Thanks, Elly.
Cynthia Chung
The American System of economics did not in fact originate within the United States, but within France under the Dirigisme school of economics, also known as Colbertism as well as the German school of economics known as Cameralism, however, the American school did greatly expand and further build upon this foundation.
The American System’s philosophical outlook as a political science arose from the work of Gottfried Leibniz. [For more on this refer to the very informative RTF lecture by Sam Labrier titled “Colbert, Leibniz and Vattel: The Cameralist Roots of the American System”.]
Leibniz was in fact in direct opposition to the philosophy of John Locke, who was heavily promoted by the Anglophiles within the United States as the philosophical system they should adopt. This was rejected by the followers of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the protectionist school of economics that followed. However, Locke’s system was largely adopted within the Southern states, which not coincidentally was where all the cotton slave plantations were located in service to the British Empire.
As we can clearly discern from the name, protectionism is referring to a form of “protection” to the American economy, but protection from what exactly?
It was protection from the British Empire’s system of free trade – quite explicitly so as we will see.
Continue reading …
Cynthia Chung
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”The American System to which Carey is referring in this quote is the school of economics to which protectionism originates from, largely recognised as officially beginning with the works of Mathew Carey (Henry C. Carey’s father) and Henry Clay, following the economic schools of thought of Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin.
– Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests, 1851
The American System of economics did not in fact originate within the United States, but within France under the Dirigisme school of economics, also known as Colbertism as well as the German school of economics known as Cameralism, however, the American school did greatly expand and further build upon this foundation.
The American System’s philosophical outlook as a political science arose from the work of Gottfried Leibniz. [For more on this refer to the very informative RTF lecture by Sam Labrier titled “Colbert, Leibniz and Vattel: The Cameralist Roots of the American System”.]
Leibniz was in fact in direct opposition to the philosophy of John Locke, who was heavily promoted by the Anglophiles within the United States as the philosophical system they should adopt. This was rejected by the followers of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the protectionist school of economics that followed. However, Locke’s system was largely adopted within the Southern states, which not coincidentally was where all the cotton slave plantations were located in service to the British Empire.
As we can clearly discern from the name, protectionism is referring to a form of “protection” to the American economy, but protection from what exactly?
It was protection from the British Empire’s system of free trade – quite explicitly so as we will see.
Continue reading …
No comments:
Post a Comment