看不见的“两手”：行商体制的商欠危机

Core Points - The article discusses the financial practices of "Smiths" who bypassed the East India Company to engage in trade in Guangzhou, highlighting their involvement in high-interest lending and its consequences for both Chinese merchants and themselves [2][5][13]. Group 1: Financial Practices and Consequences - The "Smiths" utilized their connections and capital to operate as agents for Indian clients in Guangzhou, primarily engaging in arbitrage through bills of exchange with the East India Company [3][4]. - High-interest lending became a significant aspect of their operations, leading to a wave of bankruptcies among Chinese merchants, exemplified by the case of Ni Hongwen, who defaulted on debts to the East India Company [5][6]. - The collective responsibility mechanism established by the Qing government forced healthy merchants to share the debts of bankrupt ones, which inadvertently encouraged foreign lenders to increase their lending rates [7][8]. Group 2: Impact of Monopoly and Trade Dynamics - The article emphasizes the monopolistic nature of both the Qing government and the East India Company, which created a system where profits were shared among a select few, including the Royal Household in China and the East India Company [9][10]. - The shift from a monopolistic trade system to one of free trade was initiated by the British government, which sought to bypass the East India Company and engage directly with the Qing government [12][13]. - The "Smiths" recognized the decline of the East India Company and positioned themselves as new engines of trade, leveraging high-interest loans to undermine the existing trade structure [13][14]. Group 3: Systemic Crises and Market Dynamics - The article outlines three systemic crises faced by merchants in Guangzhou from 1779 to 1829, driven by high-interest loans and the inability to repay debts, leading to collective penalties and further bankruptcies [30][31][32]. - The financial practices of the "Smiths" and their reliance on high-interest loans created a precarious situation for Chinese merchants, who became increasingly entangled in debt and illicit trade, particularly in opium [33][34]. - The article concludes that the arrival of free trade in China was overshadowed by the predatory practices of high-interest lending, which preceded the more ethical aspects of trade [28][34].