Part 8 (2/2)

This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and protection, while it e the direction of capital, and transfer it from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny

This question, which is of the highest interest, ill examine elsewhere I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by such reasoning as that of Mr de Doiven quantity of cash, and every year wantonly burning the half of its produce I will undertake to prove by the theory of Mr de Dombasle that this nation will not be the less rich in consequence of such a procedure

For, the result of the conflagrationwould double in price An inventory made before this event would offer exactly the same nominal value, as one made after it Who then would be the loser? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price; and if Peter ains it back by the sale of his cloth Thus ”every one finds in the increase of the price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of his expenses; and thus if every body pays as consumer, every body also receives as producer”

All this is nonsense The simple truth is: that whether men destroy their corn and cloth by fire or by use, the effect is the saards riches_, for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use, that riches--in other words, co--exist

Protection s, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, _nu_, as when unembarrassed by it But because we put down in an inventory three hectolitres of corn at 20 francs, or four hectolitres at 15 francs, and sum up the nominal value of each at 60 francs, does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing to the necessities of the community?

To this view of consumption, it will be my continual endeavor to lead the protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the solution of every problem Ico it to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in its results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced under the protective systereater quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live on _nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the more abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the richer is he

XII

DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?

Workular! you are robbed, as I will presently prove to you But no; I retract the word; we must avoid an expression which is violent; perhaps indeed incorrect; inasuise it, is practiced, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and with the consent of the spoiled But it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of the just co _justice_ to be rendered to you If you could be consoled by noisy appeals to philanthropy, to powerless charity, to degrading al words would relieve you, these indeed you can have in abundance But _justice_, si you this For would it not be _just_ that after a long day's labor, when you have received your little wages, you should be perest possible sum of comforts that you can obtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth?

Let us exaislative limitation of the persons fros which you need; as bread,(so to express myself) the artificial price which these articles must bear

Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus injures you, raises proportionably the rate of wages?

On what does the rate of wages depend?

One of your own class has energetically said: ”When torkes fall; when two es rise”

Allow h perhaps a less striking expression: ”The rate of wages depends upon the proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand”

On what depends the _demand_ for labor?

On the quantity of disposable national capital And the lahich says, ”such or such an article shall be lin countries,” can it in any degree increase this capital? Not in the least This law may withdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another; but cannot increase it one penny

Then it cannot increase the demand for labor

While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we answer, from whence comes the capital hich it is founded and maintained?

Has it fallen froriculture, or navigation, or other industry? We here see why, since the reign of protective tariffs, if we seetoe find also fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer laborers and vine-growers in our fields and upon our hillsides

I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer illustrating ht by an example