Common Sense and The Failure of Mercantilism

Thomas Paine Argues for Political and Economic Independence.

2 Comments
Join the Conversation
American Flag - Elvis Santana
American Flag - Elvis Santana
Through the lens of American capitalism, Thomas Paine recognizes the economic deficiencies of Great Britain and mercantilism.

Long before Thomas Paine set sail to America in late 1774, the colonists had grown accustomed to doing things their way, and their way worked, especially with respect to doing business.

England was a mercantilist nation and mercantilists held that wealth was a zero sum game: in order for one entity to gain wealth, another must lose an equal amount. To carry the idea a little further, if the state wished to gain wealth, its citizens must sacrifice their own.

By law, colonists weren't allowed to manufacture goods on their own but were required to ship raw materials to England where the goods were manufactured then shipped back to the colonies to be purchased. In this narrowly focused arrangement, British monarchs could not forsee the influence of capitalism. In Common Sense, Paine stated that the colonies had grown more vibrant than George III wished them to be. "To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us?"

Capitalism in the American Colonies

By the late 1700s colonists were bred to be independent. Great Britain's distance from the American shores, and her interests in India, Nova Scotia and the Caribbean, as well as continuing scuffles with France and Spain, made enforcement of mercantilism on the colonists nigh impossible. These upstarts manufactured their own goods, owned their own land, grew their own food, traded freely with one another and with other countries, and prospered tremendously. (The Wealth of a Nation to Be, Alice Hanson Jones; Colombia University Press, 1980)

Capitalism was creating wealth in the colonies, a situation that a war weary and cash strapped Great Britain could not allow. A series of laws intended to gain control of the colonies and their prosperity, including the infamous Stamp Act of 1765, managed to do little more than turn an already independent-minded people into an independence leaning people.

Unavoidable Rebellion

Using the death of 93 colonial militia at Lexington and Concord as a fulcrum, Paine levered his argument toward rebellion. "No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775..."

Convinced that reconciliation was no longer possible, Paine laments Britain's interest in its own well being before that of its colonial holdings. Whether that is a reasonable argument may be of some debate, but Paine's attitude reveals the truth that once men have tasted independence, the softest oppression irritates the soul as much as iron chains irritate the skin. For Paine, there was no turning back. To reconcile would mean the destruction of a way of life that the world had not yet known. "Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related."

This, ladies and gents, is Bill Scherer, Shelly Scherer

Bill Scherer - Bill Scherer has written for RingSports.com and TigerBoxing.com, enjoyed a stint as the Managing Editor for FightTube.tv and is a United ...

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 2+9?

Comments

Oct 26, 2010 1:44 PM
Guest :
its informative thanks!
Jul 24, 2011 6:14 AM
Guest :
The United States has not had a current account surplus since 1975. We have not had a trade surplus with Japan since April, 1976. We have been in deficit with the EU since 1983. We have run trade deficits with both Russia and China for more than 20 years. How did America go from being the largest creditor nation in 1975 to the largest debtor nation by the end of the 1980's? To understand what has happened one must go back in time. Prior to 1860 much of the Western World practiced Mercantilism. After 1860, led by Great Britain, Mercantilism was abandoned in favor of the teachings of John Locke and the free trade principles of Adam Smith. Trade barriers throughout Europe came down. A great debate on economic policy took place in America. Lincoln for instance was a Mercantilist. For the next 110 years the Western World basically traded with itself. Good flowed across the Atlantic and trade disputes if they arose were generally settled quickly. By 1970 the world was changing. The post world war II era produced the eventual rise of Japan as an economic machine. Goods started to flow from Japan to the United States and to Europe. The problem was that goods were only flowing one way. America for instance was banned by Japan from selling rice or apples to Japanese consumers. While disputes like this in many industries were festering, Japan was quietly becoming a world power in automobile and electronics manufacturing. Auto's and electronics were exported out of Japan at an ever faster clip. By 1977 Japan was running steady trade surpluses with the United States and American politicians were raising alarms that Japan was simply practicing protectionism. What Japan was really doing is practicing a new form of Mercantilism which I have pegged, "Asian Mercantilism." Japan was more concerned with full employment in Japan than the loud voices of western politicians. By the late 1980's the United States and Europe were both running huge trade deficits with Japan. After 15 years of trade deficits America had found herself in the position of having gone from being the world's biggest creditor nation to being a debtor nation. The rise of China over the past 20 years has given the world another Japan but this time on steroids. If Japan practices Mercantilism then China practices Supra Mercantilism: Goods are exported, imports are controlled. The currency is massively controlled, not free floating. Production is favored over consumption. With a population of 1.5 billion China has been able to give Mercantilism a whole new dynamic. What we have in the world today are two competing economic models for prosperity. We have the Western model with relies on the system of Free Trade and we have the Asian system with relies on a super sized form of Mercantilism. We have the West running trade deficits and the Asians running trade surpluses. China, Japan, and South Korea are the producers of goods while Europe and America are the consumers. Who is winning the battle between Western Free Trade and Asian Mercantilism? Asia is clearly the winner. The question going forward needs to be how we reverse a trend that is leaving America and much of the western World indebted and economically broken. What the West now calls protectionism, the Asians call Mercantilism
2 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement