At the dawn of the 18th century, France was in a worrying state. Rural populations were barely producing enough to survive and were heavily taxed.

Urban artisans, locked into rigid guilds, struggled to innovate or even support one another. Meanwhile, other European nations soon surpassed France on every front, outcompeting its products. The commercial successes of England and Holland were on everyone's mind.

But how could we find a solution to the illness of the era? There was, as yet, no science of economics and therefore no special medicine to apply. The principles of economic policy were still applied haphazardly, shifting between restrictive phases and more liberal periods. Certainly, we have models, historical references to follow. Among them was Sully, Henri IV's minister, who advocated for agriculture and promoted greater freedom of trade within France.

But then came Colbert, Louis XIV's minister, who wavered between regulation and freedom, yet ultimately enforced regulation. At the very end of the 17th century, Colbert overtook Sully: ministers now invoked his legacy and try to apply what they claimed were his maxims.

In the minds of statesmen at the end of the 17th century, Colbert's maxims were four.

(1) Industry Must Be Regulated and Bound Within Guilds. These regulations specify, for example, how sheets and cloths should be made, their size and weight. There were hundreds of such rules, compiled in dedicated volumes for each type of industry. Yet in the eyes of Colbert's followers, this was still insufficient: industry, they believed, also needed to be supervised by corporations.

Anyone wishing to practice a trade had to first spend several years as an apprentice, then as a journeyman, before attempting to attain the status of master by producing a "masterpiece" and paying a substantial amount to the guild. Competition within each trade was therefore strictly limited.

(2) Trade Is a Zero-Sum Game. When it comes to commerce, Colbert's disciples shared the same prejudices as the barbarian people of Antiquity. According to Louis XIV's minister, trade is "a perpetual war". Why? The reason is simple: for Colbert and his successors, any increase in wealth for one country meant the impoverishment of another. In their view, the English or the Dutch could not be allowed to grow rich, because that would mean they were stealing France's prosperity.

These countries' products, therefore, had to be banned or heavily taxed, without scruples, because trade is a war in which we can only wish for the ruin of our enemies.

(3) When the State is short of money, Raise More Taxes. Colbert and his disciples were far from believing that taxpayers' wealth was a limited resource. In their view, public spending could never be a problem, as long as enough was collected. And if the people revolted, it was merely because the ministers had gone about it poorly, for, as Colbert cynically remarked, "the art of taxation consists in plucking the geese without making them scream too much".

(4) Wealth is, above all, gold and silver. Before the birth of economic science, many writers followed one dominant dogma about the nature of wealth, what came to be known as mercantilism. Colbert and his successors continued along this path. In short, mercantilists believed that the true sign of a nation's prosperity was the accumulation of precious metals, silver and gold.

The consequence of this idea is to favor exports at all costs, which brought in foreign gold and silver, and to limit imports to a minimum, to avoid sending them abroad.

These are the four principles that guided the French government for several decades, as the country entered the 18th century. However, they were soon to be profoundly challenged. Between 1690 and 1710, several writers were deeply struck by the disastrous State of France. In seeking its causes, they concluded that the very maxims inherited from Colbert were to blame, viewing them as than fallacious arguments. In doing so, they laid the foundations of economic science.