The mercantilist economists argued for policies enabling a nation to export more than it imports, causing a net inflow of gold to pay for the difference - they equated the gold with wealth. In this sense, they were nationalistic, and they did not care to allocate scarce resources in a way that would maximise the standard of living for people at large. They desired a national competitive advantage for the benefit of winning wars and deterring potential enemies. They did not consider the “nation” to consist of the country’s entire population, justifying atrocities like slavery and imperialism.

The classical economists equally valued all people, emphasising free markets to achieve the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. In their minds, wealth was not equivalent to gold: it consisted of the goods and services that determined the people’s living standards. As Adam Smith said, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” The classical economists rejected the notion of economic activity as a zero-sum process. While mercantilists prioritised the transfer of wealth, the classical economists had the profound realisation that what mattered was its creation.