Discourses on Salt and Iron

The Discourses on Salt and Iron is a record of a famous debate in the year 81 BC concerning the imperial court of Han China and it's position on whether to keep (the Modernist position) or abolish (the Reformist position) the late Emperor Wu's salt and iron monopolies and other economic questions of national concern.

It's regarded as a keystone moment in Chinese history as setting out the merits of free trade versus state monopolies.

It can be read here


 * Adam Smith Hates Your Guts: The Modernists harped on the dangers of this trope as being dangerous for the long-term health of the Han. Essentially, if the money supply and exchange of money were left to the mercy of merchants, the government was boned if they ever ran short of cash to pay for anything and this would force the imperial court to be in pawn to market speculators in case they ever needed a cash infusion for expenditures in the imperial budget.
 * Every Man Has His Price: The Modernists argued the Reformist position made the government prone to bribery, believing if the government was poor and the merchants rich, that meant the government would be prone to dancing to the tune of whatever sum they needed.
 * Impoverished Patrician: The Modernists argued imperial monopolies would prevent this trope, allowing imperial authorities to pay their own expenses without being at the mercy of economic speculators.
 * Karl Marx Hates Your Guts: The Reformists key argument against government monopolies was this trope. They figured if the government started trying to fix prices and restrict trade, it would paralyze the growth of the economy.
 * Loan Shark: The monopoly supporters openly admitted they wanted the government to not have to be concerned about being shackled with external debts if the government ran short and needed a loan for expenditures. Instead, with government oversight over trade, they'd be able to siphon off a portion of the money exchanged to pay for internal debts.
 * No Hero Discount: An argument for the monopolies pointed out in the event of war, if supplies were left to the mercy of economic lassiez-faire, the government was at the mercy of the highest bidder. If the government controlled key economic industries, then they ensured their own aversion of this trope when it came time to pay to quarter, train, and equip troops for military use.
 * Order Versus Chaos: Both sides of the debate framed things like this, in different ways.
 * The Reformists wanted to abolish these monopolies, fearing their imposition would choke off economic opportunity and cause long-term chaos as price restrictions strangled the markets.
 * The Modernists held the opposite view, seeing unfettered free trade as chaotic and the bringing of key industries under imperial control as a stabilizing influence on their long-term health.
 * Patriotic Fervor: Both sides made appeals to patriotism but in different ways:
 * The Reformists believed the monopolies were an affront to the moral freedom of the state, considering their by fiat imposition to be unjust to the freedom of the economic health of the Han.
 * The Modernists held a different view, also tinged with patriotic appeals. They argued the monopolies enforced respect for the dignity of the state, citing that free trade had reduced respect for those who ruled in favor of those who simply acquired great wealth.
 * Tyrant Takes the Helm: Both Modernists and Reformists agreed a tyrant would seize the reins, but had differing interpretations of the tyrant in question.
 * The Reformists argued the by fiat impositions on trade by the imperial authorities had created the possibility of further tyranny over other issues of economic and political import and would long-term be to the undoing to the state.
 * The Modernists argued the opposite. Since merchants were supposed to be the lowest rung on the social ladder yet their great wealth had inverted their status, they argued allowing merchants such great control over the economy would put the people in pawn to those merchants and they would be able to impose economic bondage on the nation at large simply by their control of the flow of money.
 * War for Fun and Profit: The Reformists figured unfettered control over the economy would lead to all sorts of military expenditures courtesy of the government leeching off their monopolies over trade. The Modernists disagreed, pointing out the wars in question were against hostile outsiders whose interference was an even greater disruption to the flow of trade.