Laisez-Faire never takes off?

How could you have a situation where free-market capitalism (Adam Smith style) is never accepted, and instead mercantallism, bullionism, and protectionism remain the major economic theories for at least another hundred years?
 

wormyguy

Banned
Find a way for trade from the Far East to still be Mediterranean-centric instead of Indian Ocean centric. OTL it was the switch in trade routes that broke the back of the great trading nations and guilds of Europe (and led to the gradual disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, as its main source of wealth - a monopoly on the Arabian trade routes central to Mediterranean trade - dried up).
 
Find a way for trade from the Far East to still be Mediterranean-centric instead of Indian Ocean centric. OTL it was the switch in trade routes that broke the back of the great trading nations and guilds of Europe (and led to the gradual disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, as its main source of wealth - a monopoly on the Arabian trade routes central to Mediterranean trade - dried up).

I don't mean guilds, I mean the theories right after them, from the 1600s and 1700s. High tariffs, colonies can only trade with mother country, etc.
 

wormyguy

Banned
I don't mean guilds, I mean the theories right after them, from the 1600s and 1700s. High tariffs, colonies can only trade with mother country, etc.
Oh, well then, ISOT 17th-century muskets and and metalworking technology to all the less-advanced peoples of the world. It's not possible to skip the early imperialist/beginnings of Capitalism phase without something that forces a major change in attitude.
 
Oh, well then, ISOT 17th-century muskets and and metalworking technology to all the less-advanced peoples of the world. It's not possible to skip the early imperialist/beginnings of Capitalism phase without something that forces a major change in attitude.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The earliest capitalism is what I want it to be stuck in for a while. I don't want late 1700s-1800s ideas about free trade and the like to develop. So that, come 1900, Europe still holds high tariffs and colonies are only allowed to trade with the colonizing power. Instead of OTL, where tariffs were relatively low and anyplace could trade anywhere else.
 

wormyguy

Banned
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The earliest capitalism is what I want it to be stuck in for a while. I don't want late 1700s-1800s ideas about free trade and the like to develop. So that, come 1900, Europe still holds high tariffs and colonies are only allowed to trade with the colonizing power. Instead of OTL, where tariffs were relatively low and anyplace could trade anywhere else.
Oops, I answered your question seriously the first time, then for whatever reason thought you were asking the opposite the second time. Disregard that. I'll have to think about this one.
 

wormyguy

Banned
What about killing off Adam Smith? That should at least slow things down a bit.
Adam Smith was one of the most brilliant mathematicians, philosophers, and statisticians of all of human history, and the unquestioned progenitor of modern economic theory. But he didn't invent economic liberalism.
 
Adam Smith was one of the most brilliant mathematicians, philosophers, and statisticians of all of human history, and the unquestioned progenitor of modern economic theory. But he didn't invent economic liberalism.

What he said.^^ I already thought about killing him, but then decided it would go forward anyways. Malthus and Ricardo are still around, along with a dozen others. And the idea had been thrown around a bit before then, too.
 
1. Find a way for the High Federalists (Hamilton's faction) to come out on top of the First Party System in the US. Hamilton's economic program for the US was pure mercantilism -- protective tariffs, a centralized banking system built on sovereign credit, and chartering national corporations as public-private partnerships granted special privileges. If we can somehow make this an uncontrovercial part of how business is done in the US, that's a major support to the survival of mercantilism.

2. Get rid of the Irish Potato Famine. It didn't escape notice that Britain's mercantilist Corn Laws lead to Ireland continuing to export large quantities of grain while the country was starving. This was a major contributing factor to free trade catching on in British political thought.
 
1. Find a way for the High Federalists (Hamilton's faction) to come out on top of the First Party System in the US. Hamilton's economic program for the US was pure mercantilism -- protective tariffs, a centralized banking system built on sovereign credit, and chartering national corporations as public-private partnerships granted special privileges. If we can somehow make this an uncontrovercial part of how business is done in the US, that's a major support to the survival of mercantilism.

2. Get rid of the Irish Potato Famine. It didn't escape notice that Britain's mercantilist Corn Laws lead to Ireland continuing to export large quantities of grain while the country was starving. This was a major contributing factor to free trade catching on in British political thought.

So have the regression start in the US? I never even thought of that.

Both points make sense; I like this idea. But what POD could do that? Federalists gradually lost power when it became apparent they were not in it for the "common man". They were almost aristocrats, which didn't go down very well.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
1. Find a way for the High Federalists (Hamilton's faction) to come out on top of the First Party System in the US. Hamilton's economic program for the US was pure mercantilism -- protective tariffs, a centralized banking system built on sovereign credit, and chartering national corporations as public-private partnerships granted special privileges. If we can somehow make this an uncontrovercial part of how business is done in the US, that's a major support to the survival of mercantilism.

2. Get rid of the Irish Potato Famine. It didn't escape notice that Britain's mercantilist Corn Laws lead to Ireland continuing to export large quantities of grain while the country was starving. This was a major contributing factor to free trade catching on in British political thought.

I'd almost think you'd have to go further back. The Dutch economy was already well on the way to breaking down a lot of that stuff on it's own, whether the burghers wanted it to or not. By the late-1700s, it was pretty much destined to continue on it's course. They'd already founded the *Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (United East India Company, or the VOC) around 1600.
That was basically the world's first corporation, and when it was able to singlehandedly destroy the Portuguese colonial system's weak hold on the pepper trade by underselling them, all the rest of the countries followed suit. That was where the much more famous East India Company & Hudson's Bay Company came from.

So in my mind, the root of all this is with the Netherlands.





*I'm learning Afrikaans, so it was cool to be able to speak the language! Well, not the actual language, but it's pretty much the same thing.
 
I'd almost think you'd have to go further back. The Dutch economy was already well on the way to breaking down a lot of that stuff on it's own, whether the burghers wanted it to or not. By the late-1700s, it was pretty much destined to continue on it's course. They'd already founded the *Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (United East India Company, or the VOC) around 1600.
That was basically the world's first corporation, and when it was able to singlehandedly destroy the Portuguese colonial system's weak hold on the pepper trade by underselling them, all the rest of the countries followed suit. That was where the much more famous East India Company & Hudson's Bay Company came from.

So in my mind, the root of all this is with the Netherlands.

Agree. And as a foil to that, perhaps the solution would be this:

Instead of making commerce with the Americas it an exclusive right of Castile, The Spanish Crown grants all their subjects the right to trade and settle all through the Crown lands. So the Dutch (and Aragonese, Navarrese, Neapolitans) can trade and set up shop in the Americas. That'd make for a very interesting colonization of the New World
 
But what POD could do that? Federalists gradually lost power when it became apparent they were not in it for the "common man". They were almost aristocrats, which didn't go down very well.

My understanding is that both parties were aristocratic (the Federalists a bit more so), and connecting with the "common man" didn't really come into faction in American national-level politics until Andrew Jackson's first campaign. Three things really did in the Federalists: after Adams left office, they became a regional party in a region too small to win a national majority; Jefferson was extremely popular once in office; and Federalist opposition to the War of 1812 (especially the Hartford Convention) reeked of treason in the public nose.

Keeping the Federalists viable a bit longer is pretty easy -- the election of 1800 was extremely close, and any number of things could have swung it the other way. If the 3/5 compromise weighed slaves a bit lower in awarding electoral votes, or if Maryland's electoral votes were winner-take-all, if Virginia wasn't winner-take-all, if Adams were just a bit more popular (any number of possible PODs around campaign tactics or policy in office). The Federalists would then get credit for the Louisiana Purchase and the economic boom which Jefferson got credit for IOTL, and could wind up the dominant party. But that would benefit the relatively moderate Adams faction much more than the Hamilton faction.

I'd prefer a POD around Thomas Pinckney, Adams's 1796 running mate. Pinckney was a High Federalist. He was also a slaveowner from South Carolina, which could help broaden the Federalists' appeal beyond the northern states. He'd also likely respond even more strongly to French commerce raiding than Adams did in OTL (the Quasi-War), and might even ask for a declaration of war and enter the Napoleonic Wars on the British side, placing the Democratic-Republicans in a similar situation to the Federalists during the War of 1812 IOTL.

POD 1 would be to kill the (accurate) rumor that Hamilton was secretly encouraging southern pro-Jefferson electors to cast their second vote for Pinckney instead of Burr in an effort to get Pinckney elected instead of Adams. IOTL, several Federalist electors cast their second vote for a variety of other candidates instead of Pinckney to make sure Adams came out on top. Too many electors did so, and Pinckney wound up with fewer votes than Jefferson, and Jefferson became Vice President. Keep Hamilton's efforts secret until it's too late, and Pinckney becomes the second President of the United States. The problem here is the that Pinckney would likely be subject to a significant backlash in 1800.

POD 2 would be for Hamilton to not make the attempt, leading to Pinckney becoming Vice President as the Federalists had originally planned. You'd need a second POD to kill Adams during his first term. Assassination by a lone nut, for example, would be extremely easy given how informal security was at the time. For added bonus, make the nut either an immigrant from France (fanning the flames of the XYZ affair and the Quasi War and providing public justification for both a declaration of war against France and for the Alien and Sedition Acts) or an identifiable Jefferson supporter.

An earlier Dutch POD would probably be cleaner and better suited to the end goal of preserving mercantilism, though.
 
While I think it's possible that free-market capitalism doesn't become "invented" at the time, I don't think the ideas of the time would last forever. I wonder what would have come instead...
 
Top