s -- I don't know why it was increasing -- but it is well documented.

Opium had existed for a long time and the demand for it existed. British merchants responded to market demand and smart business people realized the ability to grow it in India and places like that and then sell it in China.

Its not like England had this huge imperial stockpile of opium laying around that they went out to find a buyer for. The opium supply grew because there was demand.

The nature of drugs is that supply also induces some demand, but the idea that the British had some masterplan to get the China hooked on Opium is kind of conspiracy theory nonsense. Capitalism responds to market prices and the limits of the market regulations enforced on them.

Your comment makes it seem like "smart business people" should ignore Government bans on things even if the things are harmful as long as there is "demand" for them.

So is it OK to export to banned drugs in the UK if there is demand for them, or if demand arises?

I didn't make a point about the morality of what the merchants were doing. I was responding comment that made a false statement about some sort of British governmental stockpile of Opium that the clever British created the demand for in China. That is simply false, so I corrected it.

To be sure, I do think selling Opium is a moral thing to do, but my point is that this is not government policy, but merchants seeing a demand and responding to it. Only when China Imperial Government comes in and destroyed British stores, do this escalate to a national level conflict.

I think it was stupid for the Britain to start a war over it to be sure.

I think the brits are currently more concerned about chinese hedge funds: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britai... "while Britain has prided itself on being an open economy with few restrictions on foreign ownership for decades, the basis for that model has been changed by the “rise in state capitalism with deep pockets”."

> “rise in state capitalism with deep pockets”."

I think that term was coined to describe the EIC.

I was going to say that any potential hostile takeovers by chinese hedge funds probably wouldn't involve anything as kinetically hostile as the EIC's presidency armies, but a little surfing turned up 先丰服务集团 (Frontier Services Group)...

What is the indian or chinese equivalent to "The Fox and the Crane"?

> Then the British said, wait, we have something that you want to buy!

LOL. You’ve gotta admit, that the British are total scumbags for thinking this.

How does this logic serve your moral goals? Hey, let’s get a bunch of Chinese peasants addicted to drugs, and then we will supply them that drug. Profit!

You’ve got to admit that the British has lost any moral standing for doing such things.

Easy steps:

1. Get foreigners addicted to drugs

2. Supply them with drugs, and make it legal to operate there.

3. Meanwhile, the drug is illegal in Britain.

4. Profit

The drug was not illegal in Britain.

"Prior to 1916, there were no restrictions on the possession and use of cocaine, opium and other psychoactive drugs in Britain; the Poisons and Pharmacy Act of 1908 stipulated only that pharmacists had to have been introduced to prospective buyers by someone known to them, and must record their names and addresses in a poisons register."

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/body-and-mind/drugs-and-do...

I don't think that British traders selling opium to Chinese buyers in the 1800s was inherently more deplorable than Canadians selling liquor to Americans during Prohibition. What was deplorable about the Opium Wars and the Prohibition era gangs was the use of violence. If it had just been the era of Opium Smuggling instead of the Opium Wars I wouldn't fault Britain's behavior. But Britain did, deplorably, use military force when Chinese authorities prohibited and confiscated imported opium. That was inexcusable.