In this reading, I could see the perspective of both points and want to analyze them here.
One side of the argument from the literati said, “But now in the provinces the salt, iron, and liquor monopolies, and the system of equitable marketing have been established to compete with the people for profit, dispelling rustic generosity and teaching the people greed. Therefore those who pursue primary occupations [farming] have grown few and those following secondary occupations [trading] numerous. As artifice increases, basic simplicity declines; and as the secondary occupations flourish, those that are primary suffer.” His argument was based around, if there is no one to do those basic, simple jobs like farming that are necessary for the community, people will suffer. If everyone becomes a trader of goods and no one farms, then the traders eventually will have nothing to trade anyway because the system crumbled from the bottom.
The other side of the argument came from his Lordship. He argued, ” Therefore he set up defense stations, established a system of warning beacons, and garrisoned the outlying areas to ensure their protection. But the resources of these areas were insufficient, and so he established the salt, iron, and liquor monopolies and the system of equitable marketing in order to raise more funds for expenditures at the borders. Now our critics, who desire that these measures be abolished, would empty the treasuries and deplete the funds used for defense. They would have the men who are defending our passes and patrolling our walls suffer hunger and cold.” Without the higher paid trading systems they cannot afford protection of their lands, which in turn could lead to the destruction of farmers and all produce and even more lives.
Both arguments carry weight and reason.
