“LA MANO INVISIBLE” de Adam Smith capítulos 4 5 y 6 un audio libro en español / filosofia economica

“LA MANO INVISIBLE” de Adam Smith capítulos 4 5 y 6 un audio libro en español / filosofia economica


Adam Smith The invisible hand Chapter 4. The restrictions on the import of goods. By restricting, either through the imposition of high taxes, or through absolute prohibition, the import of goods from other countries that can be produced in one’s own country, the monopoly of the domestic market is practically guaranteed to the industry of the kingdom used to procure those goods. In this way, the prohibition of importing live cattle or salted meats from other countries guarantees the breeders of Great Britain the monopoly of the production of fresh meat in the domestic market. The high taxes that weigh on the import of grain, which in times of moderate abundance mean a prohibition in every rule, grant similar advantage to those who cultivate it. The prohibition of importing foreign wool is equally favorable to manufacturers of wool manufactures. Similar advantages have been obtained recently the silk yarns, even being totally dependent on foreign genres. This is not yet the case with flax, which, however, are taking great steps to achieve them. In the same way, the producers of many other species of manufactures have obtained in the Great Britain an absolute or almost absolute monopoly that is to the detriment of their compatriots. The goods that are forbidden to enter Great Britain, whether full or in certain circumstances, far outweigh what might be assumed by those who do not know the customs laws well. There is no doubt that this monopoly of the domestic market often greatly encourages the particular industry that enjoys it and that often uses a greater amount of work and funds from society than, otherwise, would have targeted To her. But perhaps it is not so evident that it tends to increase the general industry of said society or to grant it the most advantageous direction. The general industry of a society can never exceed what national capital can use. In the same way that the number of workers to whom a person can give work must keep a certain proportion with his capital, the number of those who can be continuously employed by all the members of a great society must keep a certain proportion with the whole of the capital of that society, without ever going beyond it. No commercial regulation can take the amount of industry of a society beyond what its capital is able to maintain. Only a certain part can be diverted towards an end that, if not such regulation, would not have had, and even then it will not be in any way clear that this artificial direction will be more advantageous to society than it would have taken its own media. All individuals constantly strive to discover the most advantageous occupation for any capital they have. What they really have in mind is their own advantage, not that of society, but the attention to their own interest, naturally or, rather, necessarily, will lead them to prefer the most advantageous employment for their society. In the first place, every individual tries to use his capital as close as possible to his home and, as much as possible, to the benefit of the internal industry, whenever he can, from there, obtain the benefits of your funds, or not much less than usual. Thus, in the case of equal or similar profits, the natural thing is that any merchant who treats the greater ??? prefers to trade for internal consumption, not for the external one, but who prefers this second activity to the transportation business. In domestic trade you will never have your capital as far away as it usually does when you trade for foreign consumption. You can also better know the character and the situation of the people you trust, and, if you happen to be deceived, you will also know better the laws of the country from which you have to seek redress. In the transportation business it can be said that the capital of the merchant is divided between two foreign countries and that no part of it has to return to the country of origin or be within the reach and under the direct control of that trader. The capital that an Amsterdam merchant uses to transport grain from Konigsberg to Lisbon, and fruit and wine to the contrary, should generally be half in Konigsberg and half in Lisbon. Of that flow, no part will have to be never in Amsterdam. The natural residence of that merchant must be either Konigsberg or Lisbon, and only special circumstances will make him prefer to settle in Amsterdam. However, the discomfort felt to be so removed from their capital usually determines that part of the genres of Konigsberg that goes to the market of Lisbon and part of the square that goes to Konigsberg finish in Amsterdam, and although this situation forced to a double charge of loading and unloading, as well as to the payment of certain taxes and tariffs, in order to always have part of its capital under its gaze and control, will access that extraordinary expense, and this is how countries with important participation in the Transport business always become emporia, that is, in general markets for the genres of all the other countries whose commercial movement channels. The merchant, to avoid a second loading and unloading, will always try to sell in the domestic market as many goods as possible from the different countries, in order to convert what he can from his transportation business into commerce for foreign consumption. In the same way, the trader who participates in this type of foreign market, when collecting goods for foreign markets, provided that the benefits are equal or almost equal, will gladly sell as many as possible in their domestic market. It will avoid the danger and problems of export when, as far as possible, it will convert its trade for the foreign market into domestic trade. In this way, the country of origin will constitute the center, so to say, around which the capitals of its inhabitants will not stop circulating and towards which all of them will always tend, although some reasons may expel them from that market and throw them into activities more distant. However, a capital used for domestic trade, as already noted, will necessarily launch a greater amount of domestic industry, providing income and employment to a greater number of inhabitants of the country than the same capital when used for consumption. Exterior; and the one that is used for the latter purpose will present the same advantages over the same amount of capital destined to the transportation business. Consequently, in the presence of equal or almost equal benefits, it is normal for an individual to be inclined to use his capital in the way that most likely favors the industry of his country, providing income and employment to the greatest number of people in that same kingdom.. Second, the individual who uses his capital for the benefit of the domestic industry will necessarily do so in the sector that gives the most value to his products. The product of the industry is what it adds to the work and the materials it is used for, so that if the value of that product is large or small, large or small will be the benefits of whoever it used. But only to obtain profit does any man use capital for the benefit of industry; and, consequently, will always try to use it for the benefit of the industry whose product may have more value or be exchanged for the greater amount of money or other merchandise. But the annual income of any company will always be exactly equal to the exchange value of the whole of the annual production of its industry, or rather it will be the same as that exchange value. Therefore, as individuals put all their effort into using their capital in a way that benefits the domestic industry and guiding it toward the one that produces the highest value items, any individual will necessarily work to make the annual income of the kingdom as much as possible. great that you can. However, it does not usually aspire to promote the public interest or know to what extent it is doing so. By preferring to support domestic rather than external industry, it only seeks its own security; and in directing such industry in such a way that its production has the maximum value, it only seeks its own profit and in this, as in many other cases, it happens that it is directed by an invisible hand to promote an end that was not part of it. your intentions Nor does it harm the common society that such an end was not part of their intentions. By seeking their own interest, that individual often and more efficiently fosters that society’s interest than when it actually pursues that encouragement. I have never observed that those who claimed to trade for the common good really did a lot of good. In truth, it is not a very usual pretense among merchants and very few words should be used to dissuade them from pursuing such an end. It is evident that any individual, in his particular situation, can judge much better than any statesman or legislator what type of internal industry can use their capital and what products can achieve the greatest value. The statesman who tries to guide private individuals on how to use their capital, will not only carry an unnecessary task on their shoulders, but will arrogate to himself an authority that can not be given to a single person or even to any council or senate. whatever it is, and that it would never be more dangerous than in the hands of one who incurred the foolishness and the audacity of believing himself apt to exercise it. To a certain extent, in whatever art or manufacture, handing over the monopoly of the internal market to the production of the industry of the kingdom itself is equivalent to directing individuals in the way they should use their capital, and must, in almost all cases, lead to a useless or harmful regulation. If domestic production can be distributed as cheaply as foreign industry, regulation will obviously be useless. If it can not, it will be generally harmful. Any prudent parent has as a maxim not to try to do at home what it will cost him more to manufacture than to buy. The tailor does not try to make his own shoes but buys them from the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not try to make his ????, but resorts to the tailor. Neither one thing nor another does the farmer, who asks each one of these artisans. All of them benefit from using their own industry, so that, by gaining some advantage over their neighbors, they can buy with part of their production or, what amounts to the same, with the price of part of it, anything that precise. What is prudent in the government of a family will seldom be foolish in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can provide us with a good price less than ours, it will be better to buy it from him, so that we obtain some advantage with part of the production of our own industry. In this way, the general industry of a State, always in proportion to the capital that is used for it, and as in the case of the aforementioned artisans, will not be diminished, but only will have to find ways to use it with the maximum benefit. It will not be like this, undoubtedly, if she is oriented to an object that could buy cheaper than manufacturing it herself. So that the value of its annual production will certainly be diminished when it ceases to manufacture more valuable goods than the merchandise it strives to produce. According to this assumption, that merchandise could be acquired in other countries at a cheaper price than that of the realm itself. Consequently, it could have been acquired only with a part of the goods or, what is the same, with a part of the price of those that the domestic industry would have produced with equal capital if it had been allowed to follow its natural course. In this way, the country’s industry leaves a more profitable use than the one who chooses, and the exchange value of its annual production, instead of increasing, as the legislator intended, must necessarily decrease with each new regulation. In truth, in the middle of these regulations, some manufactures can sometimes take less time to acquire than without them and, after some time, be manufactured in the kingdom at a price equal to or less than abroad. But even if the industry of the country can thus advantageously advance towards a given channel and more quickly than in the absence of such regulations, it will not result in any way that the total amount, either of its industry or of its income, can get to grow thanks to this legal novelty. The industry of the country can only increase in proportion to the increase of its capital, and it will only do so in proportion to what can gradually be saved from income. However, the immediate effect of regulations of that kind will be the reduction of income and, undoubtedly, it is not likely that what decreases them will increase capital more quickly than if both the industry and the industry had been free to find their occupation. natural. Although no such regulations were lacking, society would never have acquired the manufacture in question, nor would their poverty have increased that same reason at any time in their existence. In any economy, all its capital and all its industry could have been equally dedicated, although with different objects, to the most advantageous tasks. In any economy, your income could have been as large as your capital allowed, and both your income and your capital could have increased as quickly as possible. Sometimes, the natural advantages that one country has over another to produce certain goods are so great that everyone in the world must recognize the futility of opposing it. Using glass coverings and artificially heated seed stores, Scotland could grow good vines and produce good wine at a cost thirty times higher than products that are of equal or less equal quality, brought from other countries. Would it be reasonable to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines for the sole purpose of promoting the production of claret and burgundy in Scotland? But if it would be manifestly absurd to use thirty times more of the capital and industry of the country than would be necessary to buy in other realms an equivalent quantity of the desired goods, would not it also be an absurdity, not so blatant, although it would be the same category, dedicate thirty times more or even three hundred times more of one thing and another to that work? It is totally irrelevant in this sense that the advantages that one country has over another are natural or acquired. As long as that country has them and others want them, it will always be more advantageous for the latter to buy the first one than to produce themselves. Only the advantage that an artisan has over a neighbor engaged in another trade is acquired, and yet it is more profitable for both of them to buy goods from each other than to manufacture what is not proper to each of their professions. The ones that profit most from this monopoly of the internal market are the merchants and the manufacturers. The prohibition on the importation of foreign cattle and salted meats, together with the high tariffs imposed on foreign grain, which in times of relative abundance really amount to a prohibition, are by no means so advantageous for the farmers and peasants of the Great Britain as are other similar regulations for its merchants and manufacturers of manufactures. These, especially those of better finish, are more easily transported from one country to another than grain or livestock. Therefore, the main task of foreign trade will be to bring and carry manufactures. In them, a small advantage will enable foreigners to sell cheaper than our own artisans, even in the domestic market, but very large will have to be the advantage for them to be profitable to do the same with the natural products of the earth. If total freedom were given to import foreign manufactures, some of the domestic manufacturers would have a bad time, perhaps some would even go bankrupt and a considerable part of the materials and labor that are now destined to these products would be forced to look for another occupation. But it would be impossible for the totally free import of products from the countryside to have such an effect on the country’s agriculture. For example, if the importation of foreign cattle became totally free, very little could be received that could affect the cattle business of Great Britain, since perhaps live animals are the only commodity whose transport is more expensive ??? sea than ??? mainland. Ro ground, they themselves go to the market. Ro sea, not only cattle, but their forage and water should be transported, with great cost and discomfort. Indeed, the short stretch of sea between Ireland and Great Britain facilitates the importation of Irish cattle. But even if their free entry into the country, subsequently allowed, even if only a short time, were perpetual, it would not have a considerable effect on the interests of the British breeders. The parts of the kingdom bordering the Irish Sea are all cattle-raising areas, which Irish animals could never import for their use. The possible imports would cross these extensive territories, with great cost and discomfort, until they reach their destination market. It would not be possible to carry fat cattle so far. Therefore, only skinny could be imported and this importation could affect not the interests of forage or fattening areas, for which, when the price of skinny cattle is reduced, it would be more advantageous, but those in which they are raised animals. The limited importation of Irish cattle since such trafficking was allowed, in addition to the good price at which the thin cattle continue to be sold, seems to show that not even areas of Great Britain dedicated to raising livestock would probably be affected by free importation of cattle from Ireland. In truth it is said that the common people of this country have sometimes violently opposed the export of their cattle. But if the exporters had found some great advantage in continuing their trade, they would easily have overcome, if the law was on their side, that turbulent opposition. In addition, forage and fattening areas must always be highly developed, while breeding areas are usually uncultivated land. The high price of skinny cattle, by increasing the value of uncultivated land, comes to reward in some way the lack of development. It will be more advantageous for any country deeply advanced to import its skinny cattle than to raise it. Thus, it is said that the province of Holland follows that maxim at present. In truth, the mountains of Scotland, Wales and Northumberland are territories incapable of great advancement, which seem destined to nature to be the breeding grounds of Great Britain. The total freedom to import foreign cattle could have no more consequences than to prevent those breeding territories from taking advantage of the increase in population and the advance of the rest of the kingdom, which take the price of livestock to extremes and impose a real tax on the most advanced and cultivated territories of the country. In the same way, the importation with the greatest freedom of salted meats would affect the interests of the farmers of Great Britain as well as the cattle. These meats are not only a very voluminous commodity, but, compared to fresh meat, are of lower quality and, by requiring more work and disbursement, its price is higher. Consequently, they could never compete with fresh meat, although they could compete with the salty meats of the kingdom. They could be used to supply ships exposed to long voyages and for similar uses, but they could never be an essential part of the people’s diet. The small amount of salted meats brought from Ireland since their import was freely allowed is an experimental proof that our farmers have nothing to fear from it. It does not seem that the price of the sort destined to the butchers’ shops has been significantly affected by the price of salted meat. Even the free importation of foreign grain could not greatly affect the interests of the British peasants. The grain is a much more bulky merchandise than that of the butcher. A pound of wheat at a penny is as burdensome to carry as a pound of fresh meat at fourpence. The small amount of foreign grain that is imported, even in times of great scarcity, can assure our peasants that they have nothing to fear from total freedom of importation. It only represents, according to the highly informed author of the treaties on the cereal trade, twenty-three thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight quarters of all kinds of grain, and does not exceed the five hundred seventy-one part. of annual consumption. But, just as the abundance of grains causes a greater export in years of prosperity, in those of scarcity it must cause a greater import than what is observed in the current state of the arable land. This situation means that the abundance of one year does not compensate the scarcity of another, since the average quantity exported will necessarily increase with the boom and the same will happen, in the current state of the arable land, with the average quantity imported. In the absence of bonanza, when less grain is exported, it is likely that, compared to one year with another, less grain would be imported than at present. It is probable that the grain traders and producers, and those who move it between Great Britain and other countries, had much less activity and suffered considerably; but the hacendados and the peasants would suffer very little. Consequently, it is in the grain traffickers, and not in the landowners and peasants, where I observe more concern in the face of the possibility that the bonanza will neither return nor be maintained. It is necessary to recognize the hacendados and the campesinos that they are the least likely to incur the hapless monopolistic spirit. Occasionally, the owner of a large manufacturing house is alarmed when another of the same type is installed within a radius of twenty miles. The Dutch manufacturer of wool yarns from Abbeville stipulated that no installation equal to his was to be placed within a radius of thirty leagues from that city. On the contrary, peasants and landowners are usually willing to encourage rather than obstruct the cultivation and advancement of nearby farms and haciendas. They lack secrets like those of most manufacturers and are usually friends to communicate to their neighbors and to extend as much as possible any practice that has been advantageous. According to the old Cato, Pius Questus stabilissimusque, minimeque invidiosus; minimeque male cogitantes sunt, qui in eo studio occcupati sunt. The landowners and peasants, dispersed in different areas of the country, can not so easily unite as the merchants and manufacturers of manufactures, who, when they congregate in cities, and are accustomed to that exclusive corporate spirit that prevails in them, naturally try to uproot all his compatriots the same privileges that usually distinguish them from their respective fellow citizens. Consequently, they seem to have been the inventors of these restrictions on the importation of foreign goods that guarantee them the monopoly of the domestic market. Probably in imitation of him, and to be at the same level as those who, they proved, were willing to oppress them, what the hacendados and peasants of Great Britain forgot the generosity connatural to their condition to demand the exclusive privilege of providing their compatriots grain and fresh meat. Perhaps they would not stop to think about how little, compared to those whose example they were following, their interests would be affected by the introduction of free trade. In fact, to prohibit the importation of foreign grain and livestock in perpetuity by law is tantamount to establishing that the population and industry of a country can never go beyond what the natural production of their land can maintain. However, there seem to be two cases in which it is usually advantageous to tax foreigners in some way to encourage national industry. The first is that in which a certain industry is necessary for national defense. That of Great Britain, for example, depends to a large extent on the number of sailors and ships. Consequently, the law of navigation seeks very adequately to grant to the British sailors and ships the monopoly of that office in their own kingdom, sometimes by absolute prohibition, others imposing heavy taxes on ships of other countries. The main provisions of this law are listed below: First, it is forbidden to all those ships whose owners and three quarters of the seamen are not British subjects to trade with the colonies and plantations of Great Britain or to carry out trade of cabotage, so that the confiscation of the cargo and the ship is confiscated. Second, a great variety of the most voluminous import items can only enter the realm, either in the vessels described above, or in others of the country in which they were purchased and whose owner, skipper and three-quarters of the crew are of that type. country. When they are imported in ships of this last class, they will be subject to double the tax that falls on foreign goods. Importation into ships of any other country will be punished by seizure of the ship and of the goods. When this law was passed, the Dutch were, and continue to be, the main carriers of Europe and, by virtue of this rule, were totally excluded from transport with Great Britain and from the possibility of bringing goods from any other country. Third, the entry of a large number of import products of the most bulky is forbidden, even in British ships, unless it is from the same producer country, subject to seizure of the ship and the cargo. It is probable that this law was also directed against the Dutch. In that era, and also in the present, Holland was the great emporium of European merchandise, and with this rule the British ships were hindered from loading products from any other European country into the Netherlands. Fourth, the salted fish, in addition to the fins, beards and the oil or fat of whales not captured and cured aboard British ships will have to pay a double tax on foreign merchandise upon their entry into Great Britain. The Dutch, just as they were then the only fishermen in Europe who sold their catches to other nations, are now the ones who dedicate themselves most to that work. Thanks to this law, a heavy tax was imposed on the entry of their fish into Great Britain. When the navigation law was passed, although England and the Netherlands were not at war, both nations were still faced with the most violent animosity. This, initiated in times of the Long Parliament, precursor of this norm, exploded shortly afterwards in the wars with Holland, during the era of the Protector and of King Charles II. Consequently, it is not impossible that some of the provisions of that law arose from national animosity towards the Dutch. All in all, they would sound as sensible as if they were the fruit of the most established wisdom. In that era, the national animosity was oriented to the same object that the most established wisdom would have recommended, namely, the diminution of Dutch naval power, the only one that could endanger the security of England. The law of navigation is not favorable to foreign trade or the growth of opulence that can arise from it. The interest of a nation in its commercial relations with others is, like that of a merchant with the different people with whom it deals, buy the cheapest possible and sell at the highest possible price. But to that kingdom you will be more likely to buy cheap when, by virtue of the most complete freedom of trade, encourage all nations to bring you the goods you need to buy and, for the same reason, you will be able to sell more expensive when your markets they are, ??? both, overflowing with the largest number of buyers. It is true that the navigation law does not impose any tax on foreign ships that arrive to export the products of British industry. Even the old rights that foreigners used to pay, both when exporting and importing merchandise, have been withdrawn, thanks to successive laws, from a large part of the export items. But if foreigners, good ??? prohibitions, ? ??? high taxes, it is difficult for them to come here to sell, they can not always afford to come to buy, because, when going without cargo, they will lose the freight they could earn on their way to the Britain. In this way, by decreasing the number of sellers, we will not be able to reduce the number of buyers, so not only are we likely to buy more expensive foreign goods, but we will sell ours cheaper than if there were a freedom of trade more absolute. However, being the defense of much more importance than opulence, perhaps the law of navigation is the most sensible commercial standard that exists in England. The second case in which, in general, it will be advantageous to tax the foreign industry in some way to encourage the internal industry, occurs when in the realm itself a tax is levied on domestic products. It would seem reasonable to apply in this case a tax equal to similar products brought from abroad. The monopoly of the internal market would not be given to the own industry, nor would it go against the natural tendency, orienting to a certain use a greater part of the materials and the work of the country. It would only prevent the tax from directing a certain part of those reserves and labor in a less natural direction, leaving the competition between the foreign and the national industry, after the application of the tax, to be as similar as possible. to the previous one. In Great Britain,when such a tax is applied to domestic production, the importation of all similar foreign goods is usually taxed with a much more burdensome tax, in order to prevent our merchants and manufacturers of manufacturing from complaining that they have to sell cheaper what is due According to some, this second limitation of freedom of trade should, in some cases, extend far beyond the particular foreign merchandise that could enter into competition with the nationals taxed. In his opinion, when in any country the most essential items are taxed, it is appropriate to do so not only with those from other countries, but with all kinds of foreign merchandise that compete with any product of the national industry. They say that subsistence can not be made more expensive because of these taxes and that the price of labor should always increase when the subsistence of the laborer becomes more expensive. Consequently, any product of the domestic industry, even free of its own taxes, will become more expensive because of those of others, because the work that produces it is more expensive.In this way, they say, these charges are in fact equivalent to a tax that taxes all domestic products. So, for the industry of the kingdom to be on equal terms with the foreign one, it will be, in its opinion, necessary to apply to any foreign merchandise a tax equal to the price increase suffered by the national merchandise with which they could enter into competition. When I later deal with taxes, I will deal with the fact that necessities such as soap, salt, leather or candles necessarily increase the price of labor and, consequently, that of all other commodities. However, assuming in the meantime that they have that effect, and certainly do, the general increase in the price of all commodities, as a result of labor, is a case that differs in the following two aspects from that of a certain commodity. whose price will increase because of a tax that would tax it in a particular way. In the first place, one could always know with great accuracy to what extent the price of that commodity could increase by virtue of that tax, but it could never be known with tolerable exactitude to what extent the general increase in the price of labor could affect that of any commodity. related to him. It would be impossible, consequently, to adjust the tax to any foreign merchandise with tolerable exactitude, in a way that would respond to the increase in the price of merchandise of the kingdom. Secondly, taxing basic goods has almost the same effect on the existence of people as poor land or bad weather. So that the provisions become more expensive in the same way that if more work and more expense were needed to produce them. As in a shortage born naturally of the terrain and the climate, it would be absurd to direct people towards a certain use of their capital and industry, as it would be in the face of an artificial scarcity caused by those taxes. It is evident that, in both cases, the most profitable will be to allow them to accommodate their situation as they can, thus discovering the uses that, despite the unfavorable circumstances, could benefit them most, both in the domestic market and abroad.No doubt it would be the most absurd to try to compensate them by taxing them with another tax that weighs on most genres, because they already suffer excessive taxes and because they must already pay exaggerated prices for the goods of first necessity. These taxes, when they reach a certain level, are a curse equivalent to the sterility of the earth and the inclemency of the heavens; however, it has been in the richest and most industrious countries where they have been most frequently used. No other country could withstand such a great disturbance. In the same way that only the most robust bodies can live and enjoy health in adverse circumstances, only those nations that have industries with natural and acquired advantages can survive and prosper with these taxes. Holland is the country in Europe where the most are abundant and which, in peculiar circumstances, continues to prosper, not those taxes, as it has been absurdly considered, but in spite of them. Just as there are two cases in which it will be generally advantageous to tax the foreign industry in some way to benefit the domestic industry, there are also two others in which these gavels can sometimes be the object of reflection. One, to what extent it is convenient to maintain the free importation of certain foreign merchandise; another, to what extent or in what way can it be recovered after having interrupted it for a certain time. The case in which it can sometimes be the object of reflection to what extent it is convenient to maintain the free importation of certain foreign goods occurs when some foreign nations restrict with high rights or prohibitions the entry into them of some of our manufactures. Faced with this situation, revenge dictates that naturally the same be done with that nation and that we impose rights and prohibitions similar to the entry of some or all of its merchandise into our territory. Therefore, it is rare that nations do not take revenge in this way. The French have been especially prone to favor their own manufactures by restricting the importation of foreign goods that could compete with them. This was largely the policy of Colbert, who, despite his great capabilities, seems in this case to have been carried away by the sophisticated reasoning of merchants and manufacturers of manufactures, always demanding monopolies contrary to the interests of their compatriots. At this moment the smartest men in France believe that Colbert’s practices have not been beneficial for his country. Under the tariff approved in 1667,This minister imposed high duties on a large number of foreign manufactures. When he refused to moderate them to favor the Dutch, in 1671 they banned the importation of wines, spirits and manufactures from France. It seems that the war of 1672 arose in part from this commercial dispute. The peace of Nijmegen put an end to it in 1678, moderating some of the gabelas to favor the Dutch, who consequently lifted their prohibitions. In that same era, the French and English began to oppress each other’s industries with similar tariffs and prohibitions, whose first example seems to have been given by the French. The spirit of hostility that has been maintained between the two nations since then has prevented them from moderating their positions until now.In 1697 the English prohibited the importation of bobbin lace made in Flanders. The Government of that country, at that time dominated ??? Spain, prohibited its share the importation of English wools. In 1700 the prohibition to the entrance in England of lace was lifted, provided that the arrival of English wool to Flanders returned to the previous conditions. Perhaps this policy is well founded if it is likely that thanks to it the high tariffs or prohibitions that are the subject of the complaint will be withdrawn. In general, the recovery of a large foreign market will more than compensate for the temporary discomfort of paying more expensive goods for some time. Perhaps it does not correspond to the science of the legislator, whose deliberations should be governed by general and unalterable principles, to judge whether or not such revenge will produce that effect, but rather to the tricks of that insidious and cunning animal that is vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose Advice directs the momentary fluctuation of business. When there is no possibility of a revocation of this kind occurring, it seems a bad thing to compensate for the damage caused to certain classes of our people, causing ourselves another,not just those classes, but almost all the others. When our neighbors prohibit some manufacture of our kingdom, we usually prohibit not only that same product, since that practice could harm them little, but other of its manufactures. Undoubtedly, this will encourage some classes of workers in our kingdom and, by excluding some of their rivals, will make it possible for them to raise their prices in the national market. However, those who suffered because of the prohibition of our neighbors will not benefit from ours. Quite the contrary, they and almost all of our fellow citizens will be forced to pay more than before for certain goods. Consequently, all these laws will apply a real tax to the whole country,that it will not favor the class of workers that really was harmed by the prohibition of our neighbors, but to another class. The case in which it can sometimes be a reflection to what extent, or in what way, it is convenient to recover the free importation of foreign goods after having interrupted it for a certain time occurs when certain manufactures, because of the high tariffs or prohibitions that weigh on all foreign genres that can enter into competition with them, have come to extend to such a point that today they employ a large number of workers. Perhaps in this case, humanity demands that the recovery of freedom of trade only be done very gradually, and with great reserve and caution. If these high tariffs and prohibitions were to be withdrawn suddenly, equivalent and cheaper foreign merchandise could flood the internal market with great rapidity,coming to deprive at a single stroke many thousands of civilians from their ordinary work and means of subsistence. There is no doubt that the disturbance that this would cause would be very considerable. However, in all likelihood it would be much smaller than is usually imagined, for the following two reasons: In the first place, all those manufactures, of which a part is usually exported to other European countries without bonuses, would be scarcely affected by the free importation of foreign goods. These manufactures must be sold as cheaply as any other of the same quality and kind, and therefore they must also be offered cheaper in our kingdom. Consequently, they would still dominate the domestic market, and although a capricious fashion man could sometimes prefer foreign products, the mere fact of being, to other cheaper and better manufactured here, this nature would spread to so few. people that would hardly influence the whole work of the people. However, a large part of the various branches of our wool manufactures,tanned leather and metal tools are exported annually to other European countries without any help, and these are the ones that give work to a greater number of workers. Perhaps silk was the manufacture that would suffer the most with that commercial freedom, and after that the linen, although this much less than that. Secondly, although a large number of people would suddenly be deprived, with the recovery of commercial freedom, of their current work and means of subsistence, it would not be inferred from this that they would be totally deprived of employment or means of subsistence. maintenance. With the reduction of the Army and the Navy at the end of the last war, more than one hundred thousand soldiers and sailors, a number equal to that of the workers of the main manufactures, were expelled from their occupations; but, although they undoubtedly suffered some discomforts, they were not completely deprived of work or of means of maintenance. It is probable that most of the sailors were going little by little to the service of the merchants that could find and that, meanwhile,they and the soldiers were absorbed ??? the great mass of the people, working in many different tasks. Not only a great upheaval, nor an appreciable disorder arose from such an important change in the situation of more than one hundred thousand men, all of them versed in the use of weapons and many of them accustomed to plunder and plunder. However, what I have been able to know, such situation hardly increased in any place the number of vagabonds, not even salaries were reduced ??? that reason in any occupation, except among the seamen of the mercantile service. But if we compare the customs of the soldier and those of any craftsman, we will discover that those of the secondnor did any appreciable disorder arise from such an important change in the situation of more than one hundred thousand men, all of them versed in the use of arms and many of them accustomed to plunder and plunder. However, what I have been able to know, such situation hardly increased in any place the number of vagabonds, not even salaries were reduced ??? that reason in any occupation, except among the seamen of the mercantile service. But if we compare the customs of the soldier and those of any craftsman, we will discover that those of the secondnor did any appreciable disorder arise from such an important change in the situation of more than one hundred thousand men, all of them versed in the use of arms and many of them accustomed to plunder and plunder. However, what I have been able to know, such situation hardly increased in any place the number of vagabonds, not even salaries were reduced ??? that reason in any occupation, except among the seamen of the mercantile service. But if we compare the customs of the soldier and those of any craftsman, we will discover that those of the secondnot even salaries were reduced by that motive in any occupation, except among the merchantmen of the mercantile service. But if we compare the customs of the soldier and those of any craftsman, we will discover that those of the secondnot even salaries were reduced by that motive in any occupation, except among the merchantmen of the mercantile service. But if we compare the customs of the soldier and those of any craftsman, we will discover that those of the second they disable less to perform another job than those of the first. The artisan has always been accustomed to seek subsistence only through his work and the soldier to wait for his pay. Dedication and diligence are familiar to the first; indolence and dissipation, the second. And, no doubt, it is much easier to make the diligence move from one occupation to another than to transfer the indolence and dissipation to none. In addition, as already mentioned, along with most manufactures there are other annexes, of a similar nature that an operator can easily transfer his diligence from one to another. In addition, most of these artisans occasionally work in the fields as day laborers.The funds that previously gave them labor in a certain manufacturing will continue in the country to occupy another way to the same number of people. As the capital of the country remains the same, the demand for labor will also be the same, or almost equal, although it can be pursued in different places and occupations. In truth, the soldiers and sailors, upon being discharged from the service of the king, are free to perform any office in any city or place in Great Britain or Ireland. Let us then return to any of the subjects of the king the same natural freedom that soldiers and sailors have to exercise any kind of work they wish; that is to say, we finish with the exclusive privileges of the guilds and we annul the apprentice’s statute, things both that really cut off the natural freedom,and let us also put an end to the law of settlement, so that the working poor, when they are expelled from their occupation, in a certain trade or place, can look for another in a different trade or place without fear of denunciation or expulsion, and neither neither the population nor the individual will suffer much more with the occasional dissolution of some kinds of manufactures than the soldiers suffer upon being discharged. There is no doubt that our artisans are of great value to their country, but they can not have more than those who defend it with their blood, nor deserve to be treated with more delicacy.and neither the population nor the individual will suffer much more with the occasional dissolution of some kinds of manufactures than the soldiers suffer upon graduation. There is no doubt that our artisans are of great value to their country, but they can not have more than those who defend it with their blood, nor deserve to be treated with more delicacy.and neither the population nor the individual will suffer much more with the occasional dissolution of some kinds of manufactures than the soldiers suffer upon graduation. There is no doubt that our artisans are of great value to their country, but they can not have more than those who defend it with their blood, nor deserve to be treated with more delicacy. Actually, expecting freedom of commerce to be completely restored in Britain would be as absurd as relying on the establishment of an Oceania or Utopia. He is irresistibly opposed not only by the prejudices of the population, but also by something even more insurmountable: the private interests of many individuals. If the Army officers opposed any reduction of the troops with equal boldness and unanimity that the owners of factories face to any law that may increase the number of their rivals in the domestic market; if the former would incite their soldiers in the same way as the latter to their operatives to attack with violence and outrage those who postulate such laws,Trying to reduce the army would be as dangerous as it is now trying to reduce in any way the monopoly that factory owners have imposed against the general interest. That monopoly has increased to such an extent the number of certain tribes of owners of manufactures that, like a permanent army of excessive size, they have become something fearsome to the Government, coming to intimidate many times the legislators. The member of Parliament who supports any proposal to strengthen this monopoly, will undoubtedly acquire not only the fame of understanding the trade trade, but will enjoy great popularity and influence among that estate which, because of its number of members and wealth, has great weight On the contrary, if you plant ???? and, even worse, if you have sufficient authority to frustrate your plans,neither the most obvious probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services will be able to protect you from the most infamous insults and discredits, personal insults and sometimes even real dangers, emanating from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists. There is no doubt that any manufacturer of a large manufacture, who owed the sudden opening of internal markets to foreign competition would be forced to abandon his trade, would suffer very considerably. The part of its capital normally destined to the purchase of materials and to pay its workers, could, without much difficulty, find another destination. But the part that was linked to the factories and the utensils of his trade could hardly be dispensed with without incurring a considerable loss. Therefore, the fairness with which these interests should be safeguarded requires that changes of that kind should never be introduced suddenly but gradually, gradually, and after warning them for a long time. Maybe the legislators,if it were possible that their deliberations should always depart not from the clamorous inopportunity of partial interests, but from a general idea of ??the common good, they should take special ???? both to avoid any monopoly of this species and to limit those already existing. Any rule of that kind introduces a certain degree of disorder into the functioning of the kingdom, which will later be difficult to cure without causing further disorder. To what extent it may be appropriate to tax the importation of foreign goods, not for the purpose of actually preventing their importation but to increase the State’s income, is something that I will deal with later, when I deal with taxes. It is evident that those who apply to prevent, or even to reduce, the importation are as damaging to customs revenues as they are to freedom of trade. Chapter 5. ??? what restrictions are not reasonable. Part One. ??? what restrictions are not reasonable, even those based on the principles of the trading system. Applying extraordinary restrictions to the importation of goods of all kinds from those countries with which the trade balance is not considered advantageous is the second resource proposed by the mercantile system to increase the quantity of gold and silver. In this way, the Great Batista of Silesia can be imported for domestic consumption for Great Britain, upon payment of certain tariffs. But the import of cambric and cambists from France is prohibited, except in the Port of London, where those goods must be stored for later export. French wines are subject to higher taxes than those of Portugal or those of any other country. Under the so-called tariff of 1692, an increase of twenty-five percent on the price or value of all French goods was applied; while those of other nations were subject, in their majority, to smaller rights, that generally did not surpass the five ??? cent. It is true that wine, spirits, salt and vinegar from France were exempt from the payment of the tax, since on these genera other burdensome tariffs weighed, either on other laws, or on certain clauses of the same. In 1696 a second tariff of twenty-five ??? cent was levied on all French genres, except for brandy,since it was considered that the first was not enough to discourage consumption. A new tariff of twenty-five pounds ??? each tonne of French wine was added, and another fifteen ??? each tonne of vinegar from the same country. French goods have never been exempt from these general charges or tariffs of five percent, taxes on all or a large part of the goods listed in the book of tariffs. If we consider that the sum of the contributions of one third and two thirds constitute an entire contribution, there have been a total of five general contributions of that nature; so that, before the beginning of the present war, it can be said that seventy and five hundred percent was the lowest tariff to be paid for most of the products of the earth and other natural products, as well as the manufactures of France. However,in most goods, these tariffs amount to a prohibition. For its part, the French, I believe, have treated our goods and manufactures with equal severity; although I do not know exactly the burdens imposed on them. These mutual restrictions have put an end to almost all the good trade that circulated between the two nations and now the smugglers are the main exporters, either of British merchandise to France, or of French merchandise to Great Britain. The principles that I have been examining in the previous chapter had their origin in private interests and the monopolistic spirit; those that I am going to examine here emanate from national prejudice and animosity, which, as would be expected, makes them even less reasonable. And so it is, even considering the principles of the mercantile system. In the first place, even if it were true that, for example, in the case of free trade between France and England the balance was favorable to France, it would not be inferred from this that such deals were not advantageous for England or that the general balance of all that commercial movement could become more against him. If the wines of France are better and cheaper than those of Portugal or, likewise, their linen cloths better and cheaper than those of Germany, it would be more advantageous for Great Britain to buy both the wine and the foreign linen that France needed., and not from Portugal and Germany. Even if the value of the annual imports from France were thus increased, that of the total annual imports would decrease in proportion,since the French genres of the same quality are cheaper than those of the other two countries. This would be the case, even if all the goods imported from France were consumed in Great Britain. However, in the second place, a large part of them could be sent to other countries, where, when profits are obtained through their sale, they could report an income of perhaps equal value to those of the initial cost of all genres imported from that country. What has often been said of the trade with the East Indies could be said equally of the French: that although the majority of the oriental goods are bought with gold and silver, the re-sending of part of them to other countries reports more gold and silver of the one that was spent in the first commercial deals of which they were object. At present, one of the most important branches of Dutch commerce is the transport of French goods to other European countries. Some of the wine that is drunk in Great Britain is smuggled in from Holland and Zeeland. If there were free trade between France and England,or if French goods could be imported here by paying only the same tariffs that other European nations support and that are returned when the products are exported, England could participate in a trade that is known to be very advantageous for the Netherlands. In third and last place, there is no certain criterion to determine which side the so-called trade balance between two countries is inclined, nor which of them exports a higher value. National prejudice and animosity, always fueled by the private interests of some merchants, are the principles that usually guide our judgment on that issue. However, there are two criteria that have often been resorted to in these cases, customs books and the evolution of the exchange rate. In my opinion, and as now almost everyone recognizes, the former are a very uncertain criterion, since their valuation of the vast majority of merchandise is inaccurate, and perhaps the evolution of the exchange rate is equally inaccurate. When the change between two places such as London and Paris is at par, it is said that this indicates that the debts of the first with the second compensate those of the second with the first. On the contrary, when in London some premium is paid ?? a letter on Paris, it is said that it indicates that the debts contracted ??? London with Paris are not compensated by those which Paris has with London; so that from this city a quantity must be sent in cash and that premium will be demanded and will be granted as compensation to France for the risk, the inconvenience and the expenses that the export entails. However, it is said that the current situation of debt and credit between these two cities must necessarily regulate the usual course of dealings between one and the other.When neither of them imports from the other to a greater extent than it exports, the debts and credits of both may mutually compensate each other. But when one of them imports from the other a higher value than the one that exports, the first can not but become more indebted with the second than the latter with the first; the debts and credits of one and the other will not compensate each other and money will have to be sent from the place where the debits weigh more than the credits. Consequently, the ordinary course of the exchange rates, when indicating the current situation of the debt and the credit between two places, should indicate the state of the exports and imports of both, since these are the ones that regulate this situation current.But when one of them imports from the other a higher value than the one that exports, the first can not but become more indebted with the second than the latter with the first; the debts and credits of one and the other will not compensate each other and money will have to be sent from the place where the debits weigh more than the credits. Consequently, the ordinary course of the exchange rates, when indicating the current situation of the debt and the credit between two places, should indicate the state of the exports and imports of both, since these are the ones that regulate this situation current.But when one of them imports from the other a higher value than the one that exports, the first can not but become more indebted with the second than the latter with the first; the debts and credits of one and the other will not compensate each other and money will have to be sent from the place where the debits weigh more than the credits. Consequently, the ordinary course of the exchange rates, when indicating the current situation of the debt and the credit between two places, should indicate the state of the exports and imports of both, since these are the ones that regulate this situation current.the debts and credits of one and the other will not compensate each other and money will have to be sent from the place where the debits weigh more than the credits. Consequently, the ordinary course of the exchange rates, when indicating the current situation of the debt and the credit between two places, should indicate the state of the exports and imports of both, since these are the ones that regulate this situation current.the debts and credits of one and the other will not compensate each other and money will have to be sent from the place where the debits weigh more than the credits. Consequently, the ordinary course of the exchange rates, when indicating the current situation of the debt and the credit between two places, should indicate the state of the exports and imports of both, since these are the ones that regulate this situation current. However, although it is considered that the ordinary course of the change is sufficient sample of the normal state of debt and credit between any two places, it will not be deduced that the trade balance is propitious to the place that has in its favor the current state of debt and credit. Between any two places, this last situation is not always fully regulated ??? the ordinary course of the dealings between them, but often falls under the influence of its shops with many other places. If it is usual, for example, that the merchants of England pay for the goods they buy in Hamburg, Danzig, Riga, etc., by means of letters drawn to Holland, the current status of the debts and credits between England and Holland will not be entirely regulated by the ordinary course of dealings between those two countries, but will fall under the influence of those that England maintains with the other places. England may be forced to send money to the Netherlands every year, although its annual exports to that country far exceed the annual value of imports from it;and although the so-called trade balance is very favorable to England. In addition, as the currency exchange equivalence has been computed up to now, the ordinary course of exchange rates will not be sufficient proof that the ordinary state of debt and credit is favorable to the country it appears to have, or that it is supposed to have, in its favor, the ordinary state of the change; or, to put it another way, the actual equivalence between the coins can be, and in fact is often, so different from the computed value that, in many cases, no definitive conclusion can be drawn from the course of the second in the course of the first.. When a sum of money paid in England, which, according to the pattern of the English stamp, contains a certain number of ounces of pure silver, receives a letter ??? an amount of money payable in France, which contains, according to the French stamp, a equal number of ounces of pure silver, it is said that the change is the same between England and France. When more is paid, a premium is being paid and the change is said to be unfavorable to England and favorable to France. When you pay less, you assume that you get the premium, and then you say that the change is against France and in favor of England. However, in the first place, we can not always judge the value of the current currency of different countries following the patterns of their respective stamps, since the metal with which the money is made suffers variations and adulterations that separate it from the pattern. So that the value of the current currency of each country, if it is compared with that of any other, will have to take into account, not the proportion of pure silver that it should have, but what it really has. Before the change of the silver coin in the time of King William, the change between England and Holland, computed in the usual way according to the patterns of their respective stamps, was a twenty-five percent unfavorable to England. But the value of the currency that then ran in England, as we know ??? Lowndes,was in that era quite ??? under twenty-five ??? percent of the value marked by the boss. Consequently, the real change, even in that era, might be favorable to England, although the computed change was very unfavorable; perhaps with a smaller number of the ounces of pure silver used in England, one could buy a letter payable in Holland, equivalent to a greater number of ounces of pure silver of that country, so that the man who was supposedly paying the premium was actually receiving it. Before the last reform of the English gold coin, the French one was muchperhaps with a smaller number of the ounces of pure silver used in England, one could buy a letter payable in Holland, equivalent to a greater number of ounces of pure silver of that country, so that the man who was supposedly paying the premium was actually receiving it. Before the last reform of the English gold coin, the French one was muchperhaps with a smaller number of the ounces of pure silver used in England, one could buy a letter payable in Holland, equivalent to a greater number of ounces of pure silver of that country, so that the man who was supposedly paying the premium was actually receiving it. Before the last reform of the English gold coin, the French one was much less impure than the English, perhaps between two and three times a hundred closer to her employer. Therefore, if the change computed with France was not more than two or three percent unfavorable to England, the real change could have been in his favor. Since the reform of the English gold coin, the change has always been in favor of England and against France. Second, in some countries the expense of coinage is borne by the State; in others, it is the private individuals who take their bullion to the mint and the State even gets some income for the coinage. In England, it is paid for by the Government, and if one pound of sterling silver is taken to the mint, sixty-two shillings, which contain precisely that amount of sterling silver, are obtained in exchange. In France a tariff of eight ??? cent is applied to cover the minting, something that not only allows it to cover ??? whole, but also grants some income to the State. In England, since minting costs nothing, ordinary currency can never be worth much more than the amount of metal it actually contains. In France, how labor is paid, its value, as it happens with that of silver worked,it grows Therefore, a sum of French money containing a certain amount of pure silver will be more valuable than a sum of English money containing the same weight of that metal, which will require more ingots, or other merchandise, to acquire it. So that, although the current currency of the two countries was similarly close to the pattern of their respective stamps, a sum of English money could not buy one of French money that contained the same number of ounces of pure silver, nor, ??? much, a letter against France ??? value of that sum. If that letter does not pay more money than is enough to compensate for the expenses of the French coinage, the real exchange between the currencies of both countries could be comparable, and their debts and credits could compensate each other,although the change computed was considerably favorable to France. If it were paid less than that figure, the real change could be favorable to England, even if the value computed was favorable to France. Third and last, in some places such as Amsterdam, Hamburg or Venice, foreign bills of exchange are paid in what is called bank money; while in others, such as London, Lisbon, Antwerp and Livorno, they are paid in the country’s current currency. The so-called bank currency is always worth more than the same nominal value of the current currency. For example, a thousand florins of the bank of Amsterdam are worth more than a thousand florins in the city’s current currency. The difference between one and the other is called the bank’s debt, which in Amsterdam is usually five percent. Assuming ??? both that the value of the current currency of two countries is similarly close to the pattern of their respective stamps and that one pays foreign bills in that current currency and the other one does so in bank money,it is evident that the computed change may be favorable to the one who pays with the latter, even if the real change is favorable to the one that does it with currency; the same reason explains that the computed change may be favorable to the one who pays with a better currency, or with a money of value closer to that of his own employer, although the real change is necessarily favorable to the one who pays with the worst currency. In general, the computed change, before the last reform of the gold coin, used to be unfavorable to London in Amsterdam, Hamburg, Venice and, I believe, in all the restalthough the real change is necessarily favorable to the one who pays with the worst currency. In general, the computed change, before the last reform of the gold coin, used to be unfavorable to London in Amsterdam, Hamburg, Venice and, I believe, in all the restalthough the real change is necessarily favorable to the one who pays with the worst currency. In general, the computed change, before the last reform of the gold coin, used to be unfavorable to London in Amsterdam, Hamburg, Venice and, I believe, in all the rest places that pay with what is called bank currency. However, in no way can it be inferred that the real change was unfavorable. Since the reform of the gold coin, the change has been favorable to London in Lisbon, Antwerp, Livorno and, with the exception of France, I believe that in most of the places in Europe that pay with currency; and it is not unlikely that the real change will also be favorable. Part two. ??? what are not reasonable extraordinary restrictions based on other principles. In the previous part of this chapter, I have tried to show that, even on the basis of the principles of the mercantile system, it is unnecessary to impose extraordinary restrictions on the importation of goods from those countries with which the trade balance is presumed to be disadvantageous. However, nothing can be more absurd than all this doctrine of the trade balance, which is based not only these restrictions, but almost all other trade rules. When two squares trade with each other, this doctrine assumes that, if the balance is balanced, neither loses or wins; but if it somehow leans towards one of the sides, it will lose and the other will gain in proportion to the deviation of the balance from the exact balance. Both assumptions are false. As I will try to demonstrate from here, a trade whose course is forced ??? gratifications and monopolies can be disadvantageous, and usually it is, for the country that supposedly benefits. However, trade that, without force or restriction, runs naturally and regularly between any two places,it will always be advantageous for both, although not always to the same extent. The advantage or profit, I do not understand the increase in the amount of gold and silver, but the interchangeable value of annual production from the land and labor of the country, or the increase of the annual income of its inhabitants. If the balance is balanced and the whole of the trade between the two places consists in the exchange of the goods that are theirs, in most cases not only both will win, but will do so in equal measure, or almost in the same; in this case, each one will allow entry into its market of a part of the surplus produced ??? the other; each of them will restitute a capital that has been used to produce and prepare for the market the part of the surplus of the other that has been distributed among some of its inhabitants, to whom it has provided income and subsistence. Accordingly, some of the inhabitants of each of these countries will indirectly obtain their income and maintenance from the other. In the same way that the goods that are exchanged are supposed to have equal value, in most cases the two capitals used for trade will be equal, or almost equal; and, when both are used in the production of goods belonging to the two countries, equal or almost equal will be the income and maintenance that their distribution provides to the inhabitants of each of those places. Those revenues and that maintenance that both mutually granted will be proportionately greater or smaller, according to the magnitude of their commercial dealings. If they rose annually, for example, to one hundred thousand or one million pounds in each of the parties, each would provide the inhabitants of the other one hundred thousand pounds in one case and one million in the other. If the trade between both were of such a nature that one of them would export to the other only domestic merchandise, while the other would send only foreign goods, the balance, in that case, would still be supposedly balanced, since the goods would be paid with goods. Likewise, in this case, both countries would win, but not in equal measure; and the inhabitants of the one that only exported national genres would be those that more income would obtain of the treatment. If England, for example, imported only French goods from that country and, having no national goods in demand in its neighbor, would pay it annually with the shipment of a large quantity of foreign goods, such as tobacco, say, case, and goods from the East Indies, this trade,Although it would provide certain income to the inhabitants of both countries, it would give more to those of France than to those of England. The total French capital used each year for this purpose would be distributed in the same period among the people of France. But only the part of English capital used to produce the English merchandise with which those foreign goods were acquired would be distributed annually among the people of England. Most would restore the capital that had been used in Virginia, Hindustan and China, providing rents and maintenance to the inhabitants of those distant countries. Consequently, if the capitals were equal, or almost equal, this use of French capital would increase much more the incomes of the people of France than English capital would increase those of the people of England.In this case, France would establish direct foreign trade in consumer products with England, while the latter would carry out a circular trade of the same type with France. The different consequences of using capital for a direct foreign trade of consumer products and a capital for a circular trade with those same products have already been explained in detail. It is probable that between any two countries there is no trade consisting entirely in the shipment of national goods to both parties or national goods to one part and foreign goods to the other. Trade between countries is almost always based on the exchange of goods, both domestic and foreign. However, the country with the largest proportion of domestic goods and the lowest proportion of foreign goods will always win more. If it were not with tobacco and goods from the East Indies, but with gold and silver with what England would pay for the goods imported annually from France, the balance, in this case, would be I would say unbalanced, since the goods would not have been paid with other goods, but with those metals. However, in this case, as in the previous one, the commerce would provide income to the inhabitants of both countries, but, nevertheless, more to those of France than to those of England, whose people would not fail to receive certain income.. In this way, the capital used to produce the English goods that were used to buy gold and silver, the capital that had been distributed among certain inhabitants of England, providing them with rents, would be restored and could continue to have that use. All the capital of England would suffer no more reduction with this outflow of gold and silver than with the export of any other commodity of equal value. On the contrary, in most cases it would be increased.To the foreigner no more merchandise is sent than that whose demand is presumed greater than inside and whose yield, ??? as much, is believed to be of more value in the interior than the exported merchandise. If tobacco in England is worth one hundred thousand pounds, when it is shipped to France it can buy wine which in England will be worth one hundred and ten thousand pounds, this exchange will also increase the capital of England by ten thousand pounds. In the same way, if one hundred thousand pounds of English gold can buy French wine which in England will cost one hundred and ten thousand, this exchange will also increase English capital by ten thousand pounds. In the same way that a merchant who has in his cellar came a value of one hundred and ten thousand pounds is richer than the one that only keeps in his store tobacco ??? value of one hundred thousand pounds,he will also be richer than he who has only a hundred thousand pounds of gold in his coffers. It will be able to move a greater amount of industry and provide income, maintenance and work to a greater number of people than any of the other two. But the capital of a country is equal to the sum of the capitals of all its inhabitants, and the amount of industry that it will be able to maintain annually in it will be equal to what all those capitals can maintain. Consequently, both the capital of the country and the amount of industry that it can maintain annually will generally increase thanks to this exchange. In fact, for England it would be more advantageous to be able to buy the wines of France with their metal manufactures or their fine cloths than with the tobacco of the Virginia or the gold and silver of Brazil or Peru.A direct foreign trade of consumer products will always be more advantageous than a circular one. But when it is done with gold and silver it does not seem to be less advantageous than any other circular type. Nor is it more likely that a country that lacks mines will be left without gold and silver because of the annual export of these metals than the one that does not cultivate tobacco will lack that plant because of its annual export. In the same way that a country that has funds to buy tobacco will never miss it, the one that has them to acquire gold and silver will never miss them for a long time.Nor is it more likely that a country that lacks mines will be left without gold and silver because of the annual export of these metals than the one that does not cultivate tobacco will lack that plant because of its annual export. In the same way that a country that has funds to buy tobacco will never miss it, the one that has them to acquire gold and silver will never miss them for a long time.Nor is it more likely that a country that lacks mines will be left without gold and silver because of the annual export of these metals than the one that does not cultivate tobacco will lack that plant because of its annual export. In the same way that a country that has funds to buy tobacco will never miss it, the one that has them to acquire gold and silver will never miss them for a long time. It is said that a craftsman who started to run a tavern would do bad business, and of the same nature would be the one that a manufacturing nation could establish with a wine producing country. But I say that the bartender’s business is not necessarily ruinous. Your own condition is as advantageous as any other, though perhaps more prone to excess. The work of a brewer and even that of a seller of fermented liquors at the lower level result from divisions of labor as necessary as any other. It will be, in general, more advantageous for the artisan to buy the brewer the amount of drink he needs than to make it himself, and if he is poor, it is better that he buy small quantities from the innkeeper at a lower price than a large quantity from the brewer. Without a doubt, you can buy in excess of both,in the same way that could buying too much merchandise from other nearby merchants like the butcher, if he were a glutton, or like the draper, if he would like to dress like a gallant among his fellows. However, it is to the advantage of the great mass of workers that all these trades are free, although that freedom may be abused in all of them, and more likely in some than in others. In addition, although individuals may end up throwing away their fortune by consuming excess fermented liquors, there does not seem to be a risk that a nation will experience the same thing. Although in all countries there are people who spend more than they can spend on them, there will always be many more who spend less. We must also insist that, judging from the experience, it seems that when the wine is cheaper it does not produce more intoxication but more temperance in the drink.The inhabitants of the wine producing countries are usually the least drunk in Europe; think of the Spaniards, the Italians and the inhabitants of the provinces of French Midi. People do not usually incur excesses with what they consume daily, or affect liberality and good mood by giving away things of as little value as a beer. On the contrary, in countries where, either ??? excessive heat or cold, there are no vineyards, and where wine ??? is both expensive and scarce, drunkenness is a common vice, as occurs in the northern nations, and all those who live among the tropics, blacks, for example, from the coast of Guinea. I have often heard that when a garrison in the south of France, where the wine is cheap, arrives a regiment of some province in the north of the country, where it is more expensive,At first, the troop becomes addicted to this genre, which is so cheap and new to them, but after a few months, most of them show a temperance similar to that of the other inhabitants of the region. Similarly, if all tariffs on foreign wines and taxes on malt and beer are suddenly withdrawn in Great Britain, a fairly general drunkenness may be observed among the middle and lower states of the country, which probably it would not take long to lead to a permanent and almost universal sobriety. At present, drunkenness is not in any way a vice of fashionable people or those who can easily afford the most expensive liquors. We have hardly ever seen a drunken gentleman among us. Further,The restrictions on the wine trade in Great Britain seem to arise less from the desire to prevent people from going to the taverns, if it can be said, than from making it difficult for them to buy the best quality liquor at the best price. They favor the Portuguese wine trade and disfavor that of France. It is said that the Portuguese are indeed better consumers of our manufactures than the French and that, ??? as much, we must favor them more. It seems that as they buy from us, we should do the same with them. In this way, the cunning storekeepers of ???? mounts are erected in political maxims for the management of a great empire, because only the most rude shopkeepers have a rule to limit their business to their main customers. A great merchant will always acquire his goods wherever they are cheaper and better,without attending to such petty interests. However, with such maxims, nations have learned that their interest is based on impoverishing their neighbors. It has been possible for nations to contemplate with envy the prosperity of those with which they trade, considering that in such gain lies its own loss. Trade, which ??? nature should be, both among nations and among individuals, a bond of union and friendship, has become the most fertile ground for discord and animosity. During this century and the preceding, the capricious ambition of kings and Ministers has not been more fatal to the repose of Europe than the impertinent jealousy of merchants and manufacturers of manufactures. The violence and injustice of the rulers of humanity is an ancient evil for which I fear that the nature of human affairs will hardly find a remedy. But the petty rapacity, the monopolistic spirit of merchants and manufacturers of manufactures, who are not, and should not be, rulers of humanity, even if it can not be corrected, can easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquility of anyone other than themselves. There is no doubt that it was the monopolistic spirit that invented and propagated this doctrine, even though their first teachers were not as foolish as those who believed in it. In any country it is and must always be the interest of the whole social body to be able to buy everything that is needed from those who sell it at the best price. The proposal is so obvious that it would be ridiculous to make the slightest effort to prove it, nor could it ever have been doubted that the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers of manufactures had not confused the common sense of humanity. In this sense, their interest is directly contrary to that of the social body. In the same way that free men in a guild are interested in preventing their compatriots from giving work to anyone but themselves,also merchants and manufacturers of manufactures are interested, in every country, to achieve a monopoly of the domestic market. Hence the extraordinary tariffs that in Great Britain and in most European nations weigh on almost all imported goods ??? foreign traffickers. Hence the high tariffs and prohibitions imposed on all foreign manufactures that can compete with ours. Hence, also, the extraordinary restrictions that impede the importation of almost all kinds of merchandise from those countries with which the trade balance is supposedly disadvantageous; that is, those that, incidentally, stir up the most virulent flames of national animosity.Hence the extraordinary tariffs that in Great Britain and in most European nations weigh on almost all imported goods ??? foreign traffickers. Hence the high tariffs and prohibitions imposed on all foreign manufactures that can compete with ours. Hence, also, the extraordinary restrictions that impede the importation of almost all kinds of merchandise from those countries with which the trade balance is supposedly disadvantageous; that is, those that, incidentally, stir up the most virulent flames of national animosity.Hence the extraordinary tariffs that in Great Britain and in most European nations weigh on almost all imported goods ??? foreign traffickers. Hence the high tariffs and prohibitions imposed on all foreign manufactures that can compete with ours. Hence, also, the extraordinary restrictions that impede the importation of almost all kinds of merchandise from those countries with which the trade balance is supposedly disadvantageous; that is, those that, incidentally, stir up the most virulent flames of national animosity.Hence the high tariffs and prohibitions imposed on all foreign manufactures that can compete with ours. Hence, also, the extraordinary restrictions that impede the importation of almost all kinds of merchandise from those countries with which the trade balance is supposedly disadvantageous; that is, those that, incidentally, stir up the most virulent flames of national animosity.Hence the high tariffs and prohibitions imposed on all foreign manufactures that can compete with ours. Hence, also, the extraordinary restrictions that impede the importation of almost all kinds of merchandise from those countries with which the trade balance is supposedly disadvantageous; that is, those that, incidentally, stir up the most virulent flames of national animosity. However, the wealth of a neighboring nation, while dangerous for war and politics, is undoubtedly advantageous for trade. In a state of hostility it may well allow our enemies to maintain fleets and armies superior to ours, but when peace and trade prevail, it must also allow them to establish more valuable exchanges with us and provide a better market, both for the immediate fruit of our own industry as for any other gender that with those products is acquired. In the same way that a rich man will probably be a better client than a poor man for the industrious people of his neighborhood, a rich nation will be for the others. In truth, a rich man who is a manufacturer of manufactures, will be a dangerous neighbor for all those who have that same occupation. But nevertheless,the other neighbors, of course more numerous, will benefit from the good market that the expenses of that man provide them, taking advantage of even selling cheaper than the poor artisans who devote themselves to their own trade. In the same way, the manufacturers of manufactures of a rich nation may also be very dangerous competitors for those of their neighbors. However, this competition will be beneficial for the great mass of the people, who will also take great advantage of the good market that the great expenses of that nation provide them in every way. Individuals who want to make a fortune never think oftaking advantage even of selling cheaper than poor artisans who devote themselves to their craft. In the same way, the manufacturers of manufactures of a rich nation may also be very dangerous competitors for those of their neighbors. However, this competition will be beneficial for the great mass of the people, who will also take great advantage of the good market that the great expenses of that nation provide them in every way. Individuals who want to make a fortune never think oftaking advantage even of selling cheaper than poor artisans who devote themselves to their craft. In the same way, the manufacturers of manufactures of a rich nation may also be very dangerous competitors for those of their neighbors. However, this competition will be beneficial for the great mass of the people, who will also take great advantage of the good market that the great expenses of that nation provide them in every way. Individuals who want to make a fortune never think ofthat in addition it will take advantage enormously of the good market that the great expenses of that nation provide to them in all the senses. Individuals who want to make a fortune never think ofthat in addition it will take advantage enormously of the good market that the great expenses of that nation provide to them in all the senses. Individuals who want to make a fortune never think of retire to the most remote and poorest provinces of the country, but rather settle in the capital or in the large mercantile cities. They know that wherever there is wealth flowing, little can be achieved, but where there is a lot of movement, a part can fall into their hands. In this way, the same maxims that could guide the common sense of a man, of ten or of twenty should regulate the judgment of a million, of ten or of twenty million men, making a nation see in the riches of its neighbors a probable reason and opportunity to acquire riches herself. Undoubtedly, a nation that is enriched by foreign trade will have more possibilities to do so when its neighbors are all rich, industrious and mercantile nations.There is no doubt that a great nation surrounded by all parts of nomadic savages and poor barbarians could acquire wealth by cultivating their own lands and encouraging their internal trade, but not by means of the exterior. It seems that this is how the ancient Egyptians and modern Chinese got their great wealth. It is said that ancient Egypt did not appreciate foreign trade and, as is well known, modern China despises it completely, hardly deigning to grant it the honest protection of the laws. The current maxims on foreign trade, aspiring to the impoverishment of all our neighbors, and insofar as they can produce that effect, often turn such deals into something insignificant and despicable.but not through the outside. It seems that this is how the ancient Egyptians and modern Chinese got their great wealth. It is said that ancient Egypt did not appreciate foreign trade and, as is well known, modern China despises it completely, hardly deigning to grant it the honest protection of the laws. The current maxims on foreign trade, aspiring to the impoverishment of all our neighbors, and insofar as they can produce that effect, often turn such deals into something insignificant and despicable.but not through the outside. It seems that this is how the ancient Egyptians and modern Chinese got their great wealth. It is said that ancient Egypt did not appreciate foreign trade and, as is well known, modern China despises it completely, hardly deigning to grant it the honest protection of the laws. The current maxims on foreign trade, aspiring to the impoverishment of all our neighbors, and insofar as they can produce that effect, often turn such deals into something insignificant and despicable.The current maxims on foreign trade, aspiring to the impoverishment of all our neighbors, and insofar as they can produce that effect, often turn such deals into something insignificant and despicable.The current maxims on foreign trade, aspiring to the impoverishment of all our neighbors, and insofar as they can produce that effect, often turn such deals into something insignificant and despicable. These principles are responsible for the fact that trade between France and England has suffered, in both countries, so many obstacles and restrictions. However, if both nations took into account their true interests, leaving aside commercial jealousy and national animosity, for Great Britain trade in France could be more advantageous than that of any other country, and for the same reason it would be. the British for France, which is the closest neighbor of our country. In trade between the southern coast of England and those of the north and northwest of France, as in domestic trade, one would expect to obtain returns four, five or six times a year. Consequently, the capital destined for this trade could maintain in both countries four,five or six times the volume of industry that the same capital could achieve in most other branches of foreign trade, providing employment and subsistence to four, five or six times more people. Between the areas of France and Great Britain further apart, one would expect returns at least once a year, but even this trade would be at least as advantageous as that of most other branches of our foreign trade. with Europe. It would be, at least, three times more advantageous than the much-extolled trade with our colonies in North America, which rarely gave performance before three years, and often not before four or five. In addition, France has twenty-four million inhabitants, while of our North American colonies it was never said that they had more than three;and France is much richer than North America, although, as a result of a more unequal distribution of wealth, poverty and begging are much greater in the first country than in the second. France, ??? both, could offer a market ??? at least eight times greater, and, given the higher frequency of yields, this would be twenty-four times more advantageous than the one we never had in our North American colonies. Equally advantageous would be Great Britain’s trade for France and, in proportion to wealth, population and proximity between the respective countries, would also be more profitable than that which France maintains with its own colonies. That is the great difference between this trade, which the wisdom of both nations has found convenient to discourage, and the one that has favored the most. But the same circumstances that would have encouraged the establishment between both nations of an open and free trade, mutually advantageous, are those that have placed the main obstacles to their development. Being neighbors, they can not stop being enemies, and that reason the wealth and power of one of them becomes more fearsome for the other, so that what would increase the advantages of their friendship only serves to inflame the violence of the animosity. Both are rich and industrious powers, and in both the merchants and manufacturers of manufactures abominate the competition that suppose the skill and activity of their neighbor. The mercantile jealousy awakens, stoking the own and foreign fire of a violent national animosity, so that the merchants of both countries have proclaimed,with the passionate confidence of an interested falsehood, the sure ruin that would come from the hand of that unfavorable trade balance that, they say, would be the infallible effect of a trade without restrictions with the other nation. There is no mercantile country of Europe whose imminent ruin, caused by an unfavorable trade balance, has not often predicted the supposed doctors of this system. However, after all the anxieties they have unleashed in this regard, after almost all the trading nations have tried in vain to tip that balance in their favor and against their neighbors, it does not seem that any nation in Europe has been impoverished in Any way ??? that reason. On the contrary, all the cities and territories, insofar as they have opened their ports to other nations, rather than being ruined by free trade, as the principles of the mercantile system would lead us to think, have been enriched at their expense. Although there are indeed in Europe a few cities that in some aspects deserve the name of free ports,there is no country that deserves it. Perhaps Holland, even being very far from that condition, is the one that comes closest to it, and Holland, it is recognized, not only obtains all its wealth, but much of what is necessary for its subsistence, foreign trade. There is certainly another balance previously explained that, very different from the trade balance, necessarily causes, depending on whether favorable or unfavorable, the prosperity or decline of nations. It is the balance between annual production and consumption. If, as noted above, the exchange value of the annual product exceeds that of annual consumption, the capital of the company must increase annually in proportion to that excess. In this case, society will live on its income and what it saves annually will be added naturally to its capital, being used to further increase what is produced annually. On the contrary, if the exchange value of the annual product were lower than that of annual consumption, the capital of the company should fall annually in proportion to such deficiency. In this case,the expenses of the company would exceed its income, necessarily cutting off its capital, which, therefore, would not cease to be harmed, and with it, the exchange value of the annual product of its industry. This relationship between product and consumption has nothing to do with what is called the trade balance. It could be observed in a nation lacking foreign trade, which was totally isolated from the rest of the world. It could also be observed in the whole globe, whose wealth, whose population and whose development could be gradually increasing or decreasing. The balance between product and consumption can be constantly favorable to a nation, although what is called the trade balance is usually unfavorable. Perhaps for half a century, or more, a nation imports goods ??? value higher than those it exports; that the gold and silver that he receives at that time immediately leave his territory; that its current currency loses value little by little, being replaced by different kinds of paper money, and that even the debts that it contracts with the main nations with which it trades will increase; However, during that same period, their real wealth, the exchange value of the annual product of their land and labor, may have been increasing in a much higher proportion. CHAPTER 6. The agrarian systems. In the political economy, the agrarian systems do not need an explanation as extensive as the one that I thought necessary to grant to the mercantile or commercial system. As far as I can tell, no nation has seen its only source of income and wealth in the production of the land, and nowadays that system exists only in the speculations of a few men of great knowledge and ingenuity of France. It is obvious that it would not be in the interest of scrupulously examining the errors of a system that has never done any damage, or probably does, in any part of the world. However, I will try to explain, as clearly as possible and in broad strokes, this ingenious system. Colbert, the famous minister of Louis XIV, was a proven man, of great diligence and attention to detail, of great experience and wit in the examination of public accounts; he had, in short, capacities of every suitable point for the introduction of method and good order in the collection and spending of public revenues. Unfortunately, that minister had taken over all the prejudices of the mercantile system, which, by restricting and regulating nature, could hardly fail to please a laborious and methodical man, accustomed to organizing and regulating the different public departments and establishing the brakes and controls necessary for each one to limit himself to his functions. His commitment was to regulate the industry and commerce of a large country using as a model the departments of a public office,and instead of allowing each man to seek in his own way his own interest, following the generous principles of equality, freedom and justice, Colbert granted extraordinary privileges to certain branches of industry, imposing extraordinary restrictions on others at the same time. Not only did he wish, like other European ministers, to encourage more the industry of the cities than that of the countryside; but, to support the former, he was even willing to depress that of the latter. In order to cheapen the purchase of provisions for the inhabitants of the cities, thus encouraging manufacturing and foreign trade, he absolutely prohibited the export of grains, thus preventing the rustic from selling on foreign markets what were by far the most important fruits of his work. This prohibition, together with the restrictions imposed by the old laws of France on the transport of grain between one province and the other, and the arbitrary and degrading tariffs imposed on the peasants of almost all of them,They discouraged and subdued the agriculture of that country, leaving it very much below the state to which nature could have come, by virtue of the great fertility of its land and the mildness of its climate. This state of discouragement and despondency was appreciated in one way or another in all the territories of the country, and that was the start of a multitude of investigations to find out their causes. It seems that one of them was the preference of the institutions of Colbert, who saw with a better eye the industry of the cities than the one of the field.? ??? it started a lot of research to find out its causes. It seems that one of them was the preference of the institutions of Colbert, who saw with a better eye the industry of the cities than the one of the field.? ??? it started a lot of research to find out its causes. It seems that one of them was the preference of the institutions of Colbert, who saw with a better eye the industry of the cities than the one of the field. A proverb says that to straighten a stick that is too crooked on one side, it is necessary to pull towards the other. It would seem that the French philosophers who see agriculture as the only source of income and wealth in the countries have adopted the wisdom of that proverb; and, just as in Colbert’s plan the urban industry was overvalued compared to the rustic, this system seems to give it a lower value than it actually has. In three classes are divided people who in history have been considered that in one way or another contribute to the annual production of the land and the work of the nation. The first is that of the owners. The second is that of those who cultivate the land, that is, peasants or laborers, who are honored by calling them productive class. The third is that of artisans, manufacturers of manufactures and merchants, who are intended to degrade, humiliating them with the name of sterile or unproductive class. The owners’ class contributes to the annual production with the expenses that occasionally it allocates for the good use of the land, the constructions, drains, fences and other improvements, of new stamp or destined to maintain what already exists, and with the that the growers can, with the same capital, obtain a higher yield and pay ??? both a higher income. It can be said that this increase in income is the interest or benefit that corresponds to the owner because of the expense or capital that has been allocated to the improvement of the land. In this system, such expenses are called real estate expenses (depenses foncières). The farmers or farmers contribute to the annual production with what this system calls primitive and annual expenditures (primitive and depenses annuelles depenses), which they allocate to the cultivation of the land. The primitive expenses are those that are made in the farming implements, the cattle hut, the seeds and maintenance of the peasant’s family, his servants and cattle during at least a large part of the first year of his occupation, or until the land gives him some yield. The annual expenses are those destined to seeds, to the arrangement of the farm implements ?? their normal deterioration and to the annual maintenance of the servants and cattle of the farmer and his family, if it can be considered that part of this also participates in the cultivation. The amount of land products that the land retains for itself after paying the rent should be sufficient, in the first place, to restore it in a reasonable period, at least during its occupation time, all its primitive expenses, in addition to the yield ordinary funds; secondly, to reimburse him every year for the same period,in addition to the ordinary income of the funds used. These two types of expenditure are two capitals that the farmer uses for cultivation and, unless they are regularly restituted, together with a reasonable profit, he can not place his occupation at the same level as others, so that, in response to Your own interest, you should leave it as soon as possible and find another. Consequently, the part of the product of the land that the farmer needs to continue his business should be considered a sacred flow for the crop which, if the landowner fails to respect, would necessarily reduce the product of his own land and in a few years not only it would prevent the peasant from paying any exorbitant rent, but the reasonable rent that the land would otherwise have been able to receive.The rent that belongs to the landowner is nothing more than the net product that remains after paying absolutely all the necessary expenses that previously had to be made to obtain the gross or total product. As the work of the growers, who also cover all the necessary expenses, is that which yields a net product of this kind, those belonging to their class are especially distinguished ??? this system, which gives them the honorable title of productive class. For the same reason, their primitive and annual expenses are called by this system productive expenditures, because, in addition to being destined to restore their own value, they lead annually to the reproduction of that net production. The so-called real estate expenses, which the landowner allocates to the improvement of his land, are equally honored ??? this system with the name of productive expenditures. Until the total of these expenses, in addition to the current income of the cattle hut, have not been fully restored by the advance payment of the income obtained from their property, that income should be considered sacred and inviolable, both ??? Church as ??? the king, without being subject to tithe or any tax. Otherwise, by discouraging the improvement of the land, the Church would discourage the future increase of its own tithes, and the king the future increase of its taxes. In this way, in a well-ordered state of affairs, such as those real estate expenses, in addition to reproducing its full value,After a certain time they produce the net product, this system considers them productive expenses. The real estate expenses of the landowner, together with the primitive and annual expenses of the farmer, are the only three kinds of expenses that this system considers productive. To all the others, and to the rest of the men, even to those who vulgarly believe themselves to be more productive, this doctrine judges them completely sterile and unproductive. Especially the artisans and manufacturers of manufactures, whose industry, for the vulgar man, both increases the value of the products of the earth, are for this system a totally sterile and unproductive class. It is said that his work only serves to restore the funds that these people employ and to provide ordinary returns. These funds are the materials, tools and salaries that their employer advances; that is, what is intended to give them work and maintenance, and whose benefits serve, in turn, to maintain the employer. This, by advancing the funds of materials, tools and precise salaries for their work, also provides what is necessary for their own maintenance and generally does so in proportion to the benefit they expect to receive thanks to the work of the workers.Unless the price of said work restitutes the provision that he has made for himself, as well as the materials, tools and wages that he advances to his workers, it is evident that he will not return all the expense he has incurred. The profits of manufactures, consequently, do not cause, like the rent of a land, a net product that is maintained after completely repaying all the expenses made to obtain said benefits. The farmer’s funds yield a profit such as that obtained by the manufacturer of manufactures, but also provide an income to another person, something that manufacturer does not produce. Consequently, the expenses incurred in employing and maintaining artisans and manufacturers of manufactures do no more than maintain the existence, if we may call it, of their own value,without producing any new one. Which makes them entirely sterile and unproductive expenses. On the other hand, those whose purpose is to employ laborers and day laborers, in addition to maintaining the existence of their own value, produce a new one, which is the income of the hacendado. With what they are a productive expenditure. The mercantile funds are as sterile and unproductive as those destined to manufactures. They only maintain their own value, without producing any new value. Its benefits serve only to restore the maintenance that the employer provides for itself during the time it is used or until it receives its returns. They only reimburse a part of the expenses that had to be made for that purpose. The work of craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures never adds anything to the total annual amount produced by the land, although it does greatly increase the value of some of its parts. But the consumption that in the meantime causes others is precisely equal to the value it adds to the previous ones; so that the value of all that amount is not increased in the slightest, at any time. The person who works the lace of a pair of fine ruffles, for example, may sometimes increase the value of a piece of linen from one penny to thirty pounds sterling. But although at first glance it seems to be multiplying ??? seven thousand the value of a part of the natural product, in reality nothing adds to the total annual amount of natural products. Maybe it will take two years to work on that lace.The thirty pounds that he will obtain when he is finished will not be more than the restitution of the means of subsistence that he will have had to advance during the two years that he has devoted to him. The value that with the work of a day, a month or a year is adding to the linen does not do more than to substitute the value of its own consumption during that day, that month or that year. Therefore, at no time adds anything to the value of the total annual amount of production of the land, since the part of that product that continuouslyTherefore, at no time adds anything to the value of the total annual amount of production of the land, since the part of that product that continuouslyTherefore, at no time adds anything to the value of the total annual amount of production of the land, since the part of that product that continuously consumes is always equal to the value that continuously produces. The extreme poverty of a large part of the people employed in this costly but insignificant manufacturing could indicate to us that the price of their work does not normally exceed the value of what their subsistence costs. But this is not the case with farmers and day laborers. The income of a landowner is a value that, common, does not stop producing, besides replacing, in the most complete way, all the consumption, all the expense incurred for the employment and maintenance, both of the workers and of their Pattern. Only through frugality can artisans, manufacturers, and merchants increase the income and wealth of their society; or, as this system expresses it, by means of deprivation, that is to say, depriving itself of a part of the funds destined for its own subsistence, since they do nothing but reproduce them annually. Therefore, unless they save part of them annually, unless they are deprived of part of those funds, the income and wealth of their society can never be increased in the least by their industry. On the contrary, the peasants and day laborers can enjoy full ??? all the funds intended for their own subsistence, at the same time increasing income and wealth of their society. In addition to what your own subsistence covers,its industry yields an annual net product, whose increase can not but increase the income and wealth of its society. Consequently, those nations which, like France or England, consist mainly of landowners and cultivators will be enriched by industry and the contentment of their workers. However, those that, like Holland and Hamburg, are composed mainly of merchants, craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactured goods, can only be enriched by frugality and deprivation. In the same way that the interest of nations varies with such disparate circumstances, the common character of their people also changes, so that in the first, nature, liberality, openness and good-natured nature, while in the latter, prevails. the closed, the pettiness and a selfish mood,enemy of any pleasure and social enjoyment. The maintenance and employment of the unproductive class, that of the merchants, craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, are entirely at the expense of the other two classes, those of the owners and cultivators, who provide materials for their work and funds for their subsistence, in addition to the grain and meat that it consumes while doing that work. The owners and cultivators end up paying both the salary of the workers of the unproductive class and the benefits of all their employers. Those workers and those who give them work become servants of the owners and growers. In the same way that domestic workers work in the interior, they do it abroad, but they maintain their masters. Equally unproductive is the work of both. Nothing adds to the value of the total sum of the product of the land.Instead of increasing that value, it is a burden and an expense that this product must pay for. However, the unproductive class is useful, and to a large extent, useful for the other two classes. Thanks to the industry of merchants, craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, the owners and growers can buy both foreign goods and manufactured products from their own country that they need, and they do so by using a much smaller amount of their own work than they would be forced to use if, clumsily and unskilledly, they tried to import or make other ??? themselves. Thanks to the unproductive class, the cultivators receive many cares that, otherwise, would separate them from their attention to the cultivation of the land. The superiority of the product that, as a result of this full attention, can be extracted, it is enough to cover all the expenses that the maintenance and use of the unproductive class costs both the owners and those same growers. The industriousness of merchants, artisans and manufacturers of manufactures, even if in itself entirely unproductive,it indirectly contributes to the increase of the production of the land, since it increases the productive capacity of the works that really are, since it allows them to limit themselves to their own work: the cultivation of the land; and often the work of the man whose business is further from the plow allows him to travel more easily and advantageously. It can never be of interest to owners and growers to restrict or discourage in any way the merchants, craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures industry. The more freedom is granted to this unproductive class, the greater will be the competition in all the branches that compose it and the cheaper the provisions for the other two classes, both of foreign goods and of manufactured products of their own country. It can never be of interest to the unproductive class to oppress the other two. It is the surplus of the land, or what remains after deducting the maintenance, first from the cultivators and after the owners, which maintains and gives work to the unproductive class. The larger this surplus, the greater will be both the maintenance and employment of that class. The establishment of perfect justice, liberty and equality is the great and simple secret that will most effectively seek the greatest degree of prosperity for the three classes. Similarly, the merchants, craftsmen, and manufacturers of those mercantile countries who, like Holland and Hamburg, are composed mainly of men of the unproductive class, maintain themselves and obtain employment at the expense of the owners and cultivators of the land. The only difference is that these owners and peasants are, in their majority, at an uncomfortable distance from those merchants, artisans and manufacturers of manufactures to whom they supply materials for their work and livelihoods, and who are inhabitants of other countries. and vassals from other States. However, these mercantile nations are not only useful, but they are extremely useful for the inhabitants of the others. In a certain way, they fill an important void, replacing the merchants, craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures that the inhabitants of those countries should find in their own kingdom, but who, because of some erroneous policy, do not find there. It can never be of interest to those working nations, if we may call them so, to discourage or disturb the industry of those mercantile States by imposing high tariffs on their trade or on the goods they provide. These tariffs, by making such goods more expensive, would only serve to sink the real value of the surplus product of their own land, with which, or what is the same, with whose price these goods are acquired. These tariffs would only serve to discourage the increase of these surpluses, and with it the improvement and cultivation of their own lands. On the contrary, the most effective resource to increase the value of that surplus product, to encourage its increase and, with it, the improvement and cultivation of the own land would allow the most absolute freedom of trade to those mercantile nations. In due time, that absolute commercial freedom would be even the most effective resource to provide those working nations with all the craftsmen, manufacturers of manufactures and merchants that they need in their own territories, and to fill in the most opportune and advantageous way the important emptiness that in them is appreciated. The continuous increase of the surplus of their lands could create, in due time, a greater capital than could be used with the current yield offered by the improvement and cultivation of those lands; and that surplus part would naturally go to the use of artisans and manufacturers of domestic manufactures. Both, finding in their country the necessary materials for their work and what is necessary for their subsistence, could immediately, even with much less art and dexterity, work at prices as cheap as those of the craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures of the mercantile States. that supply the country from very remote regions. Even if, for lack of art or skill, they could not work for such cheap prices for a while, when finding a market in their country,they could sell it at a price equal to that of the craftsmen and manufacturers of those merchant states, who can only sell after traveling a long distance; and, as their art and dexterity improved, they could soon sell at cheaper prices. Consequently, the artisans and manufacturers of those mercantile States would soon find rivals in the markets of the working nations, which, by selling soon cheaper than them, would eventually expel them from those markets. In due time, and as a result of the gradual improvement of their art and skill, the best price of the manufactures of those working nations would take their sales beyond the domestic market, transferring them to many foreign markets,of those who would gradually expel many of the manufactures of the mercantile countries. In due time, this continuous increase in the products of the land and of the manufactures of these farming countries would create a capital greater than that, with the usual benefits, could be used in agriculture or in manufactures. The surplus of this capital would be destined naturally to the foreign trade, being used to export to foreign countries the quantity of products of the earth and manufactures that exceeded the demand of the internal market. By exporting the production of their own country, the merchants of a plowing nation would have a similar advantage over those of the mercantile nations to which their compatriots artisans and manufacturers of manufactures would have on those of those other nations: the one to find in their own territory the cargo, the existences and the provisions that the others were forced to look far. Consequently, with less art and skill for navigation, they could sell their cargo in foreign markets as cheaply as the merchants of those mercantile nations, and with the same art and skill, could sell it even cheaper than them. In this way, they would soon compete with those mercantile nations in that branch of foreign trade, and in due time would expel them completely. Accordingly, according to this prodigal and generous system, the most advantageous method for peasant countries to create their own artisans, manufacturers and merchants is granting the most absolute liberty to all foreigners who engage in these occupations. This increases the value of the surplus of the land itself, whose continuous increase goes little by little by amassing flows that, in due time, can only encourage the appearance of all the craftsmen, manufacturers of manufactures and merchants that the country needs. On the contrary, when a peasant nation oppresses by means of high tariffs or prohibitions the trade of foreign nations, it will necessarily and in two different ways harm its own interests. In the first place, by increasing the price of foreign manufactures of all kinds, it will undoubtedly submerge the value of the surplus product of its own land, with which, or what is the same, with whose price, it buys those goods and foreign manufactures.. Secondly, by granting its own merchants, artisans and manufacturers a kind of monopoly, it increases the proportion of mercantile and manufacturing profits relative to that of agriculture, depriving it of the capital it had previously used or making it difficult for it to receive a part of which, if it were not that situation, he would have received. Following,this policy discourages agriculture in two ways: first, submerging the real value of its production, reducing its benefit ratio; second, increasing the benefit ratio of all other activities. Agriculture becomes less advantageous than before and profitable trade and manufacturing; and, because of their own interest, men will be tempted to withdraw their industry and capital from the first activity to be used for the latter.men will be tempted to withdraw their industry and their capital from the first activity to allocate them to the latter.men will be tempted to withdraw their industry and their capital from the first activity to allocate them to the latter. Although through this oppressive practice a working nation could promote the emergence of craftsmen, manufacturers and their own merchants a little earlier than through commercial freedom, something that, however, is still very doubtful, we could say that this advance would be premature, that is, it would take place before the conditions were absolutely in season. By promoting a certain kind of industry too quickly, it would depress other, more valuable ones. By promoting too quickly a certain kind of industry that only substitutes the funds it employs, and with them the current profit, it would depress another kind of industry that, in addition to replacing those funds with its profit, also provides a production net, a clean income for the landowner. By promoting with excessive urgency this work that is totally sterile and unproductive, it would depress that which is really productive. As has already been said, in any nation the most important and important commercial deals are those that take place between the inhabitants of the countryside and those of the city. Those of the second take from the first the products of the earth that constitute both the material of their work and the basis of their subsistence; and they pay them back to the field a part, converted into manufactured goods for immediate use. Ultimately, the trade that is established between these two groups of people consists of a certain amount of direct products of the land that is exchanged for a certain amount of manufactures. Therefore, the more expensive these are, the cheaper they will be; and anything that in any country tends to increase the price of manufactured goods, will tend to reduce direct production of the land,discouraging ??? both agriculture. The lower the amount of manufactured product that can be purchased with a certain amount of direct product from the land, or, what is the same, with the price of a certain amount of that product, the lower the exchange value of that product. precise amount, and smaller the motives that the squire will have to increase its quantity improving the land or the farmer cultivating it. In addition, anything that in any country tends to decrease the number of craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, will tend to diminish the domestic market, the most important for the direct production of land, further discouraging agricultural production.The lower the amount of manufactured product that can be purchased with a certain amount of direct product from the land, or, what is the same, with the price of a certain amount of that product, the lower the exchange value of that product. precise amount, and smaller the motives that the squire will have to increase its quantity improving the land or the farmer cultivating it. In addition, anything that in any country tends to decrease the number of craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, will tend to diminish the domestic market, the most important for the direct production of land, further discouraging agricultural production.The lower the amount of manufactured product that can be purchased with a certain amount of direct product from the land, or, what is the same, with the price of a certain amount of that product, the lower the exchange value of that product. precise amount, and smaller the motives that the squire will have to increase its quantity improving the land or the farmer cultivating it. In addition, anything that in any country tends to decrease the number of craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, will tend to diminish the domestic market, the most important for the direct production of land, further discouraging agricultural production.and lesser the motives that the landowner will have to increase his quantity improving the land or the farmer cultivating it. In addition, anything that in any country tends to decrease the number of craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, will tend to diminish the domestic market, the most important for the direct production of land, further discouraging agricultural production.and lesser the motives that the landowner will have to increase his quantity improving the land or the farmer cultivating it. In addition, anything that in any country tends to decrease the number of craftsmen and manufacturers of manufactures, will tend to diminish the domestic market, the most important for the direct production of land, further discouraging agricultural production. Consequently, the systems that, by preferring agriculture to any other activity, in order to promote agriculture, impose restrictions on manufacturing and foreign trade, go against the very purpose they pursue, indirectly discouraging the very kind of activity that they seek to promote.. Perhaps they have so far been even more incoherent than the mercantile system. This, by encouraging manufacturing and foreign trade more than agriculture, separates a certain amount of the capital of society from a more advantageous class of activity to direct it to another that is less so. Although, in spite of everything, it finally encourages the kind of activity that it was intended to promote. On the contrary, agrarian systems end up really discouraging the kind of activity they prefer. The question is that any system that proposes, either through extraordinary promotional measures, to allocate to any kind of activity a greater amount of the capital of the society of which nature would attract, or through extraordinary restrictions, remove certain activity a part of the capital that this would naturally receive, will really go against the great goal it aims to promote. Instead of advancing, it will delay the progress of society towards authentic wealth and greatness, and will diminish, rather than increase, the real value of the annual production of its land and labor. Therefore, leaving completely any system resulting from preference or restriction, the obvious and simple character of system of natural freedom falls to its own weight. Provided it does not violate the laws of justice, any man will be totally free to pursue his own interest as he pleases and, using his industry and capital, to enter into competition with industry and the capital of any other human being or estate. END OF READING. THANK YOU!.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *