Nearly every society in pre-modern times has hated bourgeois merchants, from China to Rome. Even states and societies that relied heavily on trade to enrich themselves (such as Venice and the Arab rulers in Syria) tended to create trade aristocracies that functioned, in practice, much like the guilds. However, nowadays, trade is generally a valued part of the economy and many economic historians point to the change in attitudes towards trade as one of the important developments that led to the creation of the modern economy.
My question is, how did this cultural shift come about? I don't want /pol/ BS about Jews. Why did monarchs and aristocrats, who generally viewed trade as a non-noble activity, suddenly change their ideas? Did the English Revolution and Dutch Republic really change everything?
>>3346723
>Nearly every society in pre-modern times has hated bourgeois merchants
Prove the Phoenicians did
>>3346723
Marginalist Revolution. It took a long time to develop the idea, and it still hasn't completely caught on with everyone, that there's no such thing as an intrinsic value to a commodity, good, or service.
>ancient mode of thought.
We have a ton of softwood lumber. It is worth X. If you can buy and sell and trade said lumber to make a profit, you must have tricked someone else to make it. You are dishonest.
>modern/marginalist mode of thought.
You have a ton of softwood lumber. It has no fixed value. You try to find the person to whom it has the greatest subjective value. By doing so, you have created aggregate wealth, same as any laborer. You are an honest and valued member of the community.
>>3346745
>nearly
also they probably had a merchant aristocracy
>>3346752
I mean before that, as to my knowledge Marginalism only caught on in the 19th century, while the cultural shift I'm talking about seems to have happened earlier.