"The implementation of imperial economic policy seems to me to have at their basis a geopolitical goal of damaging Britain and not a carefully considered decision to support agrarian interests at the expense of trade, banking and other economic activities."
You could very well be correct. It is another PhD thesis question :
- separate the effects of economic warfare (assumedly temporary) from those of economic planning (assumedly structural and semi-permanent).
- evaluate the feasibility and success of each
- compare and contrast the impacts of each : synergy or at cross purposes ?

"Is the emphasis on agrarian economy and military production the goal, or is it all that's left"
Or, was that all there was to beign with ? - you run what you brung, no time to restructure and all the "experts" are on the other side of the current on-going war.

"King Louis (the product of that meritocracy,"
An aside not up to your usual game, dear colleague. And indeed all I said was a nobility chosen on merit. Not a meritocracy, not sovereign rulers chosen by merit.

"I thought you kept re-focusing on pre-1810"
Not me, honest. I am a real 1804-1814 + Cent Jours kind o guy. I might even look at the Consulate and 1ere restauration occasionally. Anyway, 1810 was about as close to "fully implemented" as the Empire model got, right ? So it is a good year for spot-checking, if one does not want to do each year one at a time.

" you will have a hard case to make that the Dutch or Germans benefitted much"
Yes, especially since the ones that might have benefitted were not literate and not about to go around prasing the Empire after its fall. Fortunately, once we are all off the mindless chanting of "N is bad", and on to actaul hostorigraphy, I can rest my case quite happily.

Nuance is always so challenging.