Mercantilism is defined for this discussion as a policy of government that expressed in the economic sphere the spirit of nationalism that animated the growth of the national state in early modern times. The policy aimed to gain for the nation a high degree of security or self-sufficiency, especially as regards food supply, raw materials needed for essential industries, and the sinews of war. This end was to be achieved in large measure by means of an effective control over the external activities and resources upon which the nation was dependent. In turn, that urge impelled the mercantilists to prefer colonial dependencies to independent foreign countries in seeking sources of supply. If the state could not free itself completely from trade with foreign nations, it sought to control that trade in its own interest as much as possible. To realize such objectives, mercantilism embraced three subordinate and related policies. The Corn Laws fostered the nation's agriculture and aimed to realize the ideal of self-sufficiency as regards food supply. State aids to manufacturing industries, such as the protective tariff, sought to provide essential finished goods, including the sinews of war. The Navigation Acts were intended to assure that foreign trade would be carried on in such a way as to yield the maximum advantage to the state concerned.

The analysis summarized below was made in an attempt to study long-term changes in the level and composition of national income in the United States. For reasons that will become dear, this attempt had to be limited to measures for years since 1870; but before this decision was reached, I had to scrutinize and reject the current and rather widely used estimates for the years prior to 1870. The notes below summarize the results of this scrutiny and may be of interest to other workers in the field.

Translator's introduction: To understand the significance of this paper, the American reader should recall that, as Talcott Parsons says, German “idealistic empiricism” led to a repudiation of analytical social and economic theory “in favor of the concrete uniqueness and individuality of all things human.” The “general analytical level of scientific comprehension [was] a priori excluded” from the field of human action. Understanding of things human “in terms of the concrete individuality of the specific historical case became the goal.” Professor Arthur Spiethoff, once a student, later an assistant, of Gustav von Schmoller, and a friend of Edwin F. Gay while the latter studied in Berlin, moved away from that point of view. He recognized analytical theory as a legitimate subject and thereby deviated from what can be considered the typical nineteenth-century German attitude.