This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance). France C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is certainly inaccurate statement, as natural law and natural order had been discussed in Europe for centuries, e.g. by Aquinas, later by Melanchthon, Grotius etc. → Aethralis 11:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or did they consider themselves separate from all that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.72.37 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know anything about this theory (heck, I am an English major)and was surprised by the belief that this systematic approach resulted in the death of so many people...

I did not know about this peculiar strain of economics either, though it appears that important elements/assumptions of Quesnay's and Turgot's theories must have influenced classical economists like Smith and Ricardo. This article makes a nice segue to a study of Thomas Jefferson's apparently Physiocratic beliefs, their relationship to his later classical economic thinking (post-Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations), and their reflection in actual governmental policy during his terms as Virginia governor and President.Knab1969 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

François Quesnay was the leading figure of the Physiocrats, generally considered to be the first school of economic thinking. Indeed,.. it was Quesnay who coined the term “laissez-faire, laissez-passer.” http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Quesnay.html Library of Economics and Liberty Home page - http://www.econlib.org/ DAB295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.154.94 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 recommended the Physiocrats concept of a land tax as the "simplest and most fit resource" for financing the governments of the several States; see the Federalist Papers #36. In delegating the power to tax to the Central government they recognized that the effect of a land tax was the opposite of a tax on private goods and so was not a tax in the normal sense. They recommended a consumption (sales) tax for financing the Central government. The power of Eminent Domain was thus reserved to the States. Also see FP#17.

Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776 just in time to confuse the term Laissez Faire as conceived by the Physiocrats and thus the Laissez Faire economics of the American Revolution. I wonder if that was not intended by the British. Jefferson brought his friend du Pont to America to promote the concept.

DAB (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any? I'm thinking of creating 3 new wikipedia categories: Physiocrat, Georgist, and Land Value Tax Advocate, with the first two subcategories of the last (and of various other parent categories). Physiocrat would be the most straightforward and uncontroversial so I'll start there. If all Physiocrats are also French then I can make Physiocrat a subcategory of French Economist, otherwise I will have to leave each of the French Physiocrats in 2 categories. Pm67nz 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On further investigation: obviously there is Richard Cantillon, but this page and his article implies that he predates the Physiocrats and so isn't quite one of them. OTOH the French equivalent of this page also lists Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, so I've accepted that not all Physiocrats are French. Pm67nz 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Figure 1 seems incorrect (or at least confusing to me) as far as the merchant is concerned. In the text it's mentioned that the artisan needs foreign goods. It's also stated that the merchant will use this $150 received from the artisan to buy food in the agricultural market to export. In figure 1 the merchant is however only receiving agricultural goods to export, but the imported goods needed by the artisan for his manufactured output is not shown. No argumentation why this is done is given. It's also strange that a merchant can stay alive from the wind. Just like the landlord, the farmer, the farmhand, the livestock and the artisan the merchant needs food to stay alive. 198.184.231.254 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The physiocrats were heavily inspired by Confucianism. Quesnay was the "Confucius of Europe". There are strong influences as both praised farmers and hated merchants. Land was seen as the source of wealth. The article should be updated to reflect this. --Countakeshi (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because someone may have called him the "Confucius of Europe" does not mean that he was actually inspired by Confucius. You will need to find sources that says that the physiocrats "were heavily inspired by Confucianism". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is one source if anyone is interested. --Countakeshi (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The physiocrats (who called themselves économistes, but the term was appropriated by their successors) began with Quesnay, surgeon to the king (Louis XIV) and later physician to the same king, who had studied the 17th century physician-scientist William Harvey and his theory of the circulation of the blood, and transferred the concept to the circulation of money through society. Hence their successors' or opponents' contruction of the name "physiocrat." Quesnay thus foreshadowed Vasily Leontief and his input-output analysis. NRPanikker (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)NRPanikker (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is certainly not the place of Wikipedia to declare if a particular economic theory is "valid," as stated in the fifth paragraph. Instead of loading the entire thing with "citation needed," this obviously partisan section needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.148.213 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Investment Capital" section ends with a strange sentence that seems to be a POV: "And also this argument is a important factor for us..^[1]". This doesn't appear to be part of any quotation; I propose to remove it. RMGunton (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Greek term for ontological naturalists is οντολογικοί φυσιοκράτες and for physicalists is φυσιστές (φυσικαλιστές is wrong because -al is not a Greek suffix).

Most Greek Christians want to translate the term naturalism in a non-Greek form as νατουραλισμός, and they do that disparagingly because they do not accept physicalists/naturalists/atheists as true Greeks.

The Greek Wikipedia is dominated by such bigots. Even the SYRIZA party which is not rightist has many Christians... thus no big party can protect the physicalists; because parties DO designate people to edit on Wikipedia.

Most Greek physicalists do not care about the economical physiocracy.

This comment is related because Greek Christians use this term as a harassment against a percentage of the Greek population. Sarri.greek on Wiktionary and Chalk19 on Wikipedia and Wiktionary attack physicalists.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Physiocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428055943/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/youth/tableausum.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/youth/tableausum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turgot studied phychiocrats theory and used part of it. But he wasn't part of that school, which worked as a closed club. Turgot was more of a bridge between physiocracy and Smith.

Steiners article states that "This very active period in French political economy was dominated by François Quesnay and Turgot, whose work we will now consider in greater detail.". This doesn't implies Turgot's belonging to Quesnay school, and it might be ambigous.

A good reference for Turgot's relationship with physiocrats, which was very critic indeed, is here: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01097790/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.76.202.209 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]