His 1791 Report on Manufactures was a list of policy advocacy and proposals that he believed the country should adopt. No ammount of equivocation will get you around that fact.
They weren't proposals or wish lists but objective analysis rarely reached in Western economic thought.
From the Report on Manufactures:
"A full view having now been taken of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the United States, accompanied with an examination of the principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition, it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification of the objects, which, in the present state of things, appear the most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures which it may be advisable to adopt, in respect to each. In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principal of these are:
1. Protecting duties -- or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged...
2. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to prohibitions...
3. Prohibitions of the exportation of the Materials of Manufactures...
4. Pecuniary bounties...
5. Premiums...
6. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty...
7. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures...
8. The encouragement of new intentions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly, those which relate to machinery...
9. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities...
10. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place...
11. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities...
...In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry? All which is humbly submitted. ALEXANDER HAMILTON"
Looks like both a proposal AND a wish list to me!
Your claim of the protectionist nature of H.'s tariff is not supported by the evidence which clearly demonstrates they were Revenue tariffs.
"1. Protecting duties:
Protecting duties--or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones, intended to be encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon; as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has the additional recommendation of being a resource of reevenue. Indeed all the duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation, and except where they fall on raw materials wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufactures of the country." - Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, 1791
Looks protectionist to me. In fact, Hamilton himself even calls them that.
The history of the gold standard is more a study of exception than of a consistent application. It never worked very well after economies began to rise above poverty level.
Wrong. It only became a problem when governments intervened to try and manage it for political purposes other than the free market. Besides, you neglect the true issue at hand which is not the gold standard but rather the use of intrinsically valued currencies, among which gold is a well known one, as a medium of exchange.
Certainly the only states which could be considered "capitalistic" in any modern understanding of the word would be England, Holland and the Italian city's to some extent.
Not so. Many of the countries you describe are for all practical purposes welfare states with some existant but by no means dominant capitalist inclinations.
So you claim that an argument that men can't fly by flapping their arms because no one has ever seen one doing so is inappropriate?
Considering that man's inability to flap his arms and fly derives from the limitations of that same man's physical characteristics and abilities rather than the numerical list of failures that merely evidence those limitations, yes. Your argument is not logically sound. It arrives at a correct conclusion as can indeed happen from time to time even with logically flawed argumentative constructs. But the reasoning you used to get there is not in itself a causal agent of why man cannot flap his arms and fly.
There is no way to "prove" a prediction.
Correct you are, and for that reason you should take care to identify your predictions as predictions rather than as facts.
So you don't believe in dictionaries
I don't believe that an anonymous and alleged dictionary can provide, in a mere sentence, an explanation of a complex economic theory or ideology against which all else may be weighed. The fact that the defining doctrines of every term you purport to explain with a single dictionary sentence consume volumes upon volumes of complex texts is evidence that I hold this view with reason.
so what, but the claim the one I quoted was anonymous is false, I said it was Barnes and Noble Dictionary of Economics in an earlier post knowing I would get this sort of dumbass quibble from you.
A quick text search of your posting history from today back through July 16th indicates only one use of the term "Barnes and Noble" or any variation thereof. That use is in this post to which I am currently responding. Therefore you could not have stated that it was from the "Barnes and Noble Dictionary of Economics" in any previous post unless it predates July 16th and, in doing so, predates this discussion. Further, a search of Amazon.com's book database reveals zero hits for the title "Barnes and Noble Dictionary of Economics" and variations thereof ("Barnes and Noble's Dictionary of Economics," "Barnes & Noble Dictionary of Economics," "Barnes & Noble's Dictionary of Economics" etc.), nor does that title appear in any of the said forms by way of search on google. Thus I may safely conclude that you either experienced a lapse in memory with regards to a failure in your previous intention to post the source, or you are fibbing.
Those definitions which I posted, except for the short one for mercantilism, are direct quotes from that dictionary.
No book of that title appears anywhere on either amazon or google. Thus your argument is not only a fallacious appeal to authority but an unsourced one at that.
Disagree with them, I don't really care, but they support my statements totally.
Persons who appeal to authority as a substitute for their arguments seldom choose one that does anything other than support their arguments. That is in part indicative of why doing so is considered a fallacy.