Talk:Mercantilism

Mercantilism past/present
The focus on mercantilism as an obsolete economic policy (lead and elsewhere) is at odds with statements and references in 'Legacy' referring to active neomercantilism in recently-industrialized and industrializing states as recently as 2007. Accordingly I've changed tenses in a few places. I've also noted (though I can't cite a scholarly reference, only ephemeral news articles) the modern use of non-tariff barriers instead of the overt tariffs now discountenanced by the WTO. Given the current (2017) tensions between China and the rest of the world (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-11/u-s-says-wto-losing-its-essential-focus-as-trade-cases-build) on the subject, treating mercantilism as dead does nobody any favors. I didn't like to use the above as a citation because of its transient nature, but would welcome the addition of any more solid citation of modern mercantilism. Chrismorey (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Mercantilism is an economic system that was present between the 16th and the 18th century. The mercantilist dogma was revived by modern economists. Have a nice day!--Tim Stamper (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. when you say "modern economists"... do you mean Chinese economists, or EU economists. or Russian economists or North American economists or Frankfurt school economists or Austrian school economists? Who are you referring to in particular and what ideology do they subscribe to? I would appreciate more information on this matter, kind regards from UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.7.218 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (or anyone) My comprehension is that mercantilism was centered around raw materials and trade for basic real goods. It's tied to industrialization because those raw materials were used to fabricate all the new industrial machinery.  It had little relevance to the laborers (who didn't exist as a concept until mercantilism's downfall).  The financing tools we have today (that make up modern capitalism and are the primary focus for modern economics since the early 1900s) were nearly nonexistent or rarely used.  Yes? No?  It shares some, but very few, aspects with crony capitalism.  They both easily allow for abuse and corruption, as does communism.  Liberty5651 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I appreciate your ongoing interest on this topic! I will say that perhaps it is a certain type of economist (many European trained or trained in south/central America) that uses the words as synonyms, but it also seems to me that at least some of these economists recognize (rightfully) that what happens with a Mercantilist system is that you have a government that offers favors to some merchants and some traders over others, which in turn means there is a "market" for political favors etc. This in essence is what happens with a system of crony capitalism, where there are not adequate checks and balances (such as those offered potentially by a well structured constitutional republic) to maintain the capitalism minus the cronyism. This is why as I worded the lead sentence now, I think we are properly portraying both the reality, as well as the reality as it is presented by the cited secondary source. More here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th78blue (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I get what your saying. I won't say you're wrong.  I just think they are two different concepts (for lack of a better word).  Cronyism is a moral concept and Mercantilism is not.  It's budgetary.  It's the difference between having money and using it properly.  They're intrinsically related, but different subjects.  There are many currencies (rich or poor) and many different spending habits (good or bad).  One can apply morality to the budget, but not the other way around.  butthatsjustmeandivebeenwrongbeforeLiberty5651 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , I am glad that you see where I am coming from, and I will cede that I also see where you are coming from. I tried my best to address this by including what I still consider to be a valid synonym according to some leading economists, but also conditioning it by stating, "sometimes called, or labeled as similar to..." Hopefully this best addresses both of our concerns. Thanks! Th78blue (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that you included crony capitalism in the "see also" section. That seems about right; apropos. Yet, I'm still not sure it should be referenced in the opening sentence.  "Mercantilism" has been the name for the topic for centuries.  If nothing else, maybe the sentence should be written as "Mercantilism, what one man called crony capitalism..." to recognize that you're relying on only one source.Liberty5651 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to learn other people's opinions on my idea that Mercantilism is a budgetary concept and Crony Capitalism is a moral concept. Liberty5651 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If someone in an op-ed has equated Mercantilism with Crony Capitalism, we could maybe mention it further down, if it's due. However it should definitely not be in the lead, and in the way it was included. could you please stop reintroducing the change before any consensus about this is reached? BeŻet (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that this was discussed at length as you can see above. I'd ask that we consider further discussion and reach a new consensus about removing the material. Thanks Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 17:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This hasn't been discussed at length. This is a fairly new change that you made that has been contested multiple times, and above is just a very brief discussion between just two editors. It doesn't even make any exact statement about the lead. Please stop edit-warring until this change reaches a community consensus. BeŻet (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you please self-revert as you have broken the three revert rule and are engaging in an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I never undid your work, you undid mine, and I was simply reverting it back until consensus is reached. The source cited meets verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and of course, WP:OR is not at hand here since this is simply from the source. There are other sources too that I found, I will add those as well since this one seems to not be adequate. Please leave it for a bit while I find the other sources, plus I am working on another wikiproject today related to grammar and typos, so I may fix this tomorrow. Happy to continue discussing. I know this is not a one-off POV, but a fairly well established synonym among economists (crony capitalism and mercantilism and cronyism). Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but in that case I'm afraid I'll have to report you. BeŻet (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Once you are ready to discuss this, please do it here and present the sources that you base your view on. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Aztec Pochteca
What's the point of having the Aztec empire section in this article? I read through the section and the main article and can't find any connection to mercantilism at all. Maybe someone can find some source to indicate that the Aztec policies with their pochteca can be compared to mercantilism in the Western world but for now, there is no connection to be found in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonoParallax (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)