Aztec and Inca mercantilism

Aztec and Inca empires were very rich in precious metals. Have they survived European contact, could they have adopted a mercantilistic economy to become two of the most powerful states in the world, if not the most? Thank you.
 
Wouldn'the they have required ocean-going ships to practice mercantilism????
Incas were richer than Aztecs.
Portugal was a party to Treaty of Tordesillas. France was not, and often waged war against Spain.
If Aztecs have a port on Mexican Gulf, and receive French ships there, what would be the terms of trade?
 
This is a question that needs either a 5 page answer or a 5 word answer. The 5 words are "not a chance in hell".

I am not really qualified to answer this not being an economic historian but with that caveat here goes:

Mercantilism is an insulting term invented in the 18thC to describe the previous practices of European states from about 1550 on wards. Definitions vary but the main idea was that the total wealth of the world was fixed (presumably by God) and equal to all possible productive land plus all the gold and silver. Thus in order to increase the wealth of a state one must expand agriculture into waste land, conquer land from other states, stop the export of gold and silver and encourage the import of gold and silver.

Economics was thus a zero sum game.

Now obviously any American peoples trying this would quickly crash and burn since even if safe from immediate invasion their only chance is to import vast quantities of technology, knowledge and skills from their more advanced contacts which would have to be paid for in specie.

But all of this is meaningless because neither civilization had anything resembling trade in a European sense. They were both technologically and culturally unaware of the concept. Do not be confused when archaeologists talk of trade, they mean the exchange of goods over a distance. When you analyse the economic transactions you get local barter and long distance tribute just look at all the different things the Aztecs used for 'currency'. I get the impression of something like the near east at the time of the old kingdom, armies collect tribute, market traders swop goods and kings exchange gifts. It took thousands of years for Eurasia to develop the concepts of currency, trade, imports and exports, national wealth, hell nations as opposed to peoples, the fixed value of gold/silver and that only gets us up to 500bc. European merchants have all that plus double entry book keeping, joint stock ventures, fixed interest credit and a proper economist would know a lot more than I do.

I have a great regard for the civilizations of America but we have to remember they were essentially stone age/early bronze age in both technology and culture. I am not saying the Europeans were better but they did have the advantage of all that history helping them. Just look at the number of Inca leaders who were treacherously captured by the Spanish. They just did not seem to have the cultural concept of truce breaking.
 
This is a question that needs either a 5 page answer or a 5 word answer. The 5 words are "not a chance in hell".

I am not really qualified to answer this not being an economic historian but with that caveat here goes:

Mercantilism is an insulting term invented in the 18thC to describe the previous practices of European states from about 1550 on wards. Definitions vary but the main idea was that the total wealth of the world was fixed (presumably by God) and equal to all possible productive land plus all the gold and silver. Thus in order to increase the wealth of a state one must expand agriculture into waste land, conquer land from other states, stop the export of gold and silver and encourage the import of gold and silver.

Economics was thus a zero sum game.

Now obviously any American peoples trying this would quickly crash and burn since even if safe from immediate invasion their only chance is to import vast quantities of technology, knowledge and skills from their more advanced contacts which would have to be paid for in specie.

But all of this is meaningless because neither civilization had anything resembling trade in a European sense. They were both technologically and culturally unaware of the concept. Do not be confused when archaeologists talk of trade, they mean the exchange of goods over a distance. When you analyse the economic transactions you get local barter and long distance tribute just look at all the different things the Aztecs used for 'currency'. I get the impression of something like the near east at the time of the old kingdom, armies collect tribute, market traders swop goods and kings exchange gifts. It took thousands of years for Eurasia to develop the concepts of currency, trade, imports and exports, national wealth, hell nations as opposed to peoples, the fixed value of gold/silver and that only gets us up to 500bc. European merchants have all that plus double entry book keeping, joint stock ventures, fixed interest credit and a proper economist would know a lot more than I do.

I have a great regard for the civilizations of America but we have to remember they were essentially stone age/early bronze age in both technology and culture. I am not saying the Europeans were better but they did have the advantage of all that history helping them. Just look at the number of Inca leaders who were treacherously captured by the Spanish. They just did not seem to have the cultural concept of truce breaking.

Very, very concise and well said.
 
Top