In ancient Chinese history, agricultural production has always been the basis of the ruling regime and the most important mode of economic production. In order to ensure the development of agriculture and to ensure that the peasants stayed on the land, the rulers began to implement the policy of emphasizing agriculture and suppressing commerce from the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. Among these policies, the theory of "Guanshan Hai" lasted for thousands of years and played a very important role in the later development of society.
The actual meaning of the so-called "Guanshan Hai" is that the government should manage the interests generated in the mountains, rivers and lakes, and this theory was expressed in the policy of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty as the salt and iron official camp。When the Han Dynasty was first established, due to the influence of Huang Lao's idea of ruling by inaction, salt, iron and other materials such as wine were opened to the private sector, resulting in many wealthy merchants. However, after Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty ascended the throne, there were wars between the Western Han Dynasty and the Xiongnu for many years, which put great pressure on the finances of the entire dynasty.
Under these circumstances, Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty took salt and iron as official camps, and although he provided an economic basis for the army, he also caused the development of the commodity economy in the early years of the Western Han Dynasty to decline. After the death of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, Sang Hongyang, as Minister of Finance, continued to maintain the economic policy of the salt and iron government, which caused discontent among merchants and other interest groups in society.
Therefore, in order to reconcile the contradictions between them and discuss the current economic policies of the state, Huo Guang organized a public debate known as the "Salt and Iron Conference", in which Sang Hongyang and Xianliang Wenwen disagreed on the economic system of the government-run monopoly, which had a profound impact on the economic system of the late Western Han Dynasty.
The debate was made possible because the two sides were on different class positions. The *** represented by Sang Hongyang is to fight for the country's financesIt is hoped that the Yantie government camp can be used as one of the pillars of the country's finances to maintain the stability of the country。and the virtuous literature of the other sideIt represents the voice of the lower classes, and at the same time represents the demand of the large landlord class for a piece of the pie.
At that time, due to the recklessness of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty in his later years, the whole society began to be in a turbulent environment, and the economy of the society had begun to decline. Although Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty had read it out"Luntai's Guilty Edict".However, in our current view, this kind of edict of self-reflection after the incident has already happened, in addition to alleviating one's guilt, cannot return to the trend of rapid economic development in a short period of time. This reality is recognized by both Sang Hongyang and Xian Liang Literature, but the economic measures taken by both sides are quite the opposite
He mentioned that it is precisely because of the economic chaos caused by the recklessness of military force that it is all the more necessary to rely on the policy of the government-run monopoly to alleviate the state's financial difficulties, and that the continuation of the government-run monopoly at this time can alleviate the tight situation of military spending to a certain extent.
At the same time,He also mentions the rebellions of various local princes from the time of Emperor Wen of the Han Dynasty to the time of Emperor Jing of the Han Dynasty, which, in Sang Hongyang's view, made it impossible for those local groups to obtain sufficient financial and military strength, which was conducive to the smooth recovery and re-development of society
andFor the lower-class people at that time, the government-run monopoly was not only not the first to disrupt their lives, but also stabilized prices and guaranteed their lives.
But this is not the case in the eyes of virtuous literature. Personally, I'm actually on the same side as the virtuous writers, because I don't know what I'm buyingDid the money go into the country's treasury or was misappropriated by those rotten ** people。If the latter is the case, then it is better to open the market directly for trading.
Except**It is possible to fill your pocketIn addition, ordinary civilians have other concerns. Imagine if one day you run out of salt in your house, and there is only one salt shop in the whole market, then you have to buy it at that store anyway.
But, is its salt really good?What if it's unprocessed coarse salt?Is its pricing really reasonable?What if it is several times higher than the previous market?And you can't help but buy it, because there is only this one store, and you can't say that his salt is bad, because this is a store that was officially monopolized by the Western Han Dynasty at that time.
The problems exposed in the implementation of these government-run monopoly policies have become the support for the refutation of virtuous literature, which has had a certain impact on Sang Hongyang and others, and the two sides began to seek a better path in the debate.
Based on the social environment of the time,Emperor Zhao of the Han Dynasty still decided to adopt the measures of official monopoly on salt and iron to a certain extent, but at the suggestion of Sang Hongyang, the monopoly of liquor was abolished, and the official management of iron in Guannai was also abolished.
This policy led to a social and economic recovery during the reign of Emperor Zhao of the Han Dynasty, but it did not return to the economic level of the reign of Wenjing. At the same time, because the government-run monopoly system was not completely abolished, the merchants of the Western Han Dynasty at that time could not see their own interests, so they were unwilling to carry out exchanges again, so that the exchanges between the lower class people in the border areas in the late Western Han Dynasty were completely blocked.