Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercantilism/archive1

Mercantilism[edit]

Self nom. Another of my past works that I've recently tried to bring up to FA standards. It is a somewhat difficult subject to write about, since it is a very amorphous topic, but I feel this covers all the important areas. - SimonP 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good job an important piece of economic history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The efforts put in this article will pay off. This is simply superb!!! Ruennsheng
support~~Oppose~~. I agree about the fact that this article is very good. I am nevertheless missing some reference to mercantilism today. Neo-mercantilism redirect here and nothing is said in this article about this. In the discussion many comments appear about some wrong interpretation of mercantilism. I think the article should at least have a paragraph like "false or misleading understanding of mercantilism". I have also the feeling in many countries the press shows up the country's favourable trade balance as an absolute positive achievement of the governments. For example in Germany where I am living politicians are very proud Germany is the world export leader: isn't that a form of naive mercantilism? A very simple way to get rid of my opposition would be to add a preface saying what this article isn't about. But writing a short paragraph about this might even be better. Vb08:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually have an article on neomercantilism, and I have re-redirected neo-mercantilism there. I've also added a bit on the subject to this article. As mentioned in the legacy section modern concern with the balance of trade is a direct legacy of Keynes', and most economists (though certainly not all) do believe a positive balance of trade is a good thing.- SimonP 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object—Lots of potential, but needs an intensive edit first. Take, for example, the opening paragraph.
- Why does the eptithet 'total' qualify 'volume of trade' but not 'supply of capital', and are 'supply of capital' and 'amount of capital' different concepts? (If not, please use the same term for ease of comprehension.)
- Does 'encouraging exports' (partly) comprise a 'protectionist role', as currently stated?
- 'This economic policy, which flourished in the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century), based on mercantilism is often called the mercantile system.' Clumsy word order.
- 'Flourished'—this might be POV, since it assumes that mercantilism was on the whole beneficial, against the possibility that it inhibited economic activity.

I haven't read further yet; please fix it all up, and I think I'd enjoy the article. Tony 10:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've rewritten the intro. I'd almost wholly replaced the original one last night before posting it here, and it looks like I didn't take enough time to read through the new version. One item I left unchanged was that encouraging exports is protectionist, as this is generally accepted. For instance, the protectionist measures most discussed today are the American and European agricultural subsidies. Our protectionism article has a bit on this. - SimonP 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Apart from the somewhat clumsy explanation of Comparative Advantage (which maybe should be removed - there is a link anyway) I think this article explains clearly, succinctly and reasonably simply a relatively complex economic theory. It puts it into the historical context well, and describes both its initial appeal and its failings, without being POV by saying that people in the 17th Century were "stupid" or "naive" (cos they weren't). I have made a few, minor, correctiosn to spelling etc,and I support this nomination. Batmanand 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support--Pamri • Talk 03:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm impressed by the balance and thoroughness of this article. My compliments. Hydriotaphia 03:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good - but there's no external links... put in some and I'll support :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't a lot of good websites on this topic, but I added a couple links to primary sources that are available online. - SimonP 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent!!! Great job! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A masterpiece. Neutrality^talk 00:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object.~~ A number of sentences are ungrammatical:
To a certain extent mercantilist doctrine made a general theory of economics was impossible.

One group, represented by Jacob Viner, argues that mercantilism was simply a straightforward, commonsense system that the people of the time simply did not have the analytical tools to discover it was actually deeply fallacious.

Thus if Portugal specialized in wine and England in cloth and traded, both states would end up better off.
Overall, I feel the style could be improved. I would suggest considering instances of passive voice and extended prepositional constructions; some are appropriate and others might benefit from a rewrite. Basically, a careful edit is still required. --Michael Snow 21:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done another couple rounds of copyediting, and fixed the errors you pointed out. I'm pretty hopeless at picking out errors like these, so any others you can point out or correct would be appreciated. - SimonP
  - While fixing those, unfortunately you introduced another:
    Since creating domestic industries required an available supply of capital; the seventeenth century also saw a dramatic fall in interest rates.
  - Did you intend for the semicolon to become a comma? This sequence actually concerned me a little anyway before - it seems to suggest cause and effect, although not clear about which direction, and the connection is perhaps not adequately explained for a general reader without a grounding in the underlying economic principles. --Michael Snow 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've corrected and hopefully clarified that sentence. - SimonP 03:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's helpful. But did governments in this period really control interest rates to the extent the revised sentence now suggests? --Michael Snow 04:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes they did. For instance in England the interest rate was set by an Act of Parliament and was only moved every few decades. In the late 17th century, for instance, there was a long running debate over whether the interest rate should be lowered from 4% to 6%. John Locke's Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money, is a well known argument against lowering the rate from this period. These rules were essentially usury laws, putting a limit on the maximum legal rate of interest, but since the natural rate was considerably higher, they were effectively government imposed interest rates. - SimonP 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I tried to incorporate a little more of this context in the article. In any case, objection withdrawn at this point. --Michael Snow 16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support after seeing some of the issues mentioned here have already been addressed. A fine piece of work. KingTT 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! 172 | Talk 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as obviously, some copyediting has been done and issues are fixed. Great article. Mstroeck 08:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a slice of fried gold. Battle Ape 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with one Minor Objection-"This period saw the adoption of Machiavelli's amoral political science and the primacy of the raison d'état in international relations." Machiavelli has taken the rap for many things, but not Mercantilism. This is disputable as is use of the term "amoral", which also smacks of POV in my opinion.