Talk:Mercantilism

This is far from complete, and I'll be working on it in the next few weeks, but I thought I should present my opinion of how this article should be structured before posting any more of it. I am of the opinion that Mercantilism should be dealt with first by region of origin, to explain the enormous differences between, say, anti-monopoly theories in Mesta-crushed Spain and pro-monopoly theories in Von Hornick's writings (focusing on the infant industry side of manufacturing in Austria). I believe it is quite possible to view Mercantilism as somewhat unified, or at least coherent, if it is broken down this way - pre-Liberalism in England, Cameralism in Germany, Colbertism in France, etc. This area ought to focus on the actual writings of the Mercantilists, rather than prevailing interpretations thereof. Room for opinions on Mercantilism can be made at the end, with some attempt at representation from each of the opinions: Ekelund's rent-seeking bureaucrats, Reinert's development theory, Hecksher and Viner's theory of, ah, misguidance, and perhaps Keynes' writings on the subject, as well. William Brand 13:26, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

I have added the paragraph on Mercantilist theory so that readers should get an early idea of what it is that the article discusses. (Also, I am somewhat concerned by the invitation to take the theory seriously that is implied by the statement that it is nowadays treated without bias by some economic historians. The link with Viner's critique is my very restrained way of putting that in perspective, and I am tempted to say more. Perhaps something by way of a professional assessment could be added as a concluding paragraph? )