Mercantilism | An in-depth history of European imperial economics
Summary
TLDRIn 1621 London, Thomas Munn penned 'England's Treasure by Forraign Trade,' establishing mercantilism as a dominant economic theory for centuries. Mercantilism focused on achieving a positive trade balance and a heavily regulated domestic economy to strengthen national industries. It advocated for high tariffs, colonial exploitation, and state control over trade companies. However, by the 18th century, critics like Adam Smith challenged mercantilism, advocating for free trade and the benefits of competition. The theory's decline coincided with broader intellectual shifts towards economic liberalism and the rise of citizens' rights.
Takeaways
- π Thomas Mun's work during the early 17th century in London laid the foundation for mercantilism, an economic theory that would dominate Western economic thinking for centuries.
- π Mercantilism emerged as a response to economic depression caused by English manufacturers being out-competed by cheaper goods from India, particularly affecting the East India Trading Company.
- π‘ The core of mercantilism was the pursuit of a positive balance of trade, where exports exceeded imports, to strengthen national industries and increase government revenue through taxation.
- ποΈ Mercantilists advocated for a heavily regulated domestic economy to prevent overproduction and maintain a balance that would support national industries against foreign competition.
- π± The theory recognized the importance of agriculture for self-sufficiency and proposed state intervention to modernize farming practices and increase food production.
- π Mercantilism encouraged state support for industries through subsidies and favorable loans, aiming to create larger, more efficient companies that could compete internationally.
- π‘οΈ National trade companies, like the English East India Trading Company, were established with military and economic power to expand trade and enforce mercantilist policies.
- π Colonies were seen as extensions of the mother country's economy, sources of raw materials, and markets for manufactured goods, essential for maintaining a positive balance of trade.
- π₯ Mercantilism was closely tied to elitist views of society, where the common folk's economic aspirations were restricted for the perceived greater good of the nation.
- βοΈ Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' criticized mercantilism for its focus on gold and precious metals as measures of wealth and advocated for free trade as a means to mutual benefit.
- π The shift towards economic liberalism in the late 18th and 19th centuries, along with social and political changes, led to the decline of mercantilism as the dominant economic system.
Q & A
What was the economic situation in England in 1621 that led to the development of mercantilism?
-England in 1621 was experiencing a harsh depression due to English manufacturers being out-competed by cheap goods from India, leading to public ire directed at the East India Trading Company, which was seen as the main culprit of the crisis.
Who was Thomas Munn and what role did he play in the establishment of mercantilism?
-Thomas Munn was the director of the East India Trading Company. He played a pivotal role in the establishment of mercantilism by writing a work that not only saved the company's reputation but also laid down the first formulation of mercantilism, an economic stream that dominated Western economic thinking for nearly two centuries.
What were the two main pillars of early modern mercantile economics?
-The two main pillars of early modern mercantile economics were the establishment of a positive balance of trade and a heavily regulated domestic economy.
How did mercantilists view the relationship between trade and a nation's prosperity?
-Mercantilists believed that trade had the potential to enrich a country and make it stronger, but it could also harm a country's economy if not managed properly. They emphasized the need for a positive trade balance, where exports exceeded imports, to strengthen national industries and increase government revenue through taxation.
What was the mercantilist perspective on the influx of capital and its reinvestment?
-Mercantilists viewed the influx of capital as positive for a country, but only if the wealth was reinvested into the nation's industries. They were aware of the dangers of hoarding capital and believed that reinvestment was crucial for economic growth and competitiveness.
How did mercantilists analyze the downfall of Spain as an empire?
-Mercantilists analyzed the downfall of Spain by pointing out that the influx of gold and silver from its colonies led to skyrocketing prices, creating incentives to import cheaper products. They also noted that Spain's feudal system and the nobility's control over land prevented industrial innovation, leading to a reliance on exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods.
What strategies did mercantilist thinkers advocate for securing a positive balance of trade?
-Mercantilist thinkers advocated for high tariffs on imported goods, the creation of new laws and regulations to restrict foreign products, and the establishment of colonies to control territories for raw material production and as markets for domestic industrial products.
How did national trade companies like the East India Company contribute to mercantilism?
-National trade companies, such as the East India Company, contributed to mercantilism by receiving privileges and subsidies from their states to establish and maintain trade that would benefit their mother countries. They also had military might to enforce trade and protect their interests.
What was the mercantilist view on domestic market competition and how did they propose to regulate it?
-Mercantilists viewed competition in the domestic market as detrimental to economic growth, leading to inefficiencies and higher wages. They proposed heavy regulation, including special privileges for factory owners and state control over guilds, to prevent over-competition and ensure industries could compete internationally.
How did mercantilists approach agriculture in relation to national prosperity?
-Mercantilists believed that a nation's agriculture needed to be self-sufficient to avoid jeopardizing the balance of trade. They advocated for state intervention to merge landlots into larger arable areas, allowing for innovation in agricultural production and increasing the nation's food production and workforce.
What were the underlying ideological streams associated with mercantilism?
-The underlying ideological streams associated with mercantilism included elitism, viewing the common folk as needing guidance from the rational elite; the state society idea, where different social classes had predetermined roles; and realism in foreign affairs, viewing international relations as a zero-sum competition.
Outlines
π The Emergence of Mercantilism
In 1621 London, Thomas Munn writes about the economic depression caused by English manufacturers being out-competed by cheap Indian goods. Munn, as the director of the East India Trading Company, fights to clear the company's name and writes a work that not only saves the company but also lays the foundation for mercantilism, an economic theory that would dominate Western economic thinking for centuries. Mercantilism's history is complex, as the term wasn't used by its proponents, and its practices may have predated its theory. The early 17th century is considered the starting point for mercantilism, influencing the economic policies of many European states. The theory focuses on establishing a positive balance of trade and heavily regulating the domestic economy. Trade was seen as a means to enrich a nation, but only if exports exceeded imports, leading to a strong industry and higher taxes for the government.
ποΈ Mercantilism and the Fall of Spain
Mercantilist economics is often mischaracterized as focusing solely on accumulating capital and precious metals. However, mercantilists believed that capital influx was beneficial only if reinvested into industries. They analyzed the downfall of Spain, which despite its vast colonial empire, suffered from high prices due to an influx of gold and silver, leading to a reliance on imported goods. Mercantilists criticized Spain's feudal system and the nobility's control over land, which stifled industrial innovation. Spain's situation was paradoxical, being a colony in all but name to other European powers, exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods. Mercantilists advocated for policies like high tariffs on imports and the creation of laws to protect domestic industries, such as the English Navigation Act of 1651. They also supported the establishment of colonies and national trade companies to control trade and production, with companies like the English East India Trading Company amassing significant military power.
π οΈ Domestic Regulation and State Intervention
Mercantilists believed in state intervention to protect and strengthen domestic industries. They opposed free markets, fearing that competition would lead to inefficiencies and high wages, undermining the ability to compete internationally. To ensure a positive balance of trade, mercantilists advocated for high tariffs on imports and regulations to restrict the import of foreign products. They also supported the creation of colonies to control the production of raw materials and the sale of manufactured goods. National trade companies played a crucial role in this strategy, receiving state subsidies and privileges to maintain beneficial trade relations. Mercantilists also emphasized the need for state regulation of domestic industries, including the number of factory owners and the control of guilds, to prevent overproduction and ensure the reinvestment of capital into technological improvements and production efficiency.
πΎ Agriculture and Self-Sufficiency
Agriculture was an important aspect of mercantilist thought, as a nation's ability to feed itself was crucial for self-sufficiency and a positive balance of trade. Mercantilists argued for the consolidation of land to create larger, more efficient farms that could adopt new technologies and increase food production. This would, in turn, support a larger workforce and enable the state to mobilize more resources. Mercantilism's focus on the state's power and prosperity often led to the secondary consideration of workers' well-being, with some even suggesting that the working class's poverty was necessary for national strength. The concept of work specialization was also important, with mercantilists advocating for clear divisions between economic sectors to ensure efficiency and prevent the dilution of expertise.
ποΈ Elitism and the Critique of Mercantilism
Mercantilist thought was closely tied to elitist views of society, where the nobility and wealthy were seen as rational and capable of guiding the nation's long-term interests, while the common folk were regarded as greedy and prone to irrational impulses. Mercantilists believed that the state should restrict the economic aspirations of the common people for the greater good. The idea of a state society, where different classes had predetermined roles, was also a key part of mercantilism. However, by the mid to late 18th century, mercantilism began to face criticism, with economists like Adam Smith arguing for free trade and the benefits of specialization. The heavy regulations and privileges granted to certain industrialists were seen as corrupt and not truly beneficial to the nation. As the 18th century progressed, the intellectual currents that supported mercantilism began to wane, with the rise of economic liberalism and the idea of universal rights for citizens, leading to a shift away from mercantilist policies.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Mercantilism
π‘Balance of Trade
π‘National Trade Companies
π‘Colonies
π‘Economic Regulation
π‘Adam Smith
π‘Realism
π‘Elitism
π‘State Society
π‘Work Specialization
π‘Agriculture
Highlights
Thomas Mun, in 1621, wrote a work that saved the East India Trading Company and established the first formulation of mercantilism.
Mercantilism was not a term used by its associated thinkers and its practices predated the theory.
The rise of modern states led to increased state control over trade and industry.
Mercantilism is best traced back to the early 17th century as a coherent economic thought stream.
Mercantilism focused on achieving a positive balance of trade and heavily regulating domestic economy.
A positive trade balance meant exports exceeded imports, strengthening national industries.
Mercantilists advocated for the reinvestment of capital into national industries rather than hoarding.
Spain's colonial wealth led to high prices and import reliance, illustrating mercantilist concerns.
Mercantilists supported high tariffs on imports and regulations to limit foreign competition.
Colonies were seen as sources of raw materials and markets for manufactured goods.
National trade companies like the East India Company were used to extend state power and trade.
Mercantilists believed in state regulation to prevent overproduction and maintain industry profitability.
Agriculture was considered as important as industry for national prosperity and self-sufficiency.
Mercantilists argued for land consolidation to improve agricultural efficiency and food production.
Work specialization was seen as crucial for economic efficiency in mercantilist thought.
Mercantilism was tied to elitist views, where the common folk's desires were to be controlled for national good.
Mercantilists were influenced by realism in foreign affairs, viewing international relations as zero-sum.
Adam Smith criticized mercantilism for misunderstanding the nature of wealth and the benefits of free trade.
Critics argued mercantile policies led to corruption and did not actually benefit the nation.
The rise of economic liberalism and universal rightsηεΏ΅ contributed to the decline of mercantilism.
Transcripts
london
1621
in the light of a lonely candle thomas
munn hastily scribbles away at the white
pages
england is in the midst of a harsh
depression brought on by english
manufacturers being out-competed by
cheap goods from india
enraged by this state of affairs the ire
of the english public is aimed at what
is thought to be the crisis main culprit
the east india trading company
as the company's director
moon is in a desperate struggle to clear
his name as well as that of the
cooperation and in doing so he writes a
work which not only manages to save the
company but in which he establishes the
first formulation of an intellectual
stream that would come to dominate
western economic thinking for nearly two
centuries
mercantilism the economics of empires
[Music]
the immediate problem one runs into when
writing a history or mercantilism is
that it's not really obvious where to
begin
the term itself was never used by any of
the people it's associated with and one
could also argue that a mercantile
economic practice existed before the
existence of any sort of mercantile
theory
as usual we will try to tackle the
history of mercantilism by trying to
place it within its historical
background
trade craftsmanship and industry have
been domains that for most of western
history have been under strict
regulations
as europe entered into the high middle
ages at the turn of the millennia the
right to carry out trade or
craftsmanship such as smitting or
tanning was often restricted to a
special sort of people living in the
cities
this way the people with the right
privileges could avoid unwanted
competition while the crown could
control and tax trade more easily
with the rise of the modern state
the power of europe's monarchs gradually
started to increase
and with it the fingers of the state
grew deeper into europe's early modern
economies
since trade and industry to some degree
always had been regulated since the
middle ages it's not easy to draw a
clear line from when mercantilism is
supposed to have emerged
however while the line may be blurry i
think the best time to point to the
establishment of what traditionally have
been seen as mercantilism is in the
early 17th century since this is the age
when i think we can truly speak about a
somewhat coherent stream of thought that
can be called mercantilism
it is also from the early 17th century
forward that this stream of thought
starts to heavily affect the economic
policy of many early modern european
states
so what was this dream of thinking and
what effect did it have on early modern
european economic history
early modern mercantile economics was
centered around two main pillars which
were heavily intertwined the
establishment of a positive balance of
trade and a heavily regulated domestic
economy
trade and its effect on a nation's
prosperity was a primary interest among
early modern mercantile thinkers
trade has the potential to enrich a
country and make it stronger but at the
same time it can also harm a country's
economy and thus be a detriment
in order for trade to enrich a nation
the land needs to have a positive trade
balance in which the country's exports
are higher than its imports
if this is the case the nation's
industries will be strong
and able to make more profit that can be
taxed by the government if the balance
of trade is negative however
the land's industries will be weakened
and eventually out-competed with money
and capital flowing out across the
borders into foreign countries
this attitude towards foreign trade has
often been characterized as booleanism
that is defining a country's wealth
based on the amount of capital and
precious metals it's able to accumulate
that is however a mischaracterization of
mercantilist economics
very few if any early modern mercantile
thinkers defined a nation's wealth this
way and many of them were well aware of
the dangers of hoarding capital
to the mercantilists the influx of
capital was something a country should
aim for
yet it was only considered a positive
provided that the wealth was reinvested
into the nation's industries
something that clearly manifested in the
mercantilist's analysis of the downfall
of one of early modern europe's greatest
empires
spain
through its exploration and colonization
of the new world spain had established
an expansive overseas empire from which
mountains of gold and silver were
shipped back to the mother country
something that many mercantile thinkers
were quick to point out ultimately would
not be to spain's benefit
the influx of precious metals caused
spanish prices to skyrocket which in
turn created incentives to import
cheaper products from abroad
in addition did many mercantile thinkers
also recognize that spain's static
feudal system made it next to impossible
for spanish industries to flourish
since its founding
spain like several other early modern
countries was an absolute monarchy
in which the power of the king in theory
was absolute
in practice however
this state of affairs came with a heavy
price
for in order to have its power
recognized by the spanish elite
namely the spanish nobility
the crown had to swear to protect the
nobilities rights and privileges
this resulted in large swaths of the
country being owned by aristocrats who
prefer to use the land as rental income
for serfs and tenant farmers the
aristocrats use of the land made spain
more prone to export raw material like
wool and agricultural products rather
than invest resources into industrial
innovation since such investments could
give rise to a strong middle class that
would threaten the nobility's hegemony
this state of affairs created a rather
bizarre situation
in which spain possessed europe's
largest colonial empire while at the
same time practically being a colony in
relation to europe's other powers
a poor
underdeveloped country that exported
sheep raw material while importing
expensive manufactured goods from its
rivals
something that is frustratingly
reflected in the words of a 17th century
spanish mercantile thinker
in order to secure a positive balance of
trade mercantile thinkers shunned the id
of free markets and instead advocated
for high tariffs on imported goods
as well as for the creation of new laws
and regulations to make it harder for
merchants to import foreign products
an example of such a law was the english
navigation act of 1651 which among other
things prohibited foreign merchants from
selling goods in british harbors that
were not from their home countries
creating a situation in which french
merchants only were allowed to import
french goods while dutch merchants only
were allowed to import goods from the
netherlands
another strategy that several european
powers used to improve their balance of
trade was by seizing foreign land in
america and the east indies by
establishing colonies
through acquiring colonies countries
like england and holland controlled
territories that they could force to
specialize in producing raw material
like cotton and sugar to sell to their
mother countries while at the same time
functioning like foreign markets to
which the motherland's industries could
sell their industrial products
a tool that several early modern states
used to establish and maintain colonies
as well as trade with distant countries
was national trade companies such as
east india companies and african
companies
these trading companies received
considerable privileges as well as
subsidies from their respective states
to establish and maintain trade with
distant countries that would be to the
benefit of their mother country
unlike modern corporations the mission
of early modern trading companies was
not simply to conduct trade
but also if necessary to force foreign
states to partake in it
this is well reflected in the sheer
military might that some of these
companies manage to amass
the most notable example being the
english east india trading company which
at the height of its power in the late
18th century is estimated to have
possessed a military force numbering
around two hundred thousand
[Music]
in order to create a positive balance of
trades mercantile thinkers thought that
it's not only necessary to protect
domestic production but that it's also
necessary for the state to take measures
to strengthen the nation's industries
in modern economic thinking competition
between different corporations is
generally thought to be positive for
economic growth since competition
incentivizes innovation and efficiency
this is a view that few mercantile
thinkers shared
instead of viewing competition as a
boost to economic growth a free domestic
market was believed to lead to the
creation of many small companies that
all would be too inefficient to be
profitable
due to an imbalance between the amount
of employers and employees
if a town for example had too many
factories the mercantilists argued that
it would lead to a situation that would
enable workers to demand higher salaries
which the mercantilists in turn thought
would lead to domestic industries being
unable to undercut foreign competition
and thus be unable to make profit
to avoid this situation mercantilist
thinking prescribed that the nation's
economy
needs to be heavily regulated especially
when it came to the number of factory
owners in each town and in each industry
this led many early modern states to
create special privileges that were
required to run a factory in a certain
industry in addition did many states
also give out favorable loans and
subsidies to the country's
industrialists with the intention that
the money would be invested in the
business
with a regulated market and great sums
of capital the mercantilists argue that
the land's factory owners would be able
to invest in better technology and learn
how to improve production in a way that
was needed to compete with foreign
competitors
in addition to having industries
regulated mercantile thinkers also
argued that the nation's guilds needed
to come under the control of state
regulation which led to the creation of
several new laws controlling the amount
of guild masters and apprentices allowed
by the state
beyond the guilds and the industries
early modern mercantile thinkers were
also interested in agriculture
unless a nation's agriculture produces
enough food to feed the country it would
need to import food from other countries
which in turn would jeopardize a
country's self-sufficiency as well as be
negative for the balance of trade
something that mercantilists could not
tolerate
while mercantile thinking primarily was
focused around industries there always
existed some interest in agriculture
which would become particularly strong
in the 18th century
it needs to be noted that the
relationship between industries and
agriculture was not one of mutual
exclusion
since mercantilism mainly was prevalent
prior to the industrial revolution there
never existed any question regarding
whether a country primarily should be an
industrial or an agricultural country
both industries and agriculture were
needed for a country to be prosperous in
mercantile economics
since the middle ages european
agriculture had primarily been focused
on self-sufficiency
which meant that most farmers mainly
grew crops to sustain themselves and pay
taxes
while some agricultural products were
sold on the market the system can hardly
be considered commercial agriculture
in order to change this
some mercantile thinkers argued that the
state should work to merge the landslots
distributed among the peasants into
large arable land areas that could be
run by fewer people who would be able to
innovate the agricultural production by
adopting new farming technologies
this would in turn increase the nation's
food production which in turn will
increase the nation's workforce as well
as strengthen the state by enabling it
to mobilize more resources and recruit
larger armies which in many ways is the
end goal of mercantilism
when mercantile thinkers thought of a
nation being rich and prosperous they
mainly referred to the prosperity of the
state in terms of its ability to
dominate and protect itself against
other states
the well-being of workers and the common
folk was secondary for most mercantile
thinkers and some even went so far as to
claim that the poverty of the working
class was a requirement for a country to
be powerful
a final aspect of mercantile domestic
policy that i think is relevant to bring
up is that of work specialization
in order for the different economic
sectors in society like agriculture and
manufacturing to be efficient mercantile
thinkers argued that they needed to
focus on different things and not tread
outside their designated fields
this tendency became prevalent in
several european countries in the 18th
century and especially when it came to
the relationship between cities and the
countryside in the middle ages and much
of the early modern period many european
cities had owned the farmland
surrounding the city in order to make
sure that the city would be able to feed
its inhabitants
in similar fashion did most farmers
conduct
minor craftsmanship during the winter
months when they didn't need to work in
the fields like creating their own tools
and suing their own clothes
this state of affairs angered many 18th
century mercantile thinkers who
condemned the common folks multitasking
for preventing work specialization in
the economy and thus being a detriment
to the nation
while there wasn't any way to outlaw the
farmer's home craft the mercantilists in
some countries were able to affect the
city's agricultural production
example of this is the swedish
government which in the 18th century
prohibited its cities from purchasing
new farmland to support themselves when
they expanded
[Music]
while trade and domestic economics are
important subjects to understand
mercantilism in order to fully get a
sense of the mercantile rationale in the
context of early modern europe it's
necessary to cover some of the
underlying ideological streams of
thought that mercantile economics is
associated with
as you probably have noticed did many
mercantile thinkers view workers and the
common folk very unsympathetically
a man working in a factory should
according to the mercantilists not be
given the opportunity to argue for
better wages or be able to start his own
company
nor should he be allowed to save money
by producing his own food and
necessities this unsympathetic view
towards ordinary people is closely tied
to the elitist views of society that
dominated large parts of europe
throughout the early modern period
common people such as peasants and
workers are generally seen as simple
greedy and naturally inclined to act on
irrational impulses at expense of their
nation
the elite on the other hand which is to
say the nobility and the wealthy burgess
are in contrast instead thought of as
rational virtuous well-educated and able
to see the greater picture and thus able
to prioritize the country's long-term
interests
in order for a country to be prosperous
the ill-guided will of the common folk
needed to be curbed by the elite and if
the elite left the commoners to their
own devices it was generally thought to
lead to disarray and disaster
similarly to how a young child would
hurt both itself as well as the people
around it if left without the guidance
of good parents
as such the economic aspirations of the
common folk were seen by the
mercantilists as something that needed
to be restricted by the state for the
greater good of the nation
another prominent id that mercantile
economics was closely tied to was the id
of the state society
that is to say the idea that different
people have different tasks in society
that are determined by their social
class which they accept in the rare
circumstances are born into
this is especially reflected in how the
mercantilists emphasized that only
certain people should have the right to
become factory owners
similarly to how only some people were
allowed to be nobles or guild members
the last and according to me
usually least emphasized ideological
stream associated with mercantile
thinking is that of the foreign affairs
theory called realism
the theory dates back to at least the
5th century bc and while it did not
become an officially formulated theory
until the 20th century it is well
reflected in much early modern political
writing
in this view of international relations
the global system is characterized by
anarchy with different states competing
against each other for power and
survival in such an environment any sort
of transaction is zero sum and there is
no room for peaceful cooperation
the way this thinking corresponds well
to mercantilism is in the way
mercantilists emphasize that trade and
economics is zero sum
if one actor wins on a transaction the
other must necessarily be worse off
while the principles of mercantilism
would be unchallenged in european
economic thinking throughout most of the
early modern era mercantile economics
would not reign supreme forever
by the mid to late 18th century there
started to emerge a growing stream of
criticism
towards the mercantile system with many
people arguing that it had several
severe shortcomings
the most famous of these critics was the
18th century economist adam smith who in
his famous book wealth of nations
gave sharp criticism against mercantile
economic thinking
his first critique which is actually a
misunderstanding of mercantile economics
is that the nation's wealth is not
measured by its amount of gold and
precious metals
but by its amount of goods and products
as pointed out in our coverage of the
mercantilists analysis of spain is this
something that the mercantilists did not
believe
though it's understandable why smith
would think this given the
mercantilist's heavy emphasis on the
influx of capital and a positive balance
of trade
the way smith would associate
mercantilism with bullionism would stick
however and has been part of the
understanding of mercantilism within
intellectual history until the late 20th
century
smith's second critique on mercantilism
is that trade between different
countries is not a zero-sum game but
something that will benefit both parties
free trade smith argued would lead to
countries specializing in different
things which will lead to all countries
receiving more goods and thus be
wealthier this is a critique that smith
was not alone in
similar critiques were given by many
18th century economists who pointed out
that heavy tariffs and harsh
restrictions on foreign merchants led
many countries industries to not having
enough people to sell their goods to
since the tariffs led to fewer trade
ships deciding to dock in foreign
harbors
one final critique given to the
mercantile economic system was that the
heavy regulations and the generous
benefits given to a select few
industrialists did not actually benefit
the country but instead was a sign of
corruption
many economic thinkers as well as
politicians argued that the system of
privileges and benefits seldom was given
out with the intention to improve the
country but instead functioned as a way
for corrupt politicians to benefit their
associates as the 18th century passed
into the 19th century the crowd of
critics grew and with revolutionary
transformative events like the
industrial revolution
the french revolution and the napoleonic
wars
the old mercantile economic system came
to give way to economic liberalism both
on an intellectual level as well as in
practice
not only did the critics give skating
critiques to the outcome of mercantile
economics but they also think an
important factor to the fall of
mercantilism is the gradual collapse of
the intellectual currents it's
associated with the late 18th and early
19th century did not simply see the rise
of economic liberalism but also the rise
of the idea that ordinary people are
citizens with universal rights and that
citizens have a right to have a say in
the affairs of state
rather than simply being subjects whose
desires should be controlled by the
state
in such an intellectual climate it's
much harder to argue that some people
should have the legal right to own a
factory like it would have been
throughout most of the early modern
periods
you
Browse More Related Video
What is Mercantilism? | International Business | From A Business Professor
How to Enrich a Country: Free Trade or Protectionism?
Pasar Bebas (Pengertian, Ciri, Tujuan, Dampak, Kelebihan dan Kekurangan)
EL LIBERALISMO ECONΓMICO en minutos
Liberalism, Mercantilism, and Political Economy
Trans-Atlantic TRADE [APUSH Unit 2 Topic 4] 2.4
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)