Mercantilism

Mercantilism is another word for greed. -- Pug Mahoney

   To academics, mercantilism went out with the writings of pioneer economist Adam Smith in the 18th Century.
   To many capitalists and politicians, however, mercantilism means that whoever has the most money at the end, wins. That seems to be the goal of government leaders in America today, as they try to dominate world trade by trying to arrange for U.S. businesses to sell stuff to other nations but prevent other nations trying to do business in America.
   The problem with the mercantile attitude is that when one side has all the money and the other has none, nobody wins, because trade stops.
   But trade is not a one-way deal. For a while, a clever dealer may dominate and gather all the profit to himself, but eventually he will run out of customers, either because they have no more money or because they resent the dealer's practices. Or both.
   Today's greed meisters, however, don't call what they do mercantilism. Rather, they appeal to patriotism and to the idea that a country's greatness depends entirely on winning. Which, to them, means that others must lose.
   Trade, however, be it local or international, means that each side must benefit. And when both sides benefit, trade continues and expands.
   But when one side becomes a perennial loser -- which is what some political leaders want -- that quickly leads to resentment and eventually to theft on a local scale and to war between nations.
   So which is the better strategy, winning at any cost and depriving others of any thing of value, or of mutual cooperation in trading so that both sides prosper?
   America today is being led down a primrose path of promises that prosperity depends on winning everything, and that all other nations must be losers in order for the U.S. to win.
   History shows that the consequence of such an attitude is economic depression, international warfare, or both.