4 ms·
You are thinking about it as an individual instead of as a state. If you put yourself in the position of Louis XVI as the King of France, it makes more sense.
by arrosenberg 2y ago
You are thinking about it as an individual instead of as a state. If you put yourself in the position of Louis XVI as the King of France, it makes more sense.
- mmooss 2y agoI agree there's a big difference between individuals and states economically. And I understand why Louis (do you mean XIV?), in the absence any modern economic theory, pursued mercantilism. But if Louis had known modern economic theory, it would have been ridiculous. He would know that the wealthiest, most powerful nations ever on Earth - universally, with no others competing - were built on free trade.
- DeathArrow 2y ago>He would know that the wealthiest, most powerful nations ever on Earth - universally, with no others competing - were built on free trade. It really depends on the context. Roman Empire wasn't built on free trade.
- mmooss 2y agoWe are far, far wealthier, freer, more everything than the Romans. In their context, they did relatively very well. We are far beyond that. The Romans worship us, or would if they could have known. There is just no comparison. The worship of them is bizarre.
- skywal_l 2y agoYou are probably thinking of Louis the XIV[0] (not Louis the XVI) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_mercantilism
- arrosenberg 2y agoYou are correct, I was too lazy to look it up and I eyeballed the timeline.