Why was free trade such a novel concept? If we look at empires

Merchants start to own everything and shit

>>1693426
The rich merchants grab everything they can and grow in wealth, challenging the monarchy, the church and monopolizing industries and making competition unfeasible for small merchants.

>>1693426
Because free trade chokes competition, and competition is good for the economy.
Seems counterintuitive, doesn't it? Until you realize that big enough private enterprises are no weaker than actual governments, and as such just as capable to force monopolies and much more motivated and less hampered to do so.
Not to mention that free market is much like anarchy: a purely hypotetical scenario within the context of society.

>>1693426
>i gross imperinarium
>gib monies

>>1693426

Because despite what the conspiracy theorists tell you, governments aren't primarily interested in money.

Governments are, first and foremost, interested in power. Being able to tell people what to do, and being in a position to keep doing so indefinitely, is way better than being rich. Governments tend to only care about money when acquiring money leads to them getting more power.

Free trade asks for the government to give up a lot of power. You can't keep out the merchants from that one nation you don't like. You can't set up protective taxes to keep the businesses run by people you do like afloat. You have to step back, let things take their course.

It was only when the needs for revenue to pursue other programs (and the large scale expansion in government, which itself is tied to things like the rise of secular education and the ability of the government to gather information quickly enough to make decisions about every facet of life) became obvious that governments took day to day interest in the economy, and that was what allowed for free trade.