>Physiocracy (French: physiocratie; from the Greek for "government of nature") is an economic theory developed by a group of 18th-century Age of Enlightenment French economists. They believed that the wealth of nations derived solely from the value of "land agriculture" or "land development" and that agricultural products should be highly priced. Their theories originated in France and were most popular during the second half of the 18th century. Physiocracy became one of the first well-developed theories of economics.>François Quesnay (1694–1774), the Marquis de Mirabeau (1715–1789) and Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727–1781) dominated the movement, which immediately preceded the first modern school, classical economics, which began with the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776.>The physiocrats made a significant contribution in their emphasis on productive work as the source of national wealth. This contrasted with earlier schools, in particular mercantilism, which often focused on the ruler's wealth, accumulation of gold, or the balance of trade. Whereas the mercantilist school of economics held that value in the products of society was created at the point of sale, by the seller exchanging his products for more money than the products had "previously" been worth, the physiocratic school of economics was the first to see labor as the sole source of value. However, for the physiocrats, only agricultural labor created this value in the products of society. All "industrial" and non-agricultural labors were "unproductive appendages" to agricultural labor.I of course disagree that ONLY agriculture should be counted as productive work, but it's neat to see a non-monetary basis for valuation in economics. Weird that this wasn't picked up by many following thinkers. However, I do believe 19th century American economist Henry Clay may have been roughly of this school, with his outlook on infrastructure as an extension of productive labor.
>>18295112>Henry Clay>economistSub-zero IQ take
>>18295112>only agricultural labor created this value in the products of society. All "industrial" and non-agricultural labors were "unproductive appendages" to agricultural labor.There is a hierarchy of needs.Increasing more food output is most important until it fails to increase the population further. Basically, there is a certain amount of available calories in a given society where increasing it further only results in diminishing gains.You want a surplus of food so food is cheap and the price of food is never a burden on the economy. After the society's needs are met, extra food doesn't do much. A country can only become a food exporter at that point.Now keep in mind that even in a country as wealthy as the United States with very impressive food production, the price of food is still a problem. The society and economy are dysfunctional. Blindly increasing the US food production is not likely to solve this. The only way to fix this is for society to become more coordinated, cooperative, and less capitalistic.
>>18295112The origins of physiocracy are actually much older, dating back to the late 16th century, although it wasn't formally theorized at that time.The most prominent "proto-physiocrat" is probably Maximilien de Béthune, Duke of Sully, Henry IV's de facto minister and closest friend who famously promoted agriculture as a way to enrich France after the disastrous religious wars and advocated for free trade within the kingdom to increase exports and reduce subsistence farming and for this purpose he also launched the construction of the first canal in France in 1604, the 54 km long Briare which is still open to this day.As a "proto-physiocrat" he was firmly opposed to the growing industry and also to colonialism. When Henry IV and Champlain were planning to colonize the New World he famously said : "Ploughing and grazing are the two sources from which France draws its sustenance, the true mines and treasures of Peru."
