New Shun 1730

Of course, both the radicals and the conservatives in practical studies were conceived within the framework of the traditional feudal dynasty, and they all relied on imperial power, or in other words, the establishment of Shun from Shang Yang's reform to Fa Wen Jing and the fall of Ming Dynasty. based on a whole set of state machinery.

As Lao Ma said, France's centralized state machinery was built up step by step from the time of Louis XIV, to the French Revolution, and then to France, and this country Machines are important tools for modern transformation.

The state machine in Dashun was built earlier, and it exists.

These things, land equalization, redemption, etc., sound scary, at least it seems too scary to say these things in the feudal dynasty.

But it's not.

Again, except for a period in history when "the countryside was completely gentrified and finances were basically dependent on import tariffs", whether it is equalization of land, limited land or even retro well fields, we can talk about it without losing our heads...traditional Political correctness.

Of course, after all, whether to do it or not is another matter.

But even in a scum dynasty like the Manchu and Qing dynasties, when someone submitted a letter asking for an inventory of farmland and an equalization limit of farmland to a maximum of 30 acres per household, Gan Xiaosi could only say hypocritically, "Although this is the right way, but..."

In short, it makes sense, but I don’t want to do it, I don’t dare to do it, I can’t do it, and I’m not prepared to do it at all. But in view of traditional political correctness, I have to say that what you said is the “right way”. It's just that it's impossible to do.

Including counting from Wang Anshi's reforms to the Yan-Li school's land equalization restoration, the overall opposition can be condensed into Su Che's words: "Wang Jiefu is also a little husband." Not tolerating the poor, but deeply ill to enrich the people in order to benefit the poor, not knowing that it is impossible]

In other words, thinking this way is a "petty-husband mentality" and harming the interests of the rich to benefit the poor is not a "manly mentality."

This rhetoric was used historically from the Song Dynasty to the mid-Qing Dynasty. They were all talking about the same thing, including when someone proposed equalizing or limiting land in the mid-Qing Dynasty, the answer was exactly the same: Isn't this taking away the property of the rich, and why should the rich deserve it?

So what exactly is the problem?

In fact, that is, why is there an issue of land annexation?

Of course, this issue was explained by Lao Ma on the issue of France:

Peasants obtained the small-scale peasant economy from the feudal manors of the nobles, and used taxes to force small farmers to operate sideline businesses, which greatly promoted the development of productivity.

The application of blast furnace iron, ridge farming, crop rotation, and single-oxen plows has increased the yield per mu of land, making land mergers profitable.

As a result, businessmen and capitalists began to devour small farmers through lending, land mortgages, etc.

In short, because of the capitalist attributes of land ownership—free buying and selling, clear property rights, and mortgage lending—[loan sharks replaced aristocratic lords; feudal obligations were replaced by the mortgage system]

[Small landownership, enslaved by capital in this way (and its development inevitably leads to such enslavement), has turned more than half of France's citizens into primitive people]

[Sixteen million farmers (including women and children) live in caves. Most caves have only one small window, some have two small windows, and the best ones only have three small windows...]

in this case.

Cultivated land under small land ownership has more financial attributes.

For the accumulated capital, considering various factors such as risk aversion and rate of return, the accumulated capital is used to buy land, lend money, let small farmers mortgage their land, and collect rent, which can be said to be the best investment direction.

All the bustle in the world is for benefit, and all the hustle and bustle in the world is for benefit. That's right.

The invisible hand also exists.

It is precisely because of the existence of the invisible hand and because there is a certain "law" that all hustle and bustle is for profit, so when the productivity level reaches a certain level, mergers are the best and most profitable investment direction.

This also determines that in small-peasant countries, the possibility of the bourgeoisie seizing power is almost zero. Because the peasants may follow the bourgeoisie during the legal revolution and kill the big real estate aristocrats together, but they will never follow the bourgeoisie again after they have obtained the small piece of land ownership they dreamed of.

And how to solve the merger problem?

Su Zhe said that he could not bear to be poor, but he was deeply ill at enriching the people in order to benefit the poor, not knowing that he was not allowed to do so.

Can't say it's wrong.

Without changes in ownership, this is of no use at all.

The ownership system is there, I have money, why don’t I buy land? The safest investment method and the investment method with the highest return rate. If you can buy it, why not buy it?

Is it possible to allow industries, handicrafts, and township industries to flourish everywhere through the polarization of the small-scale peasant economy?

Can.

But first, solve the problem of not buying land after differentiation, if you have capital.

"Assuming that through hard work" I will have good weather and good weather, my family will have accumulated 200 taels of silver.

Then why don’t I use these 200 taels of silver to buy land? To lend money? Instead, go into industry and commerce where you might lose money?

Unless, there is a way: you have money? If you have money, you can't buy land. The issue of ownership and legal rights is simply given to death. Capital can only move from agriculture to industry and commerce, and we must resolutely prevent capital from moving from industry and commerce to land annexation.

With your money, you can open a brick factory, run a mill, or dry soy sauce vats. In short, don't even think about running on the land.

Is it necessarily a bad thing if capital goes to agriculture?

Of course, not necessarily.

For example, during the agricultural revolution in Britain, capital flowed to the land. Didn’t this increase the yield per mu in Britain from 90 jin to 130 or 140 jin now?

But the problem is in Dashun.

Capital flowing to the land did not increase the yield per mu in Dashun from 150 jin to 500 jin, but would turn the land into a financial industry while the yield per mu remained unchanged.

Liu Yu did carry out the enclosure movement with Dashun characteristics.

But what land did Liu Yu enclose?

He enclosed the Lianghuai grass marshes.

Why did the Lianghuai grass marshes exist?

Because starting from the Ming Dynasty, salt had to be boiled in the grass marshes, and there were special armies and government offices to supervise and prohibit reclamation.

The premise for Liu Yu to enclose the Lianghuai grass marshes was the salt drying method and salt administration reform, which replaced the firewood in the grass marshes with the sun and wind.

These grass marshes were used to grow cotton and improve the soil, starting from "0 jin per mu", which was of course an improvement in productivity.

In history, the Qing Dynasty also enclosed land.

Did the yield per mu increase after the Qing Dynasty enclosed land? Obviously not. The yield per mu has not increased at all, which is certainly not an improvement in productivity. Because he can't do anything to improve productivity.

Did the yield per mu increase when Britain enclosed land? Obviously it did. Because Britain adopted the Chinese plow and crop rotation method.

The question is, does China need to learn the Chinese plow? Or does it need to learn the crop rotation method? If it doesn't need to learn, how can it improve productivity?

On the contrary, under the small peasant economy, the contradiction between people and land is huge, which forced the rapid promotion of the two-year three-crop system in North China. Is it an "agricultural revolution" with Dashun characteristics?

They are all enclosures, but the situations are different.

The good of the British agricultural revolution is based on the social existence, economic foundation, and population of Britain.

You can't go against your conscience and say that the yield per mu increased to 130 kilograms and the rotation of crops is an improvement in productivity for Dashun at that time.

To be honest, if the yield per acre in Britain in 1750 was mixed, at least 50% of the people in Dashun would have starved to death first. In 1650, under the rotation and fallow conditions, the wheat yield per acre was 11 bushels, 1 bushel of wheat was about 54 jin, 1 acre was about 6 mu of land, and the average yield per acre under the rotation and fallow conditions was 99 jin. Considering the rotation and fallow conditions, it is equivalent to dividing by 2 and 3.

This yield per acre, if it were in Dashun, it would have to be a big event, and it would have to be a big event that would cause bloodshed.

Moreover, in the case of Dashun, it is actually quite unrealistic for capital to enclose land to "improve soil, build water conservancy, and increase yield per acre."

Places where small farmers quickly go bankrupt must be places where floods and droughts are frequent.

In the case of Dashun, you want to improve the soil and build water conservancy by yourself... What's the matter? Do you have enough capital to carry out the Yellow River diversion project? Can you carry out the Huaihe River into the sea project? Can you build a water conservancy project at the level of Zhengguo Canal? Or can you build the Pishihang irrigation project? Can you afford it?

So, has the ownership of small plots of land hindered the development of Dashun's productivity?

Of course it has.

However, this obstacle is not an obstacle in terms of agricultural per-acre yield, nor is it an obstacle in terms of "not being able to provide a large number of potential wage workers who have lost their means of production to engage in industry and commerce".

Rather, we need to look at it from a wider perspective.

This obstacle is an obstacle that hinders the flow of capital to industry.

That is, it cannot solve the trend of industrial and commercial funds flowing back to land and financializing farmland into bonds.

Dashun will introduce a policy to achieve the following effect:

For example, I am a landlord and I have two or three hundred taels of silver in my hand.

But because of the court's policy, I have no way to buy land or let self-cultivating farmers use land as collateral.

Now silver is flowing from overseas to the country, and in fact, silver is depreciating every day. Then, the court reformed the currency, and it would often impose "coinage tax" and over-issue paper money and treasure notes to keep prices rising in an orderly manner.

Then the two or three hundred taels of silver in my hand are decreasing every day.

I can't buy land, so what should I do with this money?

It was said before that the court would issue national debt for industrial construction. Assuming the interest rate is 5%, this is too low. Why should I buy it?

I can use these two hundred taels to buy land. Isn't it much better than 5% interest? Or I lend money at interest. The court prohibits nine out of 13 returns. So even if I am a good and law-abiding landlord, I will give out ten out of 13 returns. How much is the annual interest?

Now, I can neither buy land nor give nine out of 13 returns. Seeing the depreciation of silver day by day, the 5% interest that I used to look down on has become lovely now?

Or, with these two or three hundred taels of silver in my hand, can I open a soy sauce workshop at home? Can I open a mill? Can I open a papermaking workshop?

It's better than keeping the money in my hand and depreciating day by day, right?

I originally thought that I would save some money, buy more land, and give some to my sons and grandsons, leaving some property.

What property is the most valuable?

Women like Qin Keqing all know how to buy land, buy land, and buy land. The most valuable, the highest rate of return, the safest, the most secure, the most likely to make a comeback, and the most likely to be unaffected by the change of dynasties.

This time, land cannot be bought either, what should my sons and grandsons do?

There is no way, let's do some industry and commerce, which can also be regarded as the property of my children and grandsons.

Lao Ma said that the small peasant economy will eventually become a "carnival of the financial bourgeoisie", which will make "the interest on loans pledged by France with land as collateral exceed the total interest on British public debt."

Then, is it different for Dashun? Doesn't the sum of the usury interest on small farmers every year far exceed the sum of the interest on the national debt issued by Dashun for expanding its army, building ships, and building railways?

Do small farmers have to pay more interest every year?

Or is it that the interest on the national debt borrowed by Dashun in recent years to expand the army, fight wars and build canals is higher?

Therefore, the reforms on Dashun’s side should not be seen from the perspective of farmers, and it is impossible to see farmers from the perspective of farmers.

The fertilizer industry is completely immature - phosphate fertilizer is OK, and sulfuric acid industry is not difficult; the most critical nitrogen fertilizer can only rely on Northeast soybeans and Chilean saltpeter, and industrial nitrogen fixation is still a long way off.

As for water conservancy projects, Dashun’s level and administrative capabilities are just so-so. To build a Huaihe River estuary project that can be done by a prefecture-level city in the future with a shovel and a hoe, Dashun must work hard. This is not realistic.

In other words, it is impossible to expect that through reforms, farmers’ lives will be better instantly, nor will agricultural productivity be greatly improved - Britain ran so fast in history and really surpassed the per-acre yield of the Central Plains. It was not until 1850 that the fertilizer theory was proposed, and the per-acre yield reached 30 bushels, that is, 5 bushels per acre, 250 kilograms.

This is the situation.

Since we are talking about productivity, we have to talk about agricultural productivity? Or per capita productivity? Or total agricultural and industrial productivity?

Dashun's agriculture was basically like this.

Before the industry developed and Dashun could control the power of thunder and lightning to fix nitrogen in the air into nitrogen fertilizer, it was like this.

At best.

The Academy of Sciences was so powerful, and the weather continued to warm up, and North China reached the level of "two crops a year" in later generations.

They developed corn with a 100-day growth period, planted wheat in autumn, harvested wheat and planted corn in summer, and harvested corn in autumn and planted wheat again.

But the problem is that without fertilizer, the per-acre yield of corn was not high at this time.

Is there a situation where the per-acre yield is 700 to 800 kilograms, or even more than 1,000 kilograms, without chemical fertilizers?

Yes, in the later Heilongjiang Agricultural Reclamation Bureau and the Great Northern Wilderness Farm, the land that had not been cultivated for tens of millions of years, a handful of humus soil that can produce oil, without chemical fertilizers, can grow more than a foot long cobs.

Otherwise, before the use of chemical fertilizers in North China, the general memory of corn was that it was "one foot long", not much longer than a hard chicken.

In other words, chemical fertilizers were stuck at this point, and Dashun's organizational ability to build large-scale water conservancy projects at the grassroots level was stuck at this point.

Even if the Academy of Sciences made efforts to produce corn seeds for two crops a year in North China.

That would only yield about 200 kilograms per mu in two seasons.

But in fact, this is not possible.

Because without chemical fertilizers, if you use the land for two crops a year, it would be a real waste of time.

The essence of two years and three crops is winter wheat - summer soybeans - spring corn and sorghum.

The essence lies in summer soybeans, in the nitrogen fixation of legumes, and the effect of fertilizing the fields.

You have to understand that the ecology of North China has collapsed. Whether it is sorghum, corn, or even wheat straw, it actually goes into the stove pit and turns into ash. Even in extreme cases, after the soybean roots are harvested in autumn, there are old women with dung baskets and earth baskets to dig out the roots and go home to cook.

In this case, without chemical fertilizers to supplement the loss of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, you can only grow two crops a year...

To put it bluntly, there is no land that is exhausted, but if you want to grow two crops a year and abandon summer soybeans, and use the model of winter wheat-summer corn, then there will really be "exhausted land".

In this case, in essence, it is three mu of land per capita, and the yield per mu is at most 200 jin, that's it, how rich can it be?

The yield per mu in the UK increased from 90 jin in 1650 to 150 jin in 1750, which is indeed called "a great progress in agricultural productivity and a great increase in agricultural yield per mu". Please note that the UK is a fallow system and crop rotation system. If you use the yield per mu calculation method of Dashun's two-year three-cropping method, the yield per mu must be divided by 2 or 3.

Then you say that the British grow grass, raise cattle and sheep, and provide meat and milk... There is a term in biology called "food chain energy conversion", which is the energy conversion rate of solar energy into starch and then into protein and fat. Five kilograms of feed can produce one kilogram of meat, and five kilograms of feed can feed five people at least not starve to death, but one kilogram of meat can only feed one person... Eating chicken feed is a good life for many farmers in this year.

Dashun's current per-acre yield is in fertilizer technology - it cannot be said that Dashun's fertilizer technology has not made a breakthrough, phosphate fertilizer technology has made a breakthrough, and the sulfuric acid industry and phosphate fertilizer industry have developed in the cotton area of ​​northern Jiangsu and the tobacco area of ​​Shandong - but the key technology of "converting nitrogen in the air into fertilizer" is still very early.

Now Dashun can't get fertilizer. Even if you get good varieties and corn with a 100-day frost-free growth period, you can't get two crops a year in North China.

Fertilizers can't keep up.

Therefore, Dashun's per-acre yield has basically been stuck. We have to wait for industrial breakthroughs.

Of course, this statement cannot be said with certainty.

If you rely on organizational strength to build water conservancy projects and build a few water conservancy facilities like the Pishihang Project, the per-acre yield may increase.

But the problem is that Liu Yu was very clear when he was reforming Songsu and carrying out the Huaihe River into the sea project. This kind of large-scale project in the future is also a large-scale project that uses human shovels. It can be completed with the organizational ability of a prefecture-level city, but in Dashun, it requires the whole country's strength and requires three to five years of national treasury reserves.

Dashun needs this organizational strength to build a hammer water conservancy project. After winning the war, there are billions of acres of high-quality wasteland in the South Ocean of Fuso. With this organizational ability, wouldn't it be better to reclaim those billions of acres of high-quality, temperate, and drought-proof wasteland?

That is, if you want to significantly improve productivity within Kyushu, you can’t rely on the “primary industry” and “agriculture” through reform, improvement, and reform.

Then, there is no hope for the primary industry and agriculture to improve the total productivity and total national wealth.

What can we do? What can we rely on?