Part 4 (1/2)

In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition In commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a competitor and becomes a monopolist Suppress the protection which represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign productions must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our market”[9]

[Footnote 9: M le Vicoht to wish, for his own sake and for that of the community, that the productions of the country should be protected against foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able to undersell the former_”[10]

[Footnote 10: Mathieu de Do in all writings of the protectionist school It is ation of itsthe attention and the patience of the reader I will first examine into the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are caused by diversity of taxes

Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, taking part with the producer Let us consider the case of the unfortunate consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention They compare the field of production to the _turf_ But on the turf, the race is at once a _le, independent of the struggle itself When your horses are started in the course with the single object of deter is more natural than that their burdens should be equalized But if your object were to send an ience, could you without incongruity place obstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the bestyour end? And yet this is your course in relation to industry

You forget the end ai_ of the community

But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of view, let us now take theirs; let us examine the question as producers

I will seek to prove

1 That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the foundations of all trade

2 That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by the competition of more favored climates

3 That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize the facilities of production

4 That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as possible; and

5 That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those which profitof the facilities of production, is not only the shackling of certain articles of co of the systee in its very foundation principle For this system is based precisely upon the very diversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon the inequalities of fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities, which the protectionists seek to render null

If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and Brittany sends corn to Guyenne, it is because these two provinces are, from different circumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production of different articles Is there any other rule for international exchanges?

Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of condition which excite and explain the The protective syste men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation In short, there is not one of its Sophisorous deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation

II It is not true that the unequal facility of production, in two similar branches of industry, should necessarily cause the destruction of the one which is the least fortunate On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any useful article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because the stronger is the ood for nothing Wheat is cultivated in every departreat differences in the degree of fertility existing a them If it happens that there be one which does not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivation is not useful analogy will show us, that under the influence of an unshackled trade, notwithstanding sidom of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely the cultivation of it, this would only be, because it would _be her interest_ to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor And why does not the fertility of one depart and less favored one? Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, _a self-leveling power_, which seems to escape the attention of the school of protectionists They accuse us of being theorists, but it is the theoretic consists in building up syste by the experience of a series of facts In the above example, it is the difference in the value of lands, which compensates for the difference in their fertility Your field produces three times as much as mine Yes But it has cost you three times as much, and therefore I can still compete with you: this is the sole e on one point leads to disadvantage on the other Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, it is more dear It is not _accidentally_ but _necessarily_ that the equilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself; and can it be denied that perfect freedoes is, of all the systems, the one which favors this tendency?

I have cited an agricultural exaht as easily have taken one from any trade There are tailors at Qui in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a her price for furniture, workmen, and food

But their customers are sufficiently numerous not only to re-establish the balance, but also to make it lean on their side

When therefore the question is about equalizing the advantages of labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedo faculty of political phenomena is so important, and at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the providential wisdooverner, to turn to it the attention of the reader

The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is impossible for us to compete with it

We must examine the proposition under other aspects For the present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in the pohichthem in a just equilibrium

Let us suppose the countries A and B A has every advantage over B; you thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be abandoned A, you say, sells ht dispute this, but I will round

In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand in A, soon rises in value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little sought after in B, soon fall in price

Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B to A It is abundant in A--very scarce in B