I've been hooked on podcasts lately, and I've taken the opportunity to listen to an audio version of Wealth of Nations. Early on, Adam Smith points out that the trade with Asia is more profitable than trade with the Americas (ceteris paribus), because the Europeans didn't go around destroying the pre-existing civilizations in the process of exploring the area (mainly, he's lamenting the destruction of the Aztec and Incan Empires, thinking that the less developed tribes are not as suitable for trade relations). However, trade with the Americas ends up being more profitable on a case by case basis, because Asian trade tends to be controlled by national monopolies (the various East India companies). Of course, he views both these situations as a generally bad thing, being concerned as he is with the whole idea of freedom of trade and how it benefits everyone.
So, how might we see a scenario in which both:
- European civilization does not totally consume American civilization
- Asian trade with Europe is not totally monopolized
The first, to me, seems relatively easy. If there's some isolated contact with the Eurasian crop packages, livestock and diseases, prior to major European interest in the Americas, then the American civilizations will be much better off. Say, the hypothetical Malian expeditions to America are successful, at least in so far as they introduce to the Americas the requisites (smallpox, Eurasian cereals, cattle, horses, pigs, etc.) in the early 14th century. By the time the Europeans cross the Atlantic a nearly 2 centuries later, the locals will have had an opportunity to recover from the initial plagues, and build up more durable civilizations.
I'm drawing a blank on how to prevent the trade monopolies, though.