le mercantilisme est la base fondamentale des rouages du commerce. Ces principes se trouvent dans la manière dont les cités anciennes exerçaient l'activité commerciale, tout en montrant les impacts de cette activité sur la richesse d'une nation. Donc , d'un point de vue théorique, le mercantilisme donne des moyens à un Etat sur la manière dont il peut exploiter le commerce dans sa globalité pour accroitre sa richesse.

Following Moise, mercantilism is precisely what the US is currently pursuing in its external trade policy. It is effectively the law of the jungle with the big countries (including the US) using their economic and political leverage to expand their exports while reducing their imports (remember 'Liberation Day' when the US imposed what are effectively completely random tariffs?). This was not really to reduce their visible trade deficit (funny how the US never mentions its absolutely enormous trade surplus in invisibles with almost every other country in the world - think Microsoft, Google (Alphabet), Meta, Amazon etc.). Modern mercantilism is simply the espousing of free market ideology while at the same time restricting imports as much as possible (plus a few other things); i.e., hypocrisy.

The great bulk of trade theory and empirics (including world incomes) since Adam Smith in 1776 demonstrate that mercantilism is self-defeating and that absolute and, in particular, comparative advantage offer substantial gains for most (look at the massive growth of trade and incomes 1945-2008 and also more recently). If smaller/weaker countries (that is everyone except China, the EU and some BRICS) are prevented from exporting, then they cannot generate foreign exchange to buy the mercantilist's exports... so the mercantilists continue to accumulate global wealth but find that their export markets have collapsed owing to a lack of purchasing power abroad and the populations of the smaller/weaker countries end up impoverished. The mercantilists they eventually end up sitting on a pile of money/assets that they are unable to consume/earn high returns.

Mercantilism is a form of bullying by those (but certainly not all) countries that possess economic and political power. The current WTO rules were expressly designed to prevent this (MFN, reciprocity etc.) but these rules however, may not last much longer given the way current US trade policy is going. If the affected countries (e.g., Brazil, South Africa, India and a lot of very poor developing ones such as Lesotho) take it to the WTO, the US would probably walk out of the multilateral trading system - many will not realise how beneficial this system has been for the majority of the world's populations until it is gone. Note that many misinformed critics of the EU accuse it of being heavily protectionist (which it isn't really) while at the same time lauding mercantilism!

original mercantilism tried to run trade surpluses in order to accumulate precious metals which could be used to finance mercenary military forces. In a historical context this made sense since domestic funding sources were limited (Britain in particular). There were limited financial flows other than trade payments. In current situations this motive for mercantilism does not apply.

Current mercantilism is a way to manipulate industrial policy encouraging some industries at the expense of others. The supposed concern for trade deficits is a cover (though it is possible Trump actually believes it). Even the increased revenue from higher tariffs (paying for tax cuts) is largely irrelevant. Other countries are being coerced into replying in kind, forced into counter mercantilism.

As with original mercantilism the results will include inefficiency and lower overall real incomes even in the "winners." However while the overall net effects will be negative there will be some gainers, those who have the most influence over which industries are most protected from more efficient foreign competition, and that is just an example.

Mercantilism shaped world trade by promoting protectionism, colonialism, and accumulation of wealth through trade surpluses; while it spurred early global commerce, it also entrenched exploitation, uneven exchange, and rivalries that influenced modern economic disparities and trade patterns.

Mercantilist policies that wanted a country to accumulate wealth in gold and silver bullion aimed to maximize exports and minimize imports.

Every nation attempted to compete and dominate on the trade front which resulted in trade rivalries among European nations as they tried to restrict and outmaneuver their competitors.

2. Colonial Expansion

Mercantilist nations built colonial empires to secure raw materials like cotton, sugar, spices, or gold.

Colonies were often forced into trade relationships exclusive to the mother country. Britain had its Navigation Acts and Spain had its treasure fleets.

This exploitation of the colonies fueled the Atlantic triangular trade of Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

3. Protectionism & Trade Restrictions

Domestic industries were ‘protected’ by the imposition of tariffs, quotas and bans on imports.

Trading companies, like the British East India Company and Dutch VOC, were established as monopolies to control trade routes and commodities.

These policies reduced the possibility of free trade and promoted smuggling and piracy.

4. Intensified Global Rivalry

Mercantilist competition resulted in the Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-Spanish Wars as they tried to capture trade routes and colonies.

Having dominance over maritime trade made a strong navy a necessity for economic dominance.

From an historical perspective, mercantilism did not care about welfare as we understand it today: the objective was has trade surplus to fill-up the King's coffer with gold, with the objective of funding wars (in the 18th and most of 19th century, there was no conscription and the King had to pay the soldiers). In short: mercantilism = war.

One approach was to boost the exports of manufacture (of no value as they were man-made) in order to import valuable products (natural resources you could not produce at home: minerals, wheat, and gold, obviously).

In order to accumulate gold, you needed a trade surplus: trade barriers, prohibitions,...

At that time, Spain and Portugal were the main suppliers of gold (and the Ricardian Wine for Cloth was a fallacy: Portugal settled the trade deficit with England "exporting" part of its Brazilian gold reserves).

The Physiocrats criticised this approach by saying that gold is not wealth: "Il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". Instead of trade barriers, they advocated a free trade approach: "laissez faire les hommes, laissez passer les marchandises".

Thus, if we replace the discussion in our 21st century, we can say that mercantilism is associated with geopolitical conflicts (hidden or open). And it is subject to the composition fallacy: not all countries can have a trade surplus.

In the post-Bretton-Woods system, the USA played the role of importer of last resort, exporting her (printed) dollars as her gold reserves were rapidly disappearing. With the return of mercantilism in the USA, complete with industrial policies and trade barriers, brace, brace...

Effects of Mercantilism may both advantageous and not. However it pauses more positive impact since it will open more markets and partnership for some economies.