Your argument is that mercantilism works better because East Asian nations have better public transportation and railway networks than the US? Last time I check

Your argument is that mercantilism works better because East Asian nations have better public transportation and railway networks than the US? Last time I checked, GDP per capita and labor productivity in the US greatly exceeds that of China, Taiwan, Japan, SK, or Singapore. The mercantilism vs. capitalism debate Adam Smith was entering into wasn't really about internal economic organization anyway, it was about international trade and economic competition. The old mercantilist idea was that economic competition was a zero sum game, and that above all else the government should try to maintain a favorable balance of trade (export more than you import). Adam Smith's basic argument was that both sides benefit from trade. By following their comparative advantage and then conducting trade with each other, two parties could consume more than they could produce alone. Reading about Friedrich List, some of his ideas do have merit. Protectionism to foster nascent industries has worked well as a development tool. The US used it in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the East Asian nations (except Singapore) used it in the later 20th century. But for that to work, there had to be certain conditions: a weaker currency and lower standard of living. So it works well for countries that have not yet developed, but not so well for countries which have already developed. It also doesn't explain countries like Singapore, which did not develop based on low-grade manufacturing, but instead by embracing its important position on key trade routes and developing its service sector (esp. financial services).