Prof. Brian Domitrovic: How Mercantilism Started the American Revolution

preview_player
Показать описание
The British Empire’s mercantilist plan backfired — and led to the American Revolution. Video created with the Bill of Rights Institute to help students ace their exams.

This is the first video in a series of nine with Professor Brian Domitrovic, which aim to be a resource for students studying for US History exams, and to provide a survey of different (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints on key episodes in U.S. economic history. How do you think we did?

LEARN MORE:

TRANSCRIPT:

LEARN LIBERTY:
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор


Very clear and accurate. Good graphics. I will be passing this on to many.

MisesCelebrations
Автор

Wow, this is one of my old professors from SHSU! Good to see you here Dr. Domitrovic! Now I am using you in my AP World class!

DrJayMcLeeland
Автор

This was my economics teacher in college, an amazing teacher...I have no idea what he was saying but it was a blast.

Footballar
Автор

great vid, and superb sound. I appreciate when I can hear the message loud and clear

MagicSteel
Автор

Thank you... it was so comprehensive! God bless.

fatimarabab
Автор

Good info here, but there's a really important omission which can result in a serious misunderstanding. Adam Smith was an acquaintance of Charles Townshend (President of the Board of Trade and also Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1760s), and Smith wrote IN SUPPORT of taxing the Colonies to offset the tremendous expense of the French and Indian War (aka the Seven Years' War). Since Smith is cited here as a champion of Capitalism supplanting Mercantilism, I think it gives the opposite impression, that he also supported Colonial economic independence and opposed the Stamp Act, et al.

Before crediting Capitalism for America's success, one should first acknowledge that the Colonies were annexed from natives, established at great expense by the English, and torn away in violation of the law of the times in a Revolution which saw acts of terror and guerrilla warfare, sometimes directed at Colonists who remained loyal to England. Other nations' vulnerabilities were leveraged to buy and annex via pretext additional territory. Cheap labor was obtained through slavery for centuries. Even after the Civil War, property was doled out by the government for many decades (into the 1930s). Much industry was paid for through taxes and ration-adjusted supply and demand during times of war. In summary, not exactly Capitalism, but partly Capitalism, and many other things.

A lot of Economic History seems slanted (often unwittingly) in one way or another -- Communists want to emphasize class struggle over life-improving technical advances, Capitalists want to emphasize industrial progress and ignore the lives plowed under, etc. I find it most useful to sample many sources (including Smith and Marx and guys like Milton Friedman and Howard Zinn, plus fringier guys like the Austrians), and then you can try to apply critical thinking to come up with your own view. I think that they all make important and valid points.

druidmechanics
Автор

I really enjoyed this thank you. You were so clear and entertaining.

tishasanders
Автор

Which of the G’s was a driving force for mercantilism?

jakeshimizu
Автор

Could anyone distinguish between mercantilism and protectionism? I'm trying to understand the difference, if one exists.

tzuqbts
Автор

Mercantilism is a good policy, but British disregard for their colonies was not.

jdavid
Автор

Wasn't the caribbean Spanish by the 17's and 18's?

santworth
Автор

America should've declared independence, but much of the trade problems that America faces today revolve around very non-mercantilist notions. i.e. free trade promotes cheap labor of manufacturing, thus America has slightly fallen prey to almost this dutch disease notion of gutting one industry after another, sending them to China, Indonesia, Mexico or where have you, all in the name of cheaper goods. China on the other hand I would argue has a fairly mercantilist view. They export more than import. Foreign companies making profits in China have to keep the money in China. Every economy these days is a mix between mercantilist and capitalist policies. I think many presidents thought when they were exporting the notion of free markets, they'd also be promoting democracy globally. I'm not sure that's the lesson anyone has taken away from that. And we can crap on mercantilist notions... but... socialist China is acting in pretty mercantilist ways and from 1960-2020, they've had some of the fastest economic growth in the world, bar none, the soviet union... Germany... America... If you export $2 trillion and import $1 trillion... you have to lose an entire trillion somewhere else in the economy not to be making money... Exporter position is a good one to have.

jonathanmillner
Автор

I'm 3 units past the learning of mercantilism and I still use the word for fun. My teacher is also in on the joke. Whenever we have a kahoot, she always puts mercantilism as a choice just for my friend and I Davis.

rogainepahdilla
Автор

Wealth is finite. Wealth is not fixed. The limit changes, but it is never limitless.

justinhale
Автор

I think it would be cool to become a smuggler one day.

KeltorRochridge
Автор

One could argue it also ended the slave trade as opposed to do gooders from Exeter hall.

Britain likely realized much of the illicit trade that the Americans were conducting with the Dutch and Germans was for raw materials that were made by slaves.

Clearly the British setting up customs offices and loading British ships (therefore cutting the Dutch out) pissed off the Americans. No doubt the British would patrol the coasts to prevent illicit trade.

The quartering of soldiers for these purposes was likely only something rich people had to live with.

This is what led to direct open conflict with the Americans who were supplied with Dutch arms, french training &ct.

This obviously wasn't successful for the British so they began the long game and simply shifted to a strategy of eliminating the slave trade.

Slaves increased in price after this and no doubt production suffered due to women perhaps having to virtually stay pregnant to maintain the domestic market. It also became common to "rent" slaves.

In terms of American policy the British preferred non-expansion of slavery as in the case of Texas.

mightymulatto
Автор

The UK has gone from big government to small governemnt throughtout its history. The USA has (as far as i know) always been trending towards bigger government. The monarchy is what saves us, as we dont need an ever more powerful president every 8 years

WillandTony
Автор

"Invisible hand" is probably the most sullied word in the US. I Wonder if one simple American knows what Smith meant....

j-ffilion
Автор

Great Video. The key here is that you don't need "Government" regulation if you have "invisible hand" regulation. For Adam Smith and Conservatives and Libertarians today, the "invisible hand" is synonymous for "Christian God." This is why religion plays so heavily in Conservative economics.

In other words, when Smith used the term "invisible hand" he was thinking God would use his power to ensure people did the right thing. And the right thing was to do things as a "Christian" would.

georgiathlearningnetwork
Автор

What the point of mercantilism? You will end up with all the money and none of the ressources.

philguer
welcome to shbcf.ru