|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Well, for better or worse, I have grasped another nettle and Wikified another potentially controversial topic. If the world thinks that I have not maintained neutrality, let the world make changes (hopefully, justified rather than arbitrary). --David91 07:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16th August 2005, 23:08: I changed the end paragraphs, which I think gave too much the idea that free trade was good and neomercantilism bad. From the beginning of the article this is I believe a change of tone. Also, I think any article on subsidies and protectionism as volontary policies should really mention fair trade theories and ideas, so I added a reference to that. (Arnaud L).
Thank you for contributing. I made minor changes to standardise the English and slightly amended the wording about dumping which is always controversial. I hope you feel that I have preserved the spirit of what you intended. -David91 04:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This article needs considerable work. It seems to be a critique of neo-mercantalism from a "classical liberal" perspective with such terms as statist and with the analysis from that perspective in the final paragraphs. This article should tell the story of neo-mercantilism with criticism at the end, not throughout the entire article. Also, Britain became dominant economically due to its mercantilist policies, and fell behind after the repeal of the Corn Laws to the USA and Germany who followed a neo-mercantilist policy known as the National or American System or simply American School of Hamilton and in Germany List through Bismarck. --Northmeister 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Restructured elements of this article to be coordinated historically. Still need work in areas of Germany and United States. --Northmeister 15:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)i
Marked as PoV, as parts of it read as neomercantilist propaganda.
- Leandro GFC Dutra 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The parts about U.S. and Germany are biased and not informative enough to be substantial points. What does neutrality in WWI have to do with this topic, even tangentially? (added by anonymous author)
- I removed the POV tag as unhelpful. As the original author indicated on this talk page, this subject matter is complicated and controversial. If you have a complaint about the wording of the page then it would be better to suggest the specifics here or rewrite the sections that are incorrect. Simply tagging an article as POV isn't the right approach in my opinion. Jeff Carr (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely, the East Asian developmental model (as exemplified by Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea) can be described as neomercantilist? They were heavily influenced by Hamiltonian America, which is included here under 'Examples of neomercantilism'. I used to think that these three post-war economies are what the 'neo-' referred to, actually. If not, does anyone else think that some of their more relevant policies can be briefly mentioned here anyway? I think it'd help to list aspects of this economic school of thought implemented in the modern era, even though there might be no 'purely' neomercantilist economies existing in the world today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete this article
Neomercantilism is simply a somewhat derogatory term applied to a disparate collection of protectionist policies in modern discourse. And as could be predicted when Wikipedia editors try to treat a rhetorical term as if it was an actual coherent theory, the resulting article is partly irrelevant (the History section mainly deals with mercantilism - nothing "neo" about it, e.g. the East India Trading company, not sure why mercantilist policies in the 19th century should be described as "neo" either) and mostly original research of the personal essay kind. Overwhelmingly this article is original research commentary on what the small group of editors who have contributed so far reckon this ideology must entail, seriously can anybody justify the vast personal essay that constitutes the "Philosophy" section? It's not only entirely OR but essentially one or two editors personal POV. I see very little redeemable about this article, that isn't to say it's all untrue or stupid - far from it - but it is a completely original mix of POV commentary on economics and history, with barely any external sources. The reason I advocate deletion instead of improvement is because it is inevitable the article was going to be like this, because to repeat "Neomercantilist" is simply a rhetorical term, so any attempt to define it will inevitably be a rambling personal essay, which is basically what this article is... Seriously if we stripped out all the original research and POV from this article what would be left would be a small stub. Maybe that's for the best, just define it as what it really is "a term used to describe modern policies that may have some similarity to the policies associated with the early modern ideology of mercantilism" - rather than a stub we could simply add a section on the Mercantilism article pointing out these comparisons to modern policies, and delete this article. I'm almost tempted to say that I would be bold and delete 90% of this, but that would create an outcry - but why should it? Most of the article clearly isn't a description of scholarly work waiting for citations, it's clearly written in the style of an original personal essay.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- For now I'll just add a couple of tags to this article, the Original Research and personal essay ones, pretty sure no one could dispute this article is full of original research and the "Philosophy" section that takes up most of the article is obviously a personal essay, making many personal conclusions and comments. Yes, the article does end up having loads of problems tagged, but each one of them is valid and a bad article should have lots of tags pointing out its flaws.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)