15 replies to this topic

[Tibet Libre]

There is this cherished notion on this board of ending up all American silver via European trade sooner or later in China (for another one thoroughly disproven, please see here). Let's see how much substance is to that view.

Chinese Imports of Silver by Country of Origin, 1550–1700

Japan                         4 875 t (70%)
Philippines                   1 548 t (22%)
Portuguese shipments to Macao   428 t ( 8%)
Total                         6 951 t

We see that 70% of Chinese silver actually came from Japan in the period 1550–1700, and only around 2 000 t (30%) from the Spanish and Portuguese traders. So how high was the proportion of American silver which ended up in China?

Silver Shipments from the Americas to Europe, 1500–1700: 33 668 t

So only 5.9% of the total silver production in the Spanish mines went to China, 94% went elsewhere, but where exactly? This question isn't unfortunately followed up by a third compatible stats, but there is one which should be sufficiently precise for our purposes. It is given in silver equivalents, that is silver and gold converted into an equivalent amount of silver:

Exports of Silver and Gold from Western Europe, 1601–1780, expressed in silver equivalent

To the Baltic             10 055 (34,5%)
To Eastern Mediterranean   9 000 (31%)
Dutch & British to Asia   10 045 (34,5%)
Total                     29 100

So silver equivalent exports from Western Europe went to three regions to an equal share:

1. To the often overlooked Baltic trade which was of high importance to European trade since the days of the Hansa
2. The West-East trade in the Mediterranean remained just as important as the long-distance trade around the Cape of Good Hope into the Indian Ocean
3. The bulk of the Asian trade must have gone to the spice islands and the Indian subcontinent if we factor in the 2 000 t to China from above to the 10 045 t given here.

Conclusion: China was a main recipient of silver but not from the Americas but rather from close-by Japan. The silver flow from Western Europe remained to two thirds in the wider European region (Baltic and Levant), while China only received a comparatively small share of the rest of the silver: 2 000 t or about a fifth of the total amount exported to Asia. In sum, therefore, China's role in the international trade was modest from an European perspective.

SOURCE: A. Maddison, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, 2003, 66f.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 14 July 2010 - 06:51 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

While the amount of silver which China received directly from Spanish America was small, China also indirectly received American silver through Europe and other parts of the world where Spanish silver ended up, such as the Philipines and other parts of Asia which in turn received silver from Europe and the Americas. In the end, a portion of European and Asian silver, which came from the Americas eventually ends up in China as well.


Japan was also a major silver producing country in the 16th and 17th century, producing between 50-200 tons of silver a year, while American silver at the time was around 170 tons per year, slowly rising to 400 by the 17th century. Therefore, Japan produced about 1/4-1/2 the amount of Silver that Spanish America produced throughout the 16th and 17th century.

[Tibet Libre]

...China also indirectly received American silver through Europe and other parts of the world where Spanish silver ended up, such as the Philipines and other parts of Asia which in turn received silver from Europe and the Americas...

Well, did you actually cared to read the stats above? It covers the intermediary trade over the Philippines from which China received the bulk of its silver imports from the New World. How much of the American silver ended up in China via trade with other Asian countries, I don't know and I haven't seen a stats which backs this up. Certainly, such a far reaching claim is highly conjectural.

Japan was also a major silver producing country in the 16th and 17th century...

The Habsburg lands in Europe, mainly Germany and Austria, also produced a fair share of world silver output, perhaps a fifth of what came from the Americas.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Well, did you actually cared to read the stats above? It covers the intermediary trade over the Philippines from which China received the bulk of its silver imports from the New World. How much of the American silver ended up in China via trade with other Asian countries, I don't know and I haven't seen a stats which backs this up. Certainly, such a far reaching claim is highly conjectural.

As I stated before, a large portion of Philipine silver itself came from America, which indirectly ended up in China. For more information of this issue, Andre Gunder Frank has given a fairly exhaustive summary of these stats as well as all the scholarships that are related to it.

[Tibet Libre]

Found the same set of stats in Maddison's major monograph of 2007 (p. 113), but now all expressed in silver equivalents, which allow a better comparison:

Gold and silver shipments from the Americas to Europe in silver equivalents, 1600–1800: 
       87,916 

Exports of Silver and Gold from Western Europe in silver equivalents, 1601–1780:
Baltic 10,055 
Levant  9,000 
Asia   10,045
Total  29,100

So 2/3 of American silver and gold remained in circulation in the Western European economy, while the remaining third was injected into Eastern Europe (Baltic), the Eastern Med and the rest of Asia to equal parts.

These 11% going to Asia provide the theoretical upper limit of what can have possibly reached China directly via Europe. The 428 t silver of Portuguese shipments to Macao give an idea of how small the share of direct silver and gold flows to China must have been in the overall Asian trade (4%). Even when we add the Spanish trade via Manila (1 548 t), not more than 17% of American silver and gold which flowed to Asia ended up in China, 6% of overall exports from Western Europe and only 2% of overall exports from all mined American silver and gold.

We can thus safely lay to rest the mythological notion that China played a big part in the oriental trade of Europe, let alone that it "drained" its silver and gold stocks, although the amount which eventually flowed to the east was enough to help finally monetarize the Chinese economy.

Much more interesting I find the apparent continuing vitality of the Mediterranean trade. This should have made the Ottoman Empire a main profiteer of the disvovery of the New World, but I haven't seen this yet figuring prominently in any discussion of its economic history. Any takers?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Like your other data in the past, those you cited above are problematic in a number of places, but I'm sure you are at least somewhat aware of that, hopefully.

Foremost, it is only showing Portuguese shipment of silver to Macao, when there were four other trading ports in China during the Qing and even more during the Ming. The Qing closed up a lot of trading ports and by the late 17th century, only retained Canton and Macao. This is not even including the silver China received overland(one must remember that Russia was the largest European trader of Qing, in addition, China also traded with India, with the later having a trade deficit). Portugal and Spain also weren't the only countries that traded with China on the sea, the Dutch were another major trader, and in later periods, France and especially Britain became more important on the scene.

Furthermore, the years you gave for the shipment of silver is very problematic. For the Chinese reception of silver, you're using the data for the years between 1550-1700 while for the Spanish export to Europe, you are giving a data for 1500-1700, covering an additional 50 years. This is even more so for the numbers you provided in regard to export of silver equivalents to Europe which covers the period between 1600-1800 and more or less coincide with the Qing rather than the Ming(which is what most people here are refering to). But as pointed out before, Spanish production and export of silver to China increased significantly by the late 17th century　to 40%　of China's silver import， and eventually　overtaking those of Japan's　export to China.

Again，I suggest anyone interested in this topic to read Frank's work as it provides a fairly detailed analysis of the whole issue.
I don't think anyone stated that China drained Europe of its silver, not even Frank argued that. The whole point he was making was that Europe was at a trade deficit and had to cater to the pre-existing Asiatic trade system when they arrived; in another word, Asia, not Europe controlled the trade. China and India were the two major sources of silver import for Europe.

Also, the primary driver of the Chinese silver monetary system was Japan, not Spanish America, at least until the 18th century. After that date, Spanish America started to overtake Japan as the major exporter of silver to China because of Japan's close door policy.(See Frank, Reorient)

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 05 January 2011 - 05:05 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Ｆｏｒ　ｅｖｅｒｙｏｎｅ＇ｓ　ｃｏｎｖｉｎｉｅｎｃｅ，　Ｉ＇ｖｅ　ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅｄ ｓｏｍｅ　detailｅｄ　ｓｃｈｏｌａｒｓｈｉｐｓ in regard to world silver flow between the 16th-18th century.

Ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ　ｔｏ　ＴｅＰＡｓｋｅ，　ｔｈｅ　ｔｏｔａｌ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ　ｉｎ　１７ｔｈ　ｃｅｎｔｕｒｙ　Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ　ｗａｓ　４２，０００　ｔｏｎｓ　ｉｎ　ｗｈｉｃｈ　３１，０００　ｔｏｎｓ　went to Europe. Europe also exported 12,000 tons or around 40% of this silver to Asia.　In the 18th century, America's total silver production was 74,000 tons, with 52,000 tons going to Europe, and the remaining 20,000 ton going to Asia. Ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅｓｅ， TePAske　ｅｓｔｉｍａｔｅｓ　70% of American Silver went to Europe, ａｎｄ 40%　ｏｆ　ｔｈａｔ will then enter Asia.　According to Barret's estimation, Asia ultimately received 45,000 tons of silver from America, Aｔtman estimates that Asia received or produced 68,000 tons of silver from the whole world from 1600-1800, ｏｒ　roughly 50% of world Silver will ultimately end up in Asia. Attwell　ｅｓｔｉｍａｔｅｓ　ｔｈａｔ the silver that was exported from Mexico to Manila averages 143 tons per year, and around 1／4 of American Silver will directly be exported to Asia through the Pacific． According to Flynn and Graldez, just about all of these silver eventually entered China.　China ultimately received a large quantity of thｅ　ｗｏｒｌｄ Silver, a large portion of it came from Japan, ｗｈｉｃｈ　ｅｘｐｏｒｔｅｄ　ａｒｏｕｎｄ　３０％　ｔｏ　４０％　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｏｒｌｄ＇ｓ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　（ｓｅｅ　Ｆｌｙｎｎ　ａｎｄ　Ｇｉｒａｌｄｅｚ，　１９９５ａ：　２０２）. Another portion came from the Pacific regions such as Manila, some came from Europe, Western Asia, India, and Southeast Asia, while another portion came through Central Asia. Ｆｒｏｍ　the rough estimationg of Lide, the total silver which China received from European merchａnts make up 14% of China' s total silver import from 1610-1630（ｍｏｒｅ　ｔｈａｎ　ｔｈｅ　８％　ｆｏｒ　Ｐｏｒｔｕｇｕｅｓｅ　ｓｈｉｐｐｉｎｇ　ｔｏ　Ｍａｃａｏ）. According to Adshead, around 1/3 of American silver eventually enter China, while another third eventually enter India and the Ottoman empire. Whitfield gave aｎ even higher estimate for China and thinks that 1/2 of American silver ultimately ends up flowing into China.

Ｉｔ　ａｐｐｅａｒｓ　ｔｏ　ｂｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｍｍｏｎ　ｃｏｎｓｅｎｓｕｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｒｏｕｇｈｌｙ　１／３　－１／２ｏｆ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｅｖｅｎｔｕａｌｌｙ　ｅｎｔｅｒ　Ｃｈｉｎａ，　ｗｈｉｌｅ　ｅｖｅｎ　ｌｏｗｅｒ　ｅｎｄ　ｅｓｔｉｍａｔｅｓ　ｇａｖｅ　Ｃｈｉｎａ　１／４－１／３　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｏｒｌｄ＇ｓ　ｔｏｔａｌ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ，　ｗｈｉｌｅ　ｕｐｐｅｒ　ｅｎｄ　ｅｓｔｉｍａｔｅｓ　ｇｉｖｅｓ　ｉｔ　１／２　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｏｒｌｄ＇ｓ　ｔｏｔａｌ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ．Ｔｈｉｓ　ｉｓ　ｎｅｉｔｈｅｒ　ｍｏｓｔ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ａｓ　ｓｏｍｅ　ｐｒｏｐｏｓｅｄ　ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓ　ｓａｙ　ｏｒ　ａｎ　ｉｎｓｉｇｎｉｆｉｃａｎｔ　ａｍｏｕｎｔ　ａｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｒｅａｔｏｒ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｉｓ　　ｔｈｒｅａｄ　ｉｓ　　ｉｍｐｌｙｉｎｇ．

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 25 July 2010 - 12:20 AM.

[William O'Chee]

At the risk of getting into the vicious fight between Tibet Libre and BA, I shall venture a few observations.

First, there was a net inflow of silver and gold into Europe during the period in question, which explains much of Europe's economic rise during this period. If it was flowing out, then Europe would have been poorer. In fact, the retention of gold and silver in Europe was important for the creation of capital markets, which ultimately fostered the industrial revolution.

The Baltic was a major destination for silver. Surprisingly, it was not for goods traded from Russia and Asia, but for supplies of Baltic spruce. Fernand Braudel shows these were essential for shipbuilding, particularly the spars of ships. That thousands of these spars were needed is sometimes forgotten. Look, for example, at the massive shipbuilding effort in the Mediterranean in the first three-quarters 16th century, culminating in the period just after the Battle of Lepanto. Each side was building hundreds of ships a year. Many were lost and had to be replaced, so there was a huge demand for Baltic spruce.

As for the role of the Ottomans in the Mediterranean economy, they were important. Again, see Fernand Braudel. Another interesting take, however, is to be found in "Empires of the Sea" by Roger Crowley. There was a large amount of illicit trade with the Ottomans, mainly conducted by the Venetians and Genoans. There was also a Levant Company created by charter in Britain in 1580, which conducted trade with the Ottomans.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

At the risk of getting into the vicious fight between Tibet Libre and BA, I shall venture a few observations.

First, there was a net inflow of silver and gold into Europe during the period in question, which explains much of Europe's economic rise during this period. If it was flowing out, then Europe would have been poorer. In fact, the retention of gold and silver in Europe was important for the creation of capital markets, which ultimately fostered the industrial revolution.

Ｖｉｃｉｏｕｓ　ｆｉｇｈｔ？　Ｈａｒｄｌｙ．　Ｉ　ｄｏｎ＇ｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｗｈｅｒｅ　ｙｏｕ　ｓｅｅ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ　ｔｈｅ　 ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ　ｗｅ＇ｖｅ　ｈａｄ　ｓｏ　ｆａｒ，　ｐｅｒｈａｐｓ　ｏｕｔ　ｏｆ　ｆａｌｓｅ　ｉｍａｇｉｎａｔｉｏｎ？　Ｏｔｈｅｒ　 ｔｈａｎ　ｔｈａｔ，　Ｉ＇ｖｅ　ａｌｒｅａｄｙ　ｓｈｏｗｎ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｎｅｔ　ｆｌｏｗ　ｏｆ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｆｏｒ　Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ　ｗａｓ 　ｎｏｔ　ｎｅｇａｔｉｖｅ　ｓｉｎｃｅ　ｏｎｌｙ　４０％　ｏｆ　ｗｈａｔ　ｉｔ　ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ　ｆｒｏｍ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ　ｗａｓ　 ｆｌｏｗｉｎｇ　ｉｎｔｏ　Ａｓｉａ，　　　　ｍｅａｎｉｎｇ　ｔｈａｔ　６０％ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｗａｓ　ｓｔｉｌｌ　 ｒｅｔａｉｎｅｄ　ｉｎ　Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ，　ｗｈｉｃｈ　ｗａｓ　ｅｎｏｕｇｈ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ａｃｃｕｍｕｌａｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　 ｃａｐｉｔａｌ．　

As for the role of the Ottomans in the Mediterranean economy, they were important. Again, see Fernand Braudel. Another interesting take, however, is to be found in "Empires of the Sea" by Roger Crowley. There was a large amount of illicit trade with the Ottomans, mainly conducted by the Venetians and Genoans. There was also a Levant Company created by charter in Britain in 1580, which conducted trade with the Ottomans.
　

Ｉ＇ｍ　ａｆｒａｉｄ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｉｓ　ｐｒｅｃｉｓｅｌｙ　ｗｈｅｒｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｅａｋｎｅｓｓ　ｏｆ　Ｔｉｂｅｔ　Ｌｉｂｒｅ＇ｓ　ｓｐｅｃｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ　ｌｉｅ．　Ａｓ　ｔｙｐｉｃａｌ　ｏｆ　ｈｉｍ，　　ｈｅ　ａｔｔａｉｎｅｄ　ａ　ｓｅｔ　ｏｆ　ｉｎｅｘｈａｕｓｔｉｖｅ　ｄａｔａ，　ｍａｄｅ　ｔｅｎｄｅｎｔｉｏｕｓ　ｓｐｅｃｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ，　ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ　ａ　ｆｉｒｍ　ｇｒａｓｐ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｇｅｎｅｒａｌ　ｆｒａｍｅｗｏｒｋ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｐｒｏｆｅｓｓｉｏｎａｌ　ｓｃｈｏｌａｒｓｈｉｐ　ｉｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｆｉｅｌｄ．　
Ｃｈｉｎａ　ｄｉｄ　ｎｏｔ　ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅ　ｍｏｓｔ　ｏｆ　ｉｔｓ　Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｅａ，　ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ　Ｐｏｒｔｕｇｕｅｓｅ　ｓｈｉｐｐｉｎｇ　ｏｖｅｒ　ｔｈｅ　Ｃａｐｅ　ｏｆ　Ｇｏｏｄ　Ｈｏｐｅ，　ｂｕｔ　ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ　Ｅｇｙｐｔ，　Ｌｅｖａｎｔ，　Ｔｕｒｋｅｙ，　ａｎｄ　Ｒｕｓｓｉａ　ｔｒａｄｅ　ｏｖｅｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅｄ　ｓｅａ　ａｎｄ　ｔｈｅ　Ｐｅｒｓｉａｎ　Ｇｕｌｆ．　Ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ　ｔｏ　ｅｓｔｉｍａｔｉｏｎｓ　ｂｙ　Ｂｒｅｎｎｉｎｇ，　ｏｎｌｙ　３０％ｏｆ　Ｉｎｄｉａｎ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｗａｓ　ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｅａ　ｒｏｕｔｅ　ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ　ｔｈｅ　Ｃａｐｅ　ｏｆ　Ｇｏｏｄ　Ｈｏｐｅ，　ｗｈｉｌｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅｓｔ　ｃａｍｅ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｏｖｅｒｌａｎｄ　ａｎｄ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｈｏｒｔｅｒ　ｓｅａ　ｒｏｕｔｅ．　Ｙｅｔ　Ｆｒａｎｋ　ｍａｄｅ　ｉｔ　ｃｌｅａｒ　ｔｈａｔ　Ｉｎｄｉａ　ｗａｓ　ｓｔｉｌｌ　ｏｎｌｙ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｅｃｏｎｄ　ｌａｒｇｅｓｔ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｓｉｎｋ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｏｒｌｄ，　ａｎｄ　ｓｔｉｌｌ　ｈａｄ　ｔｏ　ｓｈｉｐ　ａｎ　ａｍｏｕｎｔ　ｏｆ　ｓｉｌｖｅｒ　ｔｏ　Ｃｈｉｎａ　ｏｒ　ｓｏｕｔｈｅａｓｔ　Ａｓｉａ，　ａ　ｐｏｒｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｗｈｉｃｈ　ｗｉｌｌ　ａｇａｉｎ　ｉｎｄｉｒｅｃｔｌｙ　ｅｎｔｅｒ　Ｃｈｉｎａ．　Ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ，　ｕｎｌｉｋｅ　Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ，　Ｉｎｄｉａ＇ｓ　ｔｒａｄｅ　ａｔ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｔｉｍｅ　ｗａｓ　ｍｏｓｔｌｙ　ｉｎ　ａ　ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ　ａｎｄ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ　ｉｔ　ｈａｄ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｔｈｅ　Ｅａｓｔ　ｗａｓ　ｆａｒ　ｏｕｔｗｅｉｇｈｅｄ　ｂｙ　ｔｈｅ　ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔ　ｉｔ　ｇａｉｎｅｄ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｅｓｔ．

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 05 January 2011 - 08:52 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I would also like to put some amendment to Tibet Libre's incomplete data on "Chinese Imports of Silver by Country of Origin, 1550–1700". The data here did not include Chinese reception of silver from land, or from other European countries other than Portugal in Macao by sea. The low end estimate of total silver China received from 1550-1645 should be around 7,200 tons. High end estimates by Yamamura and Kamiki gives a figure that were 20-30% higher (sea Yamamura Kozo, and Tetsuo Kamiki, 1983.) or up to 10,000 ton for total import of silver into China in near 100 years. If we take Lide's estimation that 14% of silver China received were from overseas trade with European countries, then China probably received up to around 1,500 tons of silver directly from Europe between 1550-1650, rather than the mere 428 tons Macao received from Portugal in 1550-1700 which Tibet Libre cited, and this is not including the indirect means which China received European or American silver from other Asian regions.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 25 July 2010 - 04:08 AM.

[moobie]

We see that 70% of Chinese silver actually came from Japan in the period 1550–1700, and only around 2 000 t (30%) from the Spanish and Portuguese traders. So how high was the proportion of American silver which ended up in China?

Are you implying Japan's natural production of silver was massive, and they engaged in no trade with the Portuguese?

[Tibet Libre]

Surprisingly, it was not for goods traded from Russia and Asia, but for supplies of Baltic spruce. Fernand Braudel shows these were essential for shipbuilding, particularly the spars of ships. That thousands of these spars were needed is sometimes forgotten.

That's a good point. Much later, the Czar joining Napoleon's continental blockade did hurt the Royal Navy, although Russia's subsequent revocation of it also demonstrated how dependent the region was from the capital inflow by the Western maritime powers.

[Tibet Libre]

Are you implying Japan's natural production of silver was massive, and they engaged in no trade with the Portuguese?

I don't quite understand your point; the role of the Portuguese as intermediaries in the Japanese-Chinese trade is irrelevant here, as the silver figures refer to the country of origin, irrespective of the nationality of the ships which brought the silver to Chinese ports.

[Guaporense]

I have made a table of data on silver flows:



There are some discrepancies in the table, however: European silver imports + production from the 18th century would be 1,500 tons more than estimated world production. Though such discrepancies are natural given the highly imprecise nature of such statistics.

On China's silver imports:

Asia consumed 11,200 tons of silver in the 17th century. Maddison's data is that China imported 6,950 tons of silver from 1550 to 1700. Those are annual imports of 46.3 tons per year. In the 17th century silver imports were probably higher than in the late 16th century, if you give 51.3 tons per year in the 17th century, or 5,130 tons of silver imported in the 17th century, that leaves 1,820 tons for the late 16th century, or 36 tons per year.

Overall, it appears that China represented about 50% of Asia's silver demand.

Another source, Scheidel, gives Chinese silver imports from 1550 to 1700 at 7,800 tons. That's about 10% more than Maddison's numbers and they don't change the overall conclusion.

World silver production was 63,000 tons from 1500 to 1700, of which about 7,000 tons were consumed in China. So Chinese silver demand was around 11-12% of world silver demand. A very large proportion indeed.

[Guaporense]

At the risk of getting into the vicious fight between Tibet Libre and BA, I shall venture a few observations.

First, there was a net inflow of silver and gold into Europe during the period in question, which explains much of Europe's economic rise during this period. If it was flowing out, then Europe would have been poorer.

It wouldn't. Silver demand is a function of demand for money. As the world ran on a silver standard during the early modern period. If Europe exported more silver than they imported that would only mean that Europe was a net producer of silver, which would mean that demand for money in Europe was smaller than the production of money in Europe.

The very large net silver imports of Europe, around 21,000 tons in the 17th century and 38,000 tons in the 18th century, more than half of the world's total, represent the fact that Europe had a very high demand for money, which indicates the size of the European makret economy. Nothing less, nothing more.

Silver inflows didn't cause the industrial revolution and they didn't actually help Europe to develop economically. In fact, the resources spend on mining silver were wasted resources that could be better spend on producing goods and services that improved peoples lives.