There were a significant amount of social factors present within Britain during the 18th century which eventually led to the Industrial Revolution, and many of them were generally not prevalent within China, regardless of the specific time period involved. The issues involved IOTL specifically focused on textiles, steam, and iron, although there were other ones, such as chemicals, and further technological developments occurred mostly due to the fact that the simultaneous main pressures involved forced policymakers and laborers to increase efficiency, so focusing on one factor at a time would have not provided the same outcome. Just focusing on steam does not address why or how it could be efficiently implemented on a widespread scale, specifically concerning ships, and would not thoroughly address other societal issues that need to be tackled in the long run.
I never stated that this was not the case, given the fact that the slave trade in question began under the Portuguese around 1500, and was significantly expanded under Spain and England soon after due to the lack of labor. However, my point was that this was an external factor, and while it caused significant changes over time, my assumption is that this factor was generally not as influential as the other ones in question, given that the colonies in question were demographically insignificant compared to the ones after 1800.
I agree, along with the fact that this situation also explains comparative advantages, as the colonies were more suited to producing raw materials, while it was more profitable for Britain to manufacture products, so both regions began to specialize in a specific area concerning production. However, diminishing marginal returns also need to be considered, as further increases concerning inputs will eventually lead to smaller increases in outputs. As a result, although this might have led to significant developments when the policies were first implemented, they gradually leveled out after a while, so other changes would have eventually been necessary in order to counter demand over time.
I'll quote my previous response again.
In other words, I purposefully omitted any mention of specific locations because although other regions were just as densely populated as England, the latter still had a significant population at the time, comparatively speaking. In addition, England had a variety of social and political factors, many of which were generally not present within other countries/region, which ultimately enabled the former to transition much more quickly than its competitors. As a result, my point was not that England was the only place where industrialization could have occurred, but merely that enough conditions were simultaneously prevalent during a significant period of time for the eventual transition to occur.
I could have spent hours in order to meticulously create an extensive post specifically highlighting each minuscule detail if I wanted to, but that approach would take forever in terms of typing, not to mention editing, while it would be painstaking for everyone to read. As a result, I simplified many of my initial assumptions, and some of them didn't portray an accurate picture of the situation as a whole because I attempted to limit the issues to the differences between Britain and China, so I might have significantly misrepresented some points. In addition, the analysis becomes extremely complicated when various models are taken into consideration, such as the one initially proposed by Adam Smith, along with other ones, such as Harrod-Domar, Lewis, Rostow, and Solow, although I will focus on Smith because his analysis is sufficient for this discussion.
To begin with, the main issues involved are labor, capital, and land.
Labor, or human capital, needs to be generally sustainable in the long run, so too much or too little would theoretically be undesirable. By the 18th century, England had enough workers to utilize, and had a surplus according to certain conditions, but this was dwarfed by the general situation within China, as the latter's overpopulation eventually began to lead to severe social problems over time, and partially explains why the dynasties were eventually overthrown, along with widespread revolts during the late Qing. In addition, China's social conditions meant that proportionately speaking, its populace was much less educated than the corresponding group in England, as the former had an extensive writing system which took much longer than other ones to memorize, not to mention that the government significantly underrepresented the population due to various factors. While England's literacy and education rates weren't exactly stellar either, not to mention that the middle class did not begin to emerge until the 19th century or so, its political structure greatly facilitated social transitions in the long run. These changes eventually lead to an increase in capital, as an increase in wages eventually translates into higher savings, and ultimately affects productivity, which is further influenced by an increase in demand, leading to technological innovations in order to compensate for these changes.
I could go into further detail, and also discuss the "Natural Resource Curse," which highlights the necessity of stable institutions, but I think these would probably be superfluous.
In addition, I would appreciate it if you could quote entire sentences from now on, or at least include ellipses, so that it doesn't look like you're quoting points out of context, regardless of whether this is true or not. In fact, the main point in that sentence (which was broken into two, to make the situation even more confusing) was entirely omitted:
I should have added political conditions as well, but you essentially removed the main phrase in that sentence and decided to focus on the marginal ones, making it difficult for me to respond effectively, and I had to go back and reread my entire post in order to make sure that nothing important was left out, which needlessly complicates issues.
That was essentially the case, as merchants were generally viewed as a lower class than farmers, given the fact that the former technically did not produce anything on their own. Challenging this cultural mindset would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, given that this was set in stone in part due to Confucianism, and would require extensive cultural and social changes at least by 1000, if not significantly earlier. IIRC, China also set limits on how much tribute could be received because the amount denoted how much trade would be allowed, so if tributaries attempted to petition the Chinese government in order to gain more resources, the court feared that the sudden influx of foreign resources would flood the market, while comparatively valuable resources might end up in the hands of foreigners, which was undesirable in the long run. Economically speaking, although there would be a general equilibrium in the long run as supply and demand would dictate the flow of goods, it would be difficult to explain the concept to the Chinese government before 1800, given that the theory was developed through hindsight, instead of forecasting an uncertain hypothesis that needed to be tested through trial and error.