Talk:Mercantilism/Archives/2014

Legacy

The entire legacy section is messy and largely incorrect, both in its treatment of Keynes's views and in the projection of 20th century discussions on the Mercantilist era. More seriously, it is very poorly written (this is my favourite: Adam Smith rejected the mercantilist focus on production, arguing that consumption was the only way to grow an economy). I would suggest to remove (most of) this section, and perhaps refer to Keynes's reappraisal of SOME of the mercantilists' views (especially on hoarding).Robertsch55 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Agreed. I tried to edit some of the more glaring inaccuracies. But definitely the author of the previous changes had no idea of how Adam Smith's legacy played out. He attacks the US under Hamilton and others for advocating Mercantilism during the same period he praises England for adopting it "unquestioningly" -- never mind the Corn Laws in 1816, or the blatant mercantilism experienced by Colonies such as India or Pre Revolt USA. Chris Holte

There is no source for the statement "the mercantilist leaning of men like Thomas Jefferson." In other Wiki's, Jefferson is said to lean towards the Physiocrats, who were opposed to Mercantilism. So which wiki is correct? 65.25.72.72 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Don

I also am curious about where this statement of Jefferson as a mercantilist comes from -- Merill and Paterson's "Major Problems in American Foreign Relations: Volume 1: To 1920" p. 78 states that "Jefferson's free trade vision... epitomized the anti-mercantilist, anti-metropolitan thrust of his revolutionary republicanism." Konamaiki (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: "Our interest is to throw open the doors of commerce, and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom..." I'm going to delete "mercanalist leanings of Jefferson" part. Konamaiki (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have a strong feeling that this article breaks the NPOV. Would someone advocating the ways of mercantilism accept it as a fair description of their viewpoint? I don't think so, and I will change it if noone objects. Harvester 18:26, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I agree with Harvester.

First off, whats up with comparing Keynsianism and merchantalism? Keynsianism is a 20th century LEFT economic theory. Merchantalism was practiced by the RIGHT during this time in history. In addition, Keynesianism is based on the Labor Theory of Value (LTV), just as Adam Smith advocated and classical economic liberalism was based upon. Modern day neoclassical/neoliberal economics is based on the Subjective Theory of Value which is the ideological opposite of the LTV.

It seems that whoever wrote this article is a right-wing market libertarian. The whole concept of "government intervention in the economy" is just a politically slanted phrase they use. Never mind that the creation of private property is also a result of "government intervention". The fact that a corporation or business is thoughtof as an individual and not a creation of the government is another serious problem that these guys totally overlook in their whole "government intervention in the economy" view. In fact, corporations are a type of government and are self contained command economies, and they "intervene in the economy" just as democratically elected governments do. Which one would you trust to intervene...?

Anyways, enough ranting. I think someone needs to do some revising of this article. It is far from being neutral.

Did Spain play any role in the world of mercantilism? It is to this date that more sunken Spanish ships are being found with large bounty of bullion (Gold, Silver, other precious metals) that, even in today´s standards, they are very valuable to notice.--190.184.42.238 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with what Harvester said is that no serious economist advocates mercantilism as a theory any more than a biologist advocates Lamarkian evoldution. It doesn't have anything to do with point of view or politics, mercantilism is simply the conglomeration of hypotheses that once made up the dominant theory of economics, but has since been replaced by a model with more explanatory power.

As for your rant, a libertarian wouldn't want a corporation to be treated as an individual, but rather the individuals who work in a corporation or the stockholders who own the corporation should, according to a libertarian view, be treated as individuals. Furthermore, I'm not sure you can say that the creation of private property is a function of the government. Property rights can exist as a concept in the absence of a government that protects those rights. Your final question doesn't really make much sense either. Corporations don't have the ability to intervene in my economy or at least I have universal veto power. They can say, "hey, you want to buy this?" and I'll can reply "No, thanks." Bam. Veto! In fact, the only way a corporation can intervene in my economy is with the help of the government, who has the authority to give my property to said corporation. End of counter-rant. jglassman

The whole concept of "government intervention in the economy" is just a politically slanted phrase they use.

There is no other way to define government imposed monopolies.

Never mind that the creation of private property is also a result of "government intervention"

Non sequitur

The fact that a corporation or business is thoughtof as an individual and not a creation of the government is another serious problem that these guys totally overlook in their whole "government intervention in the economy" view.

Corporations in the modern sense of the word are not a creation of the government but they can influence politics thanks to state corruption.

In fact, corporations are a type of government and are self contained command economies, and they "intervene in the economy" just as democratically elected governments do. Which one would you trust to intervene...?

This is nonsense, there is no "government" in a corporation since there is no force used to keep employees in it, its all a free and voluntary agreement stablished to gain profits. Agrofelipe (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

More NPOV

The entire passage discussing comparative advantage seems misplaced. Furthermore, the whole notion about the greatness of Ricardo's concept is somewhat questionable - regarding limits to economies of scale etc.

mercantilists and bullionists were right

The mercantilists and bullionists were actually right, and their reasoning was sound, once you realise that a lot of this is at cross purposes (and this article is misrepresenting them). Gold is gold, and it does matter - once you remember what you are really talking about. Specifically, think of a war chest: if you run out of gold during a war, you lose your soldiers and so you lose your war (in the circumstances of the 18th century); Macaulay remarked on how Frederick the Great came through the Seven Years War with his finances sound and so with his regime intact, despite a lot of devastation - you can always recover from that, but not from decisive defeat. And "wealth" is hardly the right way to assess the strategic resources involved in second sourcing British timber supplies; it wasn't that Baltic supplies might cost money, but that they might be denied by an enemy (which was just precisely what Napoleon tried, with his "Continental Policy"). After enough of that, again, you lose the war. Of course, it is quite possible to use the definitions of "wealth", etc, in doing this sort of analysis - after all, economics was not a distinct subject then - but it isn't covering the area of work that the free trade types were. PML.

I totally agree. In mercantilism the emphasis is on technological development and military strength (i.e. survival) to the detriment of workers' happiness and welfare. But this was necessary in a time, where Europe was not yet able to beat external enemies like the Osmans and was internally divided.

War chest (as described above) is one aspect, more important is the buying power to acquire weapons in the first place. Should you equip 60.000 soldiers with modern flintlocks or should you feed your population? In most cases buying the flintlocks was actually the right choice, saving the lives of your people.

Another aspect is the ability to produce those modern flintlocks or frigates on your own. For that you need specialised expert labor, which you get with advanced distribution of labor, which you get with a production base as large as possible. This was the main point of mercantilism. Get hold of the actual production to control new technologies and specialised crafts with possible military applications.

The Osmans never built large numbers of flintlocks until they were a memory of the past. Hirsch.im.wald (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

mercantilism and king james

Why did the logic of mercantilist ideas encourage King James to grant a charter to the Virginia Company?

I would assume because mercantilism entailed not only competition between nation-states for balance of trade, but also between colonies of nation-states, i.e. if the dutch are setting up a potentially lucrative colony in New Amsterdam, then the British had better set their own up somewhere else in the New World. Remember that mercantilist's viewed natural resources very differently than we have for the past century or so; they thought that buying gold or lumber or the like from someone else or their colony at a good price was no deal at all compared to setting up your own colony from which to sell those things. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

bullionism

--Confuzion 04:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)someone needs to explain bullionism in more detail... also, there are many points that are unclear in this article, though I have tried to clarify where I could. 1. under nations are in a direct competition with each other, is this an overall political competition or limited to economic competition? 2. need time frame for the cloth export ban 3. Is the St. Eustace topic relevant as stated? 4. Some of the Keynes paragraph mention a bit of supply-side economics info that I don't think is relevant either, but I've left it in.

the most wealth wins

The article claimed that one of the tenets of Mercantilism was that "the nation with the most wealth wins." Since nationhood is not self-evidently a contest, it's not clear to me what someone might have meant by this. I've removed it for now, because I think this phrasing trivializes what might be an important point. --Ryguasu 04:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simple: The richer nation will win the war - with modern equipment and mercenaries. Nationhood is a deadly contest for survival. If you want to know what a loser looked like in that time, see "Sack of Magdeburg". Hirsch.im.wald (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Doria

Adam Smith was against Mercantilism and was for free trade GreatWhiteNortherner 07:38, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant reference

What does "The presence of a small Caribbean island (St Eustace)... was the first recognition of the United States as an independent country," have to do with mercantilism? I think someone with an interest in American history is being self-indulgent. It should be moved to a more appropriate article (War of independence) or simply removed.

Neo-mercantilism

The article also suggests the revolt of the United States as being against mercantilism, since it was against the policies of Britain. But Throughout the 19th century, the US had a heavy mercantilist policy. This was pushed forward the strongest by Henry Clay and his 'American System', and Henry Clay was an idol of Abraham Lincoln. The theories and practice that the US was operating on was often called 'neo-mercantilism' which was very popular. I agree the way the article is written sort of imposes the free-trader bias that mercantilism is the worst economic evil imaginable. If you actually read Adam Smith, even though an opponent of mercantilism, he argues in his Wealth of Nations that tariffs are often beneficial and necessary. Adam Smith promoted "free markets" (markets that were open) and not "free trade". Mercantilism and free trade are not direct opposites, though it is used as a bogeyman by economic libertarians. You can be against free trade and not a mercantilist. At any rate, I plan to write an article on neo-mercantilism some time in the future. Brianshapiro

Be careful not to conflate mercantilism and protectionism. Mercantilism as a theory generally advocates protectionism, while classical economics generally advocates free trade. However, mercantilism does not equal protectionism, nor does classical economics not equal free trade. Both theories are far less simple and straightforward. If you do write an article on neo-mercantilism make sure it also covers the revival of some mercantilist elements by Keynes, which are sometimes pejoratively called neo-mercantilism. - SimonP 16:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Neo-mercantilism

One can go even further and perceive China's current trade policy, wherein they're intentionally dampening domestic economic growth while increasing foreign trade, which has the net effect of creating greater trade imablances, which are then plowed substantially into US Treasury notes and other foreign currency or currency-equivelent investments, as a sort of neo-merchantilism, with foreign currency replacing Bullion.

I'm not sure how to explain this with a clear neutral point of view, as it's a somewhat skeptical view of Chinese economic policy, but given the problems of the Asian financial crisis, it's understandable that any Asian country would want to shore up foreign reserves.

The question is, when is enough enough, and when is this policy looking a bit merchantilistic? I.e. that the macro-economic policy goal is to obtain as much foreign currency reserves as possible.

the reasoning is severalfold: they want to shore up the dollar (thus maintain export to the US), they want large reserve fund reforms to the banking system, and as a hedge against a banking crisis, a financial crisis, economic warfare, or even the Taiwan crisis. china has many potential problems that needs to be hedged against.

with gdp growth at 9%, whatever else the general effect of this policy is, it can hardly be dampening domestic economic growth. in fact, this policy fuels growth rather than suppresses it, since it keeps the yuan artificially low and drives up exports, and the export industry drives the domestic economy. the problem before this policy was implemented was that nobody had any capital to invest, and therefore nobody had any goods to sell domestically. it is not that there is no desire to consume, but that the goods were unaffordable. exports were a way to increase individual wealth, so, ironically, this policy increases consumption, just not the consumption of imports.

as to when it is enough: a country this size growing this fast would need about 400 billion to keep control of the financial system. add about 600 billion to fix the bad debts (though this will be spent gradually and not all at once). another 400 billion in case all hell breaks loose in taiwan. it's not there yet. (no, i do not have the numbers to back that up.) anon

Ultimately mercantilism hinders growth to the degree in which you basically steal resources from other countries. Instead of technology and innovation as a primary driver of growth you have the amount of stolen resources being the primary driver. Given the fact that innovation and technology can forever grow and trade essentially reinforces competition required for innovation pursuing a mercantilistic policy is hurtful in the long run. The reason why Britain was so successful with mercantilism was because of its colonies especially the US.

If they continue to use mercantilistic policies they will simply stop growing at some point and rely entirely on foreign ownership. This last statement is whats happening to Japan and basically why it hasn't grown for at least a decade.99.238.32.160 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No Question - Please Add to Main Article

There is no question that Chinese trade practices constitute something like "Neo-mercantilism" as suggested by the above poster. See, e.g., Paul Krugman's blog postings here and here. I propose a section entitled either "Chinese Neo-Mercantilism" or "Mercantilism Today"

Attention notice

I placed an "attention" notice on this page. As an lyaman interested in economics, I thought that several of the statements were unclear or plain wrong. The other comments on this discussion page supported that impression. The main problem is that mercantilism is equated with any government intervention in the market, which is too broad as a definition. AdamRetchless 21:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modern "mercantilism" and money

Does the emphasis on gold and silver have anything to do with the fact that these were used as currency? When Keynes praised the value of gold and silver, was that because these were the basis of the US currency at the time? Does the current emphasis on trade balance have anything to do with the need to get US dollars to pay foreign debt, prop up the local currency, or buy commodities on the international market? Just some thoughts. This seems to be related to a lot of recent discussion about the dominance of the US dollar. AdamRetchless 00:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theory section

The paragraph about the military is not clear.

Gold was essential as it was used to fund the military. A nation with large gold reserves could thus field a larger force for a longer period of time than its rivals and would thus be victorious.

This seems to conflate two separate concepts: the amount of gold in the king's treasury, and the amount of gold in the national economy. Of course they are related, but they are still different. To clarify this, I think it is important to state whether the military was supported by domestic production or foreign production. If the soldiers and weapons came from foreign nations, then it makes sense that the king would want a lot of gold in the national economy, but if the soldiers and weapons came from his own country, I don't see why it matters how much gold is in the national economy. AdamRetchless 21:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oil hoarding and mercantilism

I found it strange that the article states that the drive towards oil is a modern incarnation of mercantilism. Even under the most libertarian system oil would be an increasingly valuable good, so how could the Japanese, Russian, American or even Chinese hoarding of the material be "mercantilist"? Longing for a rare material that is in much use can't automatically be mercantilist, can it?

My current understanding of mercantilism - which isn't much, I might add - is that imperialist countries basically followed an exploitative economic policy to achieve growth, i.e. all was invested in the motherland. The colonizing of foreign countries aided the motherland by adding new labour forces and resources, without the need for any real form of trade. Of course, the local economies in colonies are completely destroyed by such a policy, but their situation wasn't taken into account when determining growth or prosperity.

I don't know whether this view is right, but if it is it's lacking from this article, which focuses on mercantilism on being equal to protectionism, something that seems to be only partly right to me. Also, it seems strange to portray the dutch as a beacon of light if exploitation of "foreign" countries is integral to mercantilism.

-- Tijmz

Redirect

Why does mercantile redirect here? Many articles using older vocabularly use this term for "merchant" or "trade", with no relationship at all to mercantilism. Thanks --Dpr 05:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should probably be turned into a disambig. - SimonP 14:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Legacy"

Some other systems that do copy several mercantilist policies, such as Japan's economic system, are also sometimes called neo-mercantilist.

To write "Japan's economic system" seems awfully too vague and broad. It doesn't specify a particular field of economy where such policies are implemented nor a time period when such policies were common. Can someone narrow it down? -- Revth 02:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The night of October 19, 2005

On this night let the records show that some idiot replaced the entire article with "SADDAM SUX" I find this highly stupid. Thank you for replacing it with the correct article!

though i would like to take credit for the revert, im not sure if i was the first person to do it. if i did, then you are welcome...if not, oh well. Osmo250

domestic(ally)

"Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established."

Domestically where?

"Internationally, mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period and fueled European imperialism."

Well I guess this is some America POV. --MarSch 08:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. Mercantile theory held that the amount of wealth in the world is fixed, and that international relations was essentially a zero sum game - everyone's gain was someone else's loss. Therefore, it encouraged the frequent warfare between the various european power, each of whom wanted to get the other guy's wealth. →Raul654 13:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should read "domestically in a lot of countries". --MarSch 14:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, let me try again. WHat is meant by domestically in the lead? As far as I know it means "in the home land". Now since this is not any national encyclopedia this is ambiguous. So please fix this. --MarSch 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Domestic is simply the opposite of foreign. A country's foreign trade is that conducted with other nations, while its domestic trade is the trade conducted within its borders. It means internal to any nation, not some specific one. - SimonP 14:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So what it is trying to say is

"This led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over domestic trade."

is that right? Perhaps it's just me, but this sentence doesn't have me thinking domestic to what, unlike the current version. Seeing again the following sentence which starts off "Internationally..." I'm unconvinced again. Clearly that implies that domestically refers to a specific nation. This would make sense, since one government had to be the first to intervene in the economy. I also cannot form it into some strangely worded form of international trade. The only meaning which I can see is in opposition to domestically and it makes no sense. --MarSch 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This surely can't be correct???

Hi, paragraph 3 contains the text "Originally the standard English turd was a very large and totally disasterous mercantile system." This surely can't be correct, but I don't know what the correct idea is meant to be. Can someone knowledgable fix this? Regards and thanks.

Britain or England

This page features misplaced use of "Britain" when England is meant, in particular around the Navigation Acts, which were used as much to exclude Scottish trade from the English market (and hence creating the circumstances which led Scotland into the 1707 Union). Similar with the references to Mun, whose own page is more specific about his works concerning the English economy. AllyD

Mercantilism Alive Today?

In the preface to the current paperback edition of "The Other Path", by Hernando de Soto, he says:

"Mercantilism can be defined as the supply and demand for monopoly rights by means of laws, regulations, subsidies, taxes, and licenses....Mercantilism is a politicized and bureaucratized environment dominated by privileged redistributive combines that prevailed in Europe before and during the Industrial Revolution before the rise of democratic capitalism...Buried by the triumph of capitalism in the West, mercantilism nevertheless continues to be the predominate economic system in twenty-first century Peru".

I don'tinclude the quote to bring up some difference with the description of mercantilism in the article, but rather to point out that at least one economist thinks it's alive and even prevalent in some places. I think it's prevalent in twenty-first century African telecom as well. I'd like to see some mention of this modern-day Mercantilism in the main article, but since it's featured, reviewed, etc, I thought I'd start in the discussion page.

Jforster17 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The word mercantilism has been attached to a wide array of different economic systems that share some elements of the early modern one. These systems have little in common, de Soto attaches it to Peru, but Japan's post-WWII policies are also often dubbed mercantilist, and Keynes overtly labeled the ideas he developed as mercantilist. It's like feudalism, there is general agreement was feudalism was in the Middle Ages, but today a wide array of things are routinely described as "feudal." These modern usages are better covered in the neomercantilism article. - SimonP 00:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed

I pulled this text from the article:

• Interestingly, the once former British colonies, America did not adhere to classical economics but to a form of neo-mercantilism in the policies of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln and later Republican Party economic practices, that were mirrored in the policies of the Historicists in Germany by such economists as Friedrich List, until the emergence of the New Deal and the modern era. Today, mercantilism as a whole is rejected by many economists, though some elements are looked upon favorably by a growing number including Ravi Batra, Pat Choate, Eammon Fingleton, and Michael Lind.

So that we can get it sourced. According to whom are the policies of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and List different from mercantilism? According to whom do we say that Batra, Choate, Fingleton, and Lind agree with Mercantilism? -Will Beback 05:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to the first question...No one. They are not different but similar as the statements indicate and as the context of the sentence indicates and paragraph. On to question two, they themselves in context of the sentence and the paragraph. Any further questions? --Northmeister 06:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That means they are original research. -Will Beback 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How and why? --Northmeister 15:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't research based on published sources then it is original research. -Will Beback 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Source Material for re-inclusion of the above material taken out on April 13th:

• Lind, Michael: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229-230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0)
• Richardson, Heather Cox: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government." (from "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4 titled "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pg. 136-137 published 1997 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the USA - ISBN: 0-674-36213-6)
• Boritt, Gabor S: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" (from "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" Chapter 14 titled "The Whig in the White House" pages 196-197 published 1994 by Memphis State University Press in the USA - ISBN: 0-87880-043-9)

--Northmeister 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

MSN link

There's a link to this article at [1], an MSN money-section comment article. Just thought regular editors here might be pleased to know.--shtove 10:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in this article?

the second paragraph starts "Mercantilism was the nigger school of economics throughout the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century, which roughly corresponded to the emergence of the nation-state)."

I'm sure someone thought that was funny. But it's not. Would someone be able to retore the sentence to what it was before?abnyc 03:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

please elaborate

"While the wealthy capitalists who controlled the House of Commons benefited from these monopolies, Parliament found it difficult to implement them because of the high cost of group decision making, so they went to whorehouse and had sex" [21]

What exactly does this mean?

dookie mercantilism

someone put dookie mercantilism in the caption for the first picture, edited 10-23-06

Overarching "theory" of mercantilism

The article states " There were no mercantilist writers presenting an overarching scheme for the ideal economy..." in the Theory section. I believe we should consider modifying this statement. While there was certainly no mercantilist program that was accepted by all, or even by a majority of pamphleteers on economic matters, I have found at least one author who did articulate, in the middle of the mercantilist period (1684) a rather comprehensive mercantilist program. That author is Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, "an Austrian lawyer who published a nine-point mercantilist manifesto in 1684." Quoting Ekelund and Hébert, "His nine principal rules of national economy are:

1. That every inch of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.

2. That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.

3. That a large, working population be encouraged.

4. That all export of gold and silver be prohibitied and all domestic money be kept in circulation.

5. That all imports of foreign good be discouraged as much as possible.

6. That where certain imports are indispensible they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.

7. That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].

8. That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.

9. That no importation be allowed if such foods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home."

While I agree that there never was a single program, this is the best summary description I've seen by anyone writing in the mid-mercantile period, and I believe that von Hornick's writing makes the current sentence in the article incorrect. N2e 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Vranak 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

i submit that this more than refutes that sentence: it merits inclusion in the article. i myself, as well as many other readers (i'm assuming), would have found it quite helpful to see a list of mercantile tenets put forth by a mercantile author from a mercantile "nation" during the time of mercantilism. the introduction seems like the best place for them, to me, but i do not personally feel qualified to alter the work of whoever authored the current one. any suggestions as to how this could be included without changing the intro too much? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Many information must be added

The names and works of the "mercantilist" are not even cited in this article (Colbert, William Petty...). You can find it in french wikipedia [2] (wiht sections for english and french authors), and much better in spanish wikipedia [3], with all of them and also the spanish (Tomás de Mercado, Luis Ortiz...), and the link to "arbitrismo" [4] (spanish mercantilism). I think you must add all that esential information (sorry for my bad english).--Ángel Luis Alfaro 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have heard "mercantilism" pronounced three different ways: mer-CANT-a-lism, mer-can-TILE-ism, and MER-cun-til-ism. Dictionaries disagree on which is the correct pronunciation, but it would be nice to narrow it down to one or two pronunciations and include them in this article. CClio333 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

just a simple question

Ok, in the primary document written by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, he addresses how Mercantilism is such a good thing, and how all of the wars that Louis XIV was waging was a problem in trying to help the prosperity of france. This makes him seem like a good guy, but he is described as cold and unfeeling. Also, he stated that Mercantilism helps people in some way, but I can't find that way. Can somebody help? Honestly, I am new to Wikipedia and I might be doing this totally wrong. But if someone could send me something, that would be great! username: Athletics1433 email: Dia4chem@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athletics1433 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Paper Mercantilism

The concept of maximizing exports and minimizing imports using the power of government, is no different then maximizing imports and minimizing exports using the power of government. Exporting paper is a strategy of a Mercantilist. It's also a suicidal strategy of an anti-patriot.68.106.248.211 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

this seems like nonsense but since i'm trying to learn more about this page and relevant issues, i'm going to respond and see if you want to clarify, user 68.106.248.211. the difference between the 2 economic strategies you mention is not only that they are opposites, but also that the former is actually what mercantilist nations did, in attempts to keep as much gold in their country (and colonies) and as little of it in other countries (and their colonies) as possible. by paper, do you mean paper money? if you literally mean paper, i don't understand at all. exporting paper money, however, is essentially the crux of what mercantilists tried not to do. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is terrible

I don't know how this page got featured, but I disagree. It's POV, badly organized, and extremely unclear... I'm working on a complete reorganization and partial re-write. If anyone objects to this, please let me know, and I'll hold off on posting the new version until its worked out. I'm a little ambivalent about changing any page too drastically, but I think featured articles should be of high quality, and I want to bring this page up to spec. So... thoughts? --Oracleoftruth (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When you do it can you make sure merchant capitalism doesn't redirect here. They're two completely different things, and I believe that there is an entire separate page devoted towards merchant capitalism. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.145.38 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm the author of the original article. A lot of tangential material and original research has accrued on this page. I've cut back a bunch of it, but it still needs more work. - SimonP (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree, as stated in the above section concerning the existence of a unified theory of mercantilism. i would like to again ask that the work of von hornick be included in the intro as a sort of primer, or perhaps offer to write this . . . What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

the intro

i figured i'd move this down to the bottom, since i have learned to my chagrin that that is actually where new statements are supposed to go. whoops ... on the bright side, maybe someone will notice it here. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

i was working on improvements to this section (which used to be quite long and ramblish, if you recall) when the article was improved into its current state. i am much happier with it now, though i think that the intro still needs work. i think it needs to be more accessible to people less knowledgable of economics, politics, and renaissance/baroque/enlightenment history. i think it would be fine if it were a paragraph or 2 longer, and that the best thing would be for that space to be spent on A. a more general and laymen-friendly opening sentence or two, and B. a little more explanation in between facts so as to make them seem less dense and lofty. do people agree, or am i really just asking that the intro not be smart and properly explanatory? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

also, can it really be said that these were "some of the first instances of government intervention in and control over the economy"? the various governments of Ancient Egypt were almost always the largest employer; the bulk of the manual labor force was made up of slaves owned by it, not by private citizens as in Ancient Greece and Rome. When the feudal lord handed out fiefs, was he not setting the nature of and modes of competition among the major landowners of his country, deciding exactly how much monopoly there would be and why? the longest-lasting and most impressive remains of Athens and other such places were all commissioned and paid for by the government. i contend that if you have to be a nobleman to be recognized as a great master in your craft, and to practice it for a "living", then it is the noblemen who are in full control of the economy, and that in all of these places, they were the government. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

here is my proposed addition to the intro, to go between the 2 paragraphs. i would like to extend my thanks to N2e for raising this point, compiling this list, and creating this citation.

“ The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:

• That every inch of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
• That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
• That a large, working population be encouraged.
• That all export of gold and silver be prohibitied and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
• That all imports of foreign good be discouraged as much as possible.
• That where certain imports are indispensible they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
• That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
• That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
• That no importation be allowed if such foods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home."

”

so does this look good? i think it would go a long way toward avoiding recent vandalisms like the latest one (it complained that the intro definition was too hard to understand) and toward educating people without much experience in econ or poli sci through just one brief visit to this page. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I haven't given this the thought it really deserves, but my feeling is that the lead should try to give "the" definition of mercantilism, unattributed, rather than one person's historical definition. The material above is good for the body of the article, and since the lead summarizes the body, it should influence the lead. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ok i'll find a place for it in the body, then. i really do think, though, that the reason for all of the recent vandalism lately near the top of the page is its difficulty to read and not the fact that high school econ teachers out there are telling their students to look this article up. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton

The "Legacy" section now has both:

• Initially [mercantilism] was rejected in the United States by such prominent figures as Alexander Hamilton...
• Alexander Hamilton was a strong proponent of mercantilism...

The latter is sourced, while the former isn't. The latter is sourced to a very non-mainstream economist, so I don't know if it's straightforward or part of his non-mainstreaminess. Can anyone clear up the disagreement?

Also, the latter goes on: [Hamilton] tried for years to incorporate its tenets in to the US system. Only the strong will of founders like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin kept his attempts to replicate the crown of England on American shores at bay. That's heavy-handed, besides getting into irrelevancies (what does replicating the crown have to do with it?). CRETOG8(t/c) 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we delete both mentions of him, and this non-pov stuff, and someone can create a well-referenced mention of him if they want to and add that in these statements' place. personally, i think of hamilton as a warmonger and ubernationalist who was significantly more fascistic than the other founding fathers, but that may not have any bearing on his view of federalism, nor is it encyclopedic information. what do you think of my suggestion for an addition to the intro about Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ew, upon re-reading that bit it looks like it may be factually consistent, and just badly written: In the English-speaking world, Adam Smith's utter repudiation of mercantilism was accepted, eventually, as public policy in the British Empire and in the United States. Initially it was rejected in the United States by such prominent figures as...

So, now I think what it's saying is that Hamilton rejected Smith's repudiation of Mercantilism, the double negative meaning Hamilton supported Mercantilism. I don't really want to get rid of something referenced, unless someone's checked more thoroughly into it and decided there's something wrong with it. I've tried to rephrase it, and kept the DiLorenzo ref although not the surrounding text. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

history

hey isnt there supposed to be a history section? and why isnt neomercantilism mentioned?Ricky (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)--Ricky (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Spaniard Luis de Ortiz wrote all mercatilisism things in 1558 in his "para que no salgan dineros destos reynos de España" , maybe was the first one. No references in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.204.204 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin and Policy

The article as it currently stands has several weaknesses. First of all it was Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations that first identified the "mercantile system" as a set of policies and although the article mentions this I think it should be made more prominent that this one book was responsible for identifying these policies and describing them as a system. Also, mercantilism is not just an "economic theory", it is description of a type of government policy. Once again the article mentions this, but I think the introductory paragraph should emphasize mercantilism as a type of governmental policy. Another problem with the article is that it de-emphasizes the essential point of Adam Smith's theory which is that mercantilist policies benefit domestic manufacturers at the expense of consumers. Of course, you can sort of infer this from information deep in the article, but I think this key point should be made explicit in the introductory paragraphs since this is the crux of Smith's exposition of mercantilism. John Chamberlain (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Word Choice suggestion.

The first sentence (I think) is the most important. If well phrased, it gives the reader confidence that the text that follows is worth reading. Conversely, if the text is flawed, poorly written or the reader immediately can think of a better way of making the statement, it clouds the "suspension of disbelief", and the experience is degraded.

This is my biggest pet peeve of wiki, btw, and I'd be interested in finding out if the wiki rules specify the importances of the opening sentence and paragraph.

Specifically, this one:

Mercantilism is an economic theory that holds the prosperity of a nation is dependent upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of international trade is "unchangeable."

I understand the idea that global volume is "unchangeable", but first I do not know what the quotes would need to be put in. To convey a euphemism ? Or quoting someone/something ? (If so, who/what ?)

But I don't like the word at all. I think a better word would be "static", only without quotes. Maybe and economics person has a better word than that, but "unchangable" is not a real good word choice, and "static" is a better one.

It wouldn't hurt to "flesh-out" (a euphemism, lol) the whole idea of a "static" vs. "dynamic" world trade volume. I think it's important for wikipedians to recognize that the wiki is being read by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of expertise/knowledge in a particular subject, and the initial paragraph needs to be "dumb-down" (lol) to a very basic level, before skyrocketing off into the stratosphere of academic thought.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Jonny Quick

I think your changes would be big improvements and you should feel free to make them. Grace Note (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree on the importance of the opening sentence. The whole intro is less important, but still more significant than the rest of the article, for similar reasons. Might I suggest, though, that we work on removing high-folluting terms like "static global volume of trade" and "supply of capital" from the intro? They also turn people away, encouraging them to go learn some rather complex economics before they can get a basic grounding in this historical issue, which really should not require them to know that things of productive value are called "capital" by economists and scholars. Similarly, someone should not have to know what "static" and "dynamic" mean in order to read the intro to this article on a word that they're going to hear in all kinds of basic educational settings. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I have removed this section. It did not in fact link to further reading but to pages advertising a book that is not about mercantilism per se and does not build on the understanding set out in this article. Both links are misleading because the average reader is likely to expect a further discussion of the subject of this article, but will not in fact find that at the links. Grace Note (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Malthus a Mercantilist?

I have never seen this contention before -- I think it is wrong. GeneCallahan (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ways to make this article easier to understand

The first and best way, I think, would be to move the assertion in the Theory section that mercantilists thought of markets as "zero-sum games" up to the very top. The up-front historical context in the article is excellent, but I think that this vision of the economy is the single most important thing about mercantilism, and thus should not be buried obscurely in a section entitled "Theory" that maybe we should call "What the idea of mercantilism actually is" instead.

Do you other editors watching this page agree with me, in that the zero-sum game idea is the key? I think it's one of the hallmarks of modern economics that people discovered that this was not the case. It's this discovery, so obvious today amidst all of our technological and standard-of-living progress, that has led us to look back on mercantilism with such disdain, and let us remember that it is that retrospective that allows us to refer to a single "theory" of mercantilism in the first place--as the article very helpfully explains.

This leads me to another point, though. It makes sense to consider mercantilism to have been holding humanity back to some extent, but it is a waste of all our time to use the term as a stand-in for "unwise economic policy" in general. What I mean is: all of the debate here about whether this form of Keynesianism or that current Chinese currency policy is mercantilist is hogwash; all people are really doing is saying they don't like these things and then attaching the label of mercantilism in order to add weight to their rather feather-light opinion. What's more, the small bits of this that make it into the article are only going to confuse and misinform people who have just learned this term for the first time, and are trying to legitimately educate themselves on the subject.

Those people need to know about how the term was created, what it was used to describe, and what it has meant since. This does include allegations of "neo-mercantilism," but I think that the less space we devote to such drivel, the better. I would argue that even the most eminent scholars are participating in much the same circle-jerk that exists on part of this talk page when they drape a specific and meaningful concept over policies they dislike that really have very little to do with it. Accusing someone of mercantilism in this day and age really just means accusing them of denying recent discoveries; of being backward. It's a fancy--and yes, moderately informative--way to say they've got their head in the sand.

For that matter, let us dispense with all of the debate here about the merits of left- and right-wing economics; Keynesianism and market libertarianism; so-called "government intervention" and "trust in market forces." They don't even really have a place on the talk pages for those concepts, much less this almost entirely obsolete one. Why should we have an argument about good and bad policy on a discussion page about something we all agree is bad policy? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverse Mercantilism

I saw this tucked in at the end, and noted that as described, it seemed internally inconsistent. The only references are to Lew Rockwell and a self-published book. There is no link to a wikipedia page addressing this alleged school of thought. I submit that if more or better information is not presented, this section be removed. Haakondahl (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Current thought

"Second Treatise also points towards the heart of the anti-mercantilist critique: that the wealth of the world is not fixed, but is created by human labor (represented embryonically by Locke's labor theory of value)."

Is that what economists think these days or is that revised as well? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead Picture

What, exactly, is an "Imaginary Seaport" and what is it supposed to be saying? As far as I can see, nothing other than the caption is keeping it from being completely meaningless. I just cant think of a good reason this picture should be here and be so incredibly ill-defined. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Adam Smith rejected the mercantilist focus on production, arguing that consumption was the only way to grow an economy."

What is this based on? 81.153.60.99 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the first sentence in the "Legacy" section. I would also question the sentence that follows: "John Maynard Keynes argued that encouraging production was just as important as consumption." I just finished reading Keynes, and his principal theme is that consumption is the way by which production is encouraged. I wonder if someone got these backwards. Either way, specific citations, of either the primary sources or commentary on them, seem necessary for verification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

it's based on this (which I will cite): "Adam Smith's criticism of mercantilism stemmed from his dedication to the consumption side of the economy, which led him to the conclusion that trade could benefit all. In contrast, mercantilism viewed trade as a zero-sum game, where one country necessarily profits at the expense of another, since mercantilism's focus went beyond consumption. Smith's second criticism of mercantilism was that mercantilist policies did not emerge from a national goal, but rather from the interest of merchants and manufacturers in retaining their monopolies—in other words, Smith viewed mercantilism as a rent-seeking doctrine." [ from Elise S. Brezis, "Mercantilism" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History 2:484 Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Cannan's augmented index (Modern Library edition) and even my own poor memory, Smith mentions consumption and production only once, at the end (p. 625) of his discussion of the mercantile system. ("Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production ... But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.") Smith has many comments about monopolies and monopolists, which are largely the "producers" (merchants and manufacturers), and their interests, but I see no evidence of this alleged "dedication to the consumption side of the economy." In this case it seems to me that the strongest statement that can be made is that it has been said that "Smith argued...." In fact he did not argue, and it is doubtful that he even said, that consumption grows the economy, let alone is the only way of growing it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

but you quoted Smith: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production"--how much stronger can he get? as for his mentioning consumption "only once" ???? -- In Wealth part 2 he uses "consumption" on 79 pages see cites from part 2 here ...Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So he uses the word "consumption" 79 times (in 900+ pages of text); what of it? Skimming through your Google hits doesn't show that he connects consumption and production except for the quote I provided. Not only is the stated relationship of "sole end and purpose" not the same relationship of growing, it doesn't appear that he argued either point. Perhaps he argues it somewhere else, but I do not see it in Wealth of Nations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"growing the economy"??? that sounds like neomercantilism (according to Harry Johnson). Smith's statement ("Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production") is very explicit and strong. Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For sure it is an explicit statement of Smith's view that production serves consumption, not the contrary. But article text in question is not about end or purpose, it is about "the only way to grow the economy". Which is not (as far as I can see, or anyone else has shown) what Smith said. The attribution is incorrect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

you're right, Smith did not emphasize growing the economy so I deleted that. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit of bone in my craw. "Paramount" is passable, but I wonder if you might like to go with a stronger statement as to which should be paramount (consumption or production). Perhaps something like: "Smith strongly rejected the mercantile favoring of production, arguing that the interests of consumers were being sacrificed to the interests of monopolistic producers (manufacturers and merchants)." I can provide the reference, which really ought to be included, Smith being the principal critic of mercantilism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's still the issue of the second sentence, that Keynes "argued that encouraging production was just as important as consumption". Keynes' view is more like that previously attributed to Smith. (Particularly, that consumption is the primary means to "grow" the economy, and specifically production.) I'm pretty certain Keynes consistently held production to be a consequence of consumption, and not an equally important co-factor.

BTW, would you like me to get the cites for the other points attributed to Keynes? I'm pretty certain I've seen them, it's just the point above that is in question. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Harv links?

I see that both the Notes and References here are well done. But, curiously, lack any linkage between them. Would folks here welcome having the note citations – which are already in author-date form – put into {{Harv}} templates to provide the missing linkage? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to implementing Harv? I point out that I would also switch from {{cite book}} templates to {{citation}} templates. The chief noticable difference is use of commas instead of periods with the citation. If this is an issue with anyone a parameter can be added to use periods, but I think it is a little cleaner, as well as less trouble in the future, to just go with the commas. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Added. I have extracted a score or so of references from the text, put them in template form, adding missing dates, isbn numbers, etc., correcting misspellings of the authors' names, etc., and stuffed them all into "References". I have replaced textual parenthetical references, citations, etc., with Harv links. and checked the links. Also removed unneeded "ref names" (where there was only a single instance). A lot cleaner now, and more consistent. Also easier to maintain (don't have to be twitching about citation details in the text, and nor have them get in the way when working on the text). Hopefully this will be a model for future citation.

And more editing is needed: There are quite a few "facts" and statements for which no source is provided (and could properly be tagged), there may be content problems, and there may be some issues of interpretation. Whatever you all do, please cite carefully, and completely. Don't be intimidated by "Harv", it is really very easy, just follow the many many examples. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Don4of4: In boldly converting Harv to named ref you undid some of my edits. Sorry, I don't concur with this, so I have reverted. Discuss? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wealth of Nations" banned in France?

I doubt that the banned books website is a reliable source here. I'm pretty sure it was never banned in the UK. There were British authorities who didn't think much of its ideas, but by the late 18th century the threshhold for banning books was too high for banning it. I haven't found any evidence that it was ever banned in France. It was banned by the Spanish Inquisition, but only in its French edition, and that was for advocating religious tolerance. Certainly Smith could not have been banned in Colbert's time, as Colbert was long dead when W of N was published. I am therefore removing that sentence that claims Smith was banned in France. I trust that if anybody puts it back in he will have a better and more detailed source to justify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbickner (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Nor was any showing of how that little factoid was relevant to the topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Intro, another try

The first two sentences on Mercantilism from econlib.org: "Mercantilism is economic nationalism for the purpose of building a wealthy and powerful state. Adam Smith coined the term “mercantile system” to describe the system of political economy that sought to enrich the country by restraining imports and encouraging exports." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

The current intro jumps over the basic aspect of the philosophy as described by Adam Smith to raise details that are secondary and should not be in the intro, as follows:

"Mercantilism is the economic doctrine that government control of foreign trade is of paramount importance for ensuring the military security of the country." The need for government control is not generally considered the primary tenet of mercantilism.

"In particular, it demands a positive balance of trade." This should be re-worded along the lines of: "Mercantilism is an economic doctrine based on the theory that a nation benefits by accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of manufactured goods."

"Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[1]" Defining the period during which "mercantilism" dominated "Western European" policy is controversial. The basic mercantilist principles of striving for natural resource imports and manufactured goods exports still dominate economic policy today, according to opponents of the WTO who have blocked the progress of the WTO Doha talks for the past 12 years.

"Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars in that time and motivated colonial expansion." The desire to obtain natural resources, not "mercantilism," motivated the expansion which also drove the wars.

"Mercantilist theory varied in sophistication from one writer to another and evolved over time." This is true of every doctrine and should be removed from the article.

"Favours for powerful interests were often defended with mercantilist reasoning." This is true of every doctrine and should be removed from the article. Jdkag (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate what you have done in the introduction; it's much better now. I look forward to seeing what else you do. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Gautier lebon: per WP:CITEVAR please conform to the established citation style here by putting your newly added references into the "References" section, and linking with {{Harv}} style short-cites. Ask if you need assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I gave it a try, please let me know if anything else is needed.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you for your attempt. There are, however, some aspects that we should discuss. E.g., when citing encyclopedias "|last1= editors |first1= Encyclopedia Britannica" is not right. (The last name of the author is not "editors", etc.) One way of handling this to use the {{cite encyclopedia}} template. (See WP:Citing sources#Examples.) I think {{citation}} is better, but before we get any deeper into the details of citation: would prefer to continue this at your User_talk:Gautier lebon#How references work?

  Another thing is the "in-line" citation — i.e., the "short cite" that links to the "full reference" (or "full citation") in the References section. Here we use {{Harv}} templates. (Use of an external link for this is not proper!). There is a complication regarding unsigned sources (such as most encyclopedia articles), but there is bigger problem; read on.

  In general secondary sources should be used instead of tertiary sources (such as encyclopedias). So you might want to see if you can find any secondary sources that would cover the material you added. In this case it seems to me there might be some POV problems (e.g., "promoted government regulation" and "for the purpose of augmenting state power"). This is verging into a different topic; I mention it because you might want to dump the EB citation for some others. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear JJ, thanks for this. I think it is better to continue the discussion here. Regarding the formatting, I confess that this article is using templates that I am not familiar with. Perhaps another editor who is familiar with those templates could clean up the citation format? Regarding which source to use, it seems to me that the Britannica is acceptable as cited, based on wp:ps. I looked up "mercantilism" in Wikipedia and noticed that the definition was partial, so I looked up other sources and found Britannica. It seems to me that it is authoritative enough for the task at hand. Regarding the substance of the definition, I don't understand your reference to POV. The Britannica definition corresponds to what the body of the article (and its citations) say. But if there are better definitions/citations then of course they should be used instead.--Gautier lebon (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Your link (presumably you meant WP:PS) is essentially the same place I linked to, which starts by saying: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias, can be useful where they summarize a multitude of primary and secondary sources, but they are also less authoritative. And they can also be prone to bias and non-neutral points of view. I question the EB POV because it seems more colored than what I recall from reading some of the source documents many years ago. Wherefore I think it ought to be checked against some secondary sources. Unfortunately the EB doesn't list its sources (they didn't have WP as a role model :-), but fortunately there are plenty of secondary sources available. I think a review would be in order.

  Note also that no source should be accepted just because it corresponds to what the rest of the article says. That sources are in agreement is a consideration, but the sources should stand on their own merits, and the article reflect the collective view of the sources.

  I'll break out a sub-section for discussing the details of citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Details of citations

I start by pointing out that there is a lot variance in how citations are done on Wikipedia, and a LOT of strong opinions on how it should be done. What I am going to provide here are my recommendations for doing citations on this article, as has been established. (Not that every instance is accordant.) Insert questions at any point that is unclear.

• As you have already noted, quotations and other material must be cited to the source "in-line", meaning either in the text itself (with or without parentheses), or in a note ("footnote") created in the text using the <ref>...</ref> tags.

• Every source should have a full citation (or full reference) giving the fullest possible bibliographic details (to aid in both uniquely identifying and locating the source). A mere url is not acceptable. Often these are included in the note; here they are collected in the "References" section.

• In the text (or a note) we use a short cite to link to the full citation. These are created using some form of a {{Harv}} template. ("Harv" is the name of the template family, distinct from the citation style known as Harvard referencing.) A Harv template typically takes the last name of the author or authors (maximum of four) and the year of publication as parameters. E.g.: {{Harvnb|Smith|Jones|Miller|Wang|2002}}. It creates what is called a CITEREF to link to the full citation. (And the beauty of all this is that it is done automagically.) It will also take a |p=, |pp=, or |loc= parameter to specify the location of the material within the source.

• This automagical linkage requires that the full citation be done in a template, typically either {{citation}} or from the {{cite xxx}} family. For the most part they use the same parameters to the same effect. One advantage of {{citation}} is that it automatically creates the corresponding CITEREF (provided the parameters are properly used); {{cite xxx}} requires an additional parameter.

• Proper parameters: |last1= should be the "last" part of the author's name (by which it is indexed), and |first1= all the rest. (Increment the number for each author.) There is a similar |editor-last= and |editor-first= for editors.

• Proper parameters: |author= is mainly for corporate authors, etc., that lack "first-last" structure.

• Proper parameters |title= is usually the title of the book, article in a journal, or (if using {{citation}}) encyclopedia. For chapters (or contributions) in a book, or articles in an encyclopedia use |chapter=. See WP:Citing sources#examples for many more parameters.

• Unsigned articles (no author), such as in an encyclopedia can be a problem, as we have to create an alternate CITEREF. This can be a little tricky, but don't worry about. If you have otherwise adequate templates (Harv and Citation) I will fix them up for you.

Hopefully that adequately covers the main points. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mercantilism" falsely attributed to Smith

I fixed that, but I can't find a suitable citation for Mirabeau's use of it, nor can I find whether his use had its current meaning (some of the oldest uses of "mercantilism" don't), nor am I certain that Mirabeau coined the term, although I think he did.Jdbickner (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

French mercantilism

Reading the intro section I can't help but think that the last paragraph about France and its mercantilist policies is both confused and unnecessary in its current context. However, I hesitate to remove it and defer to the expertise of others more versed in the theory and its history. Hypnopompus (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy Writing?

"Mercantilism is an economic theory and practice, dominant in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century"

Maybe either: "Mercantilism is an economic theory and practice, dominant in Europe from the 16th century to the 18th century"

Or: "Mercantilism is an economic theory and practice, dominant in Europe from the 16th to 18th centuries"

"Historically, such policies frequently lead to war and also motivate colonial expansion." "Historically, such policies frequently lead to war and also motivated colonial expansion." Xkit (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)