Final answer:
The founding fathers believed that the biggest flaw with mercantilism was its finite view of wealth, which could lead to economic inefficiency and conflict. Enlightenment thinkers and critics like Adam Smith argued for wealth creation, challenging the zero-sum game theory of mercantilism.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Founding Fathers and Mercantilism
According to the founding fathers, the biggest flaw with mercantilism was the assumption that wealth, as measured in gold and silver, was finite. This economic theory suggested that a nation's power and wealth were directly tied to its accumulation of precious metals, leading to a zero-sum game where one nation's gain was inherently another's loss. To maximize wealth, mercantilist nations endeavored to maintain a favorable balance of trade by exporting more than they imported and reducing the flow of precious metals out of the country.
However, Enlightenment thinkers and later critics like Adam Smith and David Hume highlighted that this approach was flawed. They argued that wealth was not finite and could be created through production and trade. Wealth creation, instead of mere wealth accumulation, was seen as a way for nations to prosper without being at the expense of others. This shift in thought laid the groundwork for modern economic theories that support the idea that nations could both prosper simultaneously through open trade and the division of labor.
In this context, the founding fathers saw mercantilism as leading to economic inefficiencies and conflicts, such as restrictive tariffs, monopolies, and the accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of many. By focusing on finite resources and neglecting the potential for wealth creation, mercantilist policies could lead to stunted economic growth and increased likelihood of conflict over resources.