Adam Smith · Complete work
Book IV, Chapter IX, 3
Book IV, Chapter IX, 3 of 152. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal 18th-century English
Some speculative physicians seem to have imagined that the health of the human body could be preserved only by a certain precise regimen of diet and exercise, of which every, the smallest violation, necessarily occasioned some degree of disease or disorder proportionate to the degree of the violation. Experience, however, would seem to shew, that the human body frequently preserves, to all appearance at least, the most perfect state of health under a vast variety of different regimens; even under some which are generally believed to be very far from being perfectly wholesome. But the healthful state of the human body, it would seem, contains in itself some unknown principle of preservation, capable either of preventing or of correcting, in many respects, the bad effects even of a very faulty regimen. Mr Quesnai, who was himself a physician, and a very speculative physician, seems to have entertained a notion of the same kind concerning the political body, and to have imagined that it would thrive and prosper only under a certain precise regimen, the exact regimen of perfect liberty and perfect justice. He seems not to have considered, that in the political body, the natural effort which every man is continually making to better his own condition, is a principle of preservation capable of preventing and correcting, in many respects, the bad effects of a political economy, in some degree both partial and oppressive. Such a political economy, though it no doubt retards more or less, is not always capable of stopping altogether, the natural progress of a nation towards wealth and prosperity, and still less of making it go backwards. If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered. In the political body, however, the wisdom of nature has fortunately made ample provision for remedying many of the bad effects of the folly and injustice of man; it the same manner as it has done in the natural body, for remedying those of his sloth and intemperance.
The capital error of this system, however, seems to lie in its representing the class of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, as altogether barren and unproductive. The following observations may serve to shew the impropriety of this representation:—
First, this class, it is acknowledged, reproduces annually the value of its own annual consumption, and continues, at least, the existence of the stock or capital which maintains and employs it. But, upon this account alone, the denomination of barren or unproductive should seem to be very improperly applied to it. We should not call a marriage barren or unproductive, though it produced only a son and a daughter, to replace the father and mother, and though it did not increase the number of the human species, but only continued it as it was before. Farmers and country labourers, indeed, over and above the stock which maintains and employs them, reproduce annually a neat produce, a free rent to the landlord. As a marriage which affords three children is certainly more productive than one which affords only two, so the labour of farmers and country labourers is certainly more productive than that of merchants, artificers, and manufacturers. The superior produce of the one class, however, does not, render the other barren or unproductive.
Secondly, it seems, on this account, altogether improper to consider artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, in the same light as menial servants. The labour of menial servants does not continue the existence of the fund which maintains and employs them. Their maintenance and employment is altogether at the expense of their masters, and the work which they perform is not of a nature to repay that expense. That work consists in services which perish generally in the very instant of their performance, and does not fix or realize itself in any vendible commodity, which can replace the value of their wages and maintenance. The labour, on the contrary, of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, naturally does fix and realize itself in some such vendible commodity. It is upon this account that, in the chapter in which I treat of productive and unproductive labour, I have classed artificers, manufacturers, and merchants among the productive labourers, and menial servants among the barren or unproductive.
Thirdly, it seems, upon every supposition, improper to say, that the labour of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, does not increase the real revenue of the society. Though we should suppose, for example, as it seems to be supposed in this system, that the value of the daily, monthly, and yearly consumption of this class was exactly equal to that of its daily, monthly, and yearly production; yet it would not from thence follow, that its labour added nothing to the real revenue, to the real value of the annual produce of the land and labour of the society. An artificer, for example, who, in the first six months after harvest, executes ten pounds worth of work, though he should, in the same time, consume ten pounds worth of corn and other necessaries, yet really adds the value of ten pounds to the annual produce of the land and labour of the society. While he has been consuming a half-yearly revenue of ten pounds worth of corn and other necessaries, he has produced an equal value of work, capable of purchasing, either to himself, or to some other person, an equal half-yearly revenue. The value, therefore, of what has been consumed and produced during these six months, is equal, not to ten, but to twenty pounds. It is possible, indeed, that no more than ten pounds worth of this value may ever have existed at any one moment of time. But if the ten pounds worth of corn and other necessaries which were consumed by the artificer, had been consumed by a soldier, or by a menial servant, the value of that part of the annual produce which existed at the end of the six months, would have been ten pounds less than it actually is in consequence of the labour of the artificer. Though the value of what the artificer produces, therefore, should not, at any one moment of time, be supposed greater than the value he consumes, yet, at every moment of time, the actually existing value of goods in the market is, in consequence of what he produces, greater than it otherwise would be.
When the patrons of this system assert, that the consumption of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, is equal to the value of what they produce, they probably mean no more than that their revenue, or the fund destined for their consumption, is equal to it. But if they had expressed themselves more accurately, and only asserted, that the revenue of this class was equal to the value of what they produced, it might readily have occurred to the reader, that what would naturally be saved out of this revenue, must necessarily increase more or less the real wealth of the society. In order, therefore, to make out something like an argument, it was necessary that they should express themselves as they have done; and this argument, even supposing things actually were as it seems to presume them to be, turns out to be a very inconclusive one.
Fourthly, farmers and country labourers can no more augment, without parsimony, the real revenue, the annual produce of the land and labour of their society, than artificers, manufacturers, and merchants. The annual produce of the land and labour of any society can be augmented only in two ways; either, first, by some improvement in the productive powers of the useful labour actually maintained within it; or, secondly, by some increase in the quantity of that labour.
The improvement in the productive powers of useful labour depends, first, upon the improvement in the ability of the workman; and, secondly, upon that of the machinery with which he works. But the labour of artificers and manufacturers, as it is capable of being more subdivided, and the labour of each workman reduced to a greater simplicity of operation, than that of farmers and country labourers; so it is likewise capable of both these sorts of improvement in a much higher degree {See book i chap. 1.} In this respect, therefore, the class of cultivators can have no sort of advantage over that of artificers and manufacturers.
The increase in the quantity of useful labour actually employed within any society must depend altogether upon the increase of the capital which employs it; and the increase of that capital, again, must be exactly equal to the amount of the savings from the revenue, either of the particular persons who manage and direct the employment of that capital, or of some other persons, who lend it to them. If merchants, artificers, and manufacturers are, as this system seems to suppose, naturally more inclined to parsimony and saving than proprietors and cultivators, they are, so far, more likely to augment the quantity of useful labour employed within their society, and consequently to increase its real revenue, the annual produce of its land and labour.
Fifthly and lastly, though the revenue of the inhabitants of every country was supposed to consist altogether, as this system seems to suppose, in the quantity of subsistence which their industry could procure to them; yet, even upon this supposition, the revenue of a trading and manufacturing country must, other things being equal, always be much greater than that of one without trade or manufactures. By means of trade and manufactures, a greater quantity of subsistence can be annually imported into a particular country, than what its own lands, in the actual state of their cultivation, could afford. The inhabitants of a town, though they frequently possess no lands of their own, yet draw to themselves, by their industry, such a quantity of the rude produce of the lands of other people, as supplies them, not only with the materials of their work, but with the fund of their subsistence. What a town always is with regard to the country in its neighbourhood, one independent state or country may frequently be with regard to other independent states or countries. It is thus that Holland draws a great part of its subsistence from other countries; live cattle from Holstein and Jutland, and corn from almost all the different countries of Europe. A small quantity of manufactured produce, purchases a great quantity of rude produce. A trading and manufacturing country, therefore, naturally purchases, with a small part of its manufactured produce, a great part of the rude produce of other countries; while, on the contrary, a country without trade and manufactures is generally obliged to purchase, at the expense of a great part of its rude produce, a very small part of the manufactured produce of other countries. The one exports what can subsist and accommodate but a very few, and imports the subsistence and accommodation of a great number. The other exports the accommodation and subsistence of a great number, and imports that of a very few only. The inhabitants of the one must always enjoy a much greater quantity of subsistence than what their own lands, in the actual state of their cultivation, could afford. The inhabitants of the other must always enjoy a much smaller quantity.
This system, however, with all its imperfections, is perhaps the nearest approximation to the truth that has yet been published upon the subject of political economy; and is upon that account, well worth the consideration of every man who wishes to examine with attention the principles of that very important science. Though in representing the labour which is employed upon land as the only productive labour, the notions which it inculcates are, perhaps, too narrow and confined; yet in representing the wealth of nations as consisting, not in the unconsumable riches of money, but in the consumable goods annually reproduced by the labour of the society, and in representing perfect liberty as the only effectual expedient for rendering this annual reproduction the greatest possible, its doctrine seems to be in every respect as just as it is generous and liberal. Its followers are very numerous; and as men are fond of paradoxes, and of appearing to understand what surpasses the comprehensions of ordinary people, the paradox which it maintains, concerning the unproductive nature of manufacturing labour, has not, perhaps, contributed a little to increase the number of its admirers. They have for some years past made a pretty considerable sect, distinguished in the French republic of letters by the name of the Economists. Their works have certainly been of some service to their country; not only by bringing into general discussion, many subjects which had never been well examined before, but by influencing, in some measure, the public administration in favour of agriculture. It has been in consequence of their representations, accordingly, that the agriculture of France has been delivered from several of the oppressions which it before laboured under. The term, during which such a lease can be granted, as will be valid against every future purchaser or proprietor of the land, has been prolonged from nine to twenty-seven years. The ancient provincial restraints upon the transportation of corn from one province of the kingdom to another, have been entirely taken away; and the liberty of exporting it to all foreign countries, has been established as the common law of the kingdom in all ordinary cases. This sect, in their works, which are very numerous, and which treat not only of what is properly called Political Economy, or of the nature and causes or the wealth of nations, but of every other branch of the system of civil government, all follow implicitly, and without any sensible variation, the doctrine of Mr Qttesnai. There is, upon this account, little variety in the greater part of their works. The most distinct and best connected account of this doctrine is to be found in a little book written by Mr Mercier de la Riviere, some time intendant of Martinico, entitled, The natural and essential Order of Political Societies. The admiration of this whole sect for their master, who was himself a man of the greatest modesty and simplicity, is not inferior to that of any of the ancient philosophers for the founders of their respective systems. ‘There have been since the world began,’ says a very diligent and respectable author, the Marquis de Mirabeau, ‘three great inventions which have principally given stability to political societies, independent of many other inventions which have enriched and adorned them. The first is the invention of writing, which alone gives human nature the power of transmitting, without alteration, its laws, its contracts, its annals, and its discoveries. The second is the invention of money, which binds together all the relations between civilized societies. The third is the economical table, the result of the other two, which completes them both by perfecting their object; the great discovery of our age, but of which our posterity will reap the benefit.’
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete English text of all five books for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
Some speculative physicians seem to have imagined that the human body could remain healthy only under a precise regimen of diet and exercise, and that even the smallest departure from it must cause illness or disorder proportionate to that departure. Experience, however, suggests that the body often remains, at least to all appearances, in perfect health under a vast variety of regimens, including some generally considered far from wholesome. A healthy body seems to possess an unknown principle of preservation capable, in many respects, of preventing or correcting the harmful effects even of a badly flawed regimen. Mr Quesnai, himself a physician and a highly speculative one, seems to have conceived a similar notion of the body politic: that it could thrive only under one precise regimen, that of perfect liberty and perfect justice. He seems not to have considered that every person’s continual natural effort to better his own condition is, in the body politic, a principle of preservation capable in many respects of preventing and correcting the harmful effects of an economic policy that is somewhat partial and oppressive. Such a policy undoubtedly slows a nation’s natural advance toward wealth and prosperity to some degree, but cannot always stop it entirely, still less reverse it. If no nation could prosper without perfect liberty and perfect justice, no nation in the world could ever have prospered. In the body politic, however, the wisdom of nature has fortunately made ample provision for remedying many harmful effects of human folly and injustice, just as in the natural body it remedies many effects of human sloth and excess.
The fundamental error of this system, however, seems to be its portrayal of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants as an entirely barren and unproductive class. The following observations may show why that portrayal is mistaken:
First, this class admittedly reproduces each year the value of its annual consumption, and at least preserves the stock or capital that supports and employs it. For this reason alone, it seems entirely inappropriate to call it barren or unproductive. We would not call a marriage barren or unproductive if it produced only a son and a daughter to replace the father and mother, maintaining rather than increasing the human population. Farmers and agricultural laborers do, indeed, reproduce not only the stock supporting and employing them but also a net produce, a free rent for the landowner. Just as a marriage with three children is certainly more productive than one with only two, so the labor of farmers and agricultural laborers is certainly more productive than that of merchants, artisans, and manufacturers. But the greater produce of one class does not make the other barren or unproductive.
Second, for the same reason, it is entirely inappropriate to view artisans, manufacturers, and merchants in the same light as domestic servants. The labor of domestic servants does not preserve the fund that supports and employs them. Their support and employment come entirely at their masters’ expense, and the work they do cannot repay that expense. Their services generally vanish the moment they are performed; they do not become embodied in any saleable commodity capable of replacing the value of their wages and support. The labor of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants, by contrast, naturally does become embodied in such a commodity. This is why, in the chapter where I discuss productive and unproductive labor, I counted artisans, manufacturers, and merchants among productive laborers, and domestic servants among the barren or unproductive.
Third, under any assumption it seems wrong to say that the labor of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants does not increase society’s real revenue. Even if we suppose, as this system seems to do, that the value of this class’s daily, monthly, and yearly consumption exactly equals the value of its daily, monthly, and yearly production, it does not follow that its labor adds nothing to real revenue, the real value of the annual produce of society’s land and labor. Suppose, for example, an artisan completes ten pounds worth of work in the first six months after the harvest while consuming ten pounds worth of grain and other necessities in the same period. He has nonetheless truly added a value of ten pounds to the annual produce of society’s land and labor. While consuming a half-year’s revenue of ten pounds worth of grain and other necessities, he has produced work of equal value, capable of purchasing an equal half-year’s revenue for himself or someone else. The value of what has been consumed and produced during those six months is therefore not ten but twenty pounds. It is possible, indeed, that no more than ten pounds worth of that value existed at any single moment. But if a soldier or a domestic servant had consumed the ten pounds worth of grain and other necessities consumed by the artisan, the value of the portion of the annual produce remaining at the end of six months would have been ten pounds less than it actually is because of the artisan’s labor. Thus, even if the value the artisan produces is at no moment assumed to exceed the value he consumes, the value of goods actually present in the market at every moment is greater because of his production than it otherwise would be.
When supporters of this system assert that the consumption of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants equals the value of their production, they probably mean only that their revenue, or the funds set aside for their consumption, equals it. But had they said more accurately that this class’s revenue equals the value of its production, readers might readily have seen that whatever is saved from that revenue must increase society’s real wealth to some extent. To construct anything like an argument, therefore, they had to phrase their claim as they did; and even if the facts were as their argument appears to assume, it would remain highly inconclusive.
Fourth, farmers and agricultural laborers cannot increase the real revenue—the annual produce of their society’s land and labor—without saving any more than artisans, manufacturers, and merchants can. A society’s annual produce of land and labor can be increased in only two ways: first, by improving the productive powers of the useful labor already maintained within it; or second, by increasing the quantity of that labor.
Improvements in the productive powers of useful labor depend first on improvements in workers’ ability and second on improvements in the machinery they use. Because the labor of artisans and manufacturers can be divided more finely, and each worker’s task made simpler, than the labor of farmers and agricultural laborers, it is capable of both kinds of improvement to a much greater degree [See book i chap. 1.] In this respect, therefore, cultivators have no advantage whatever over artisans and manufacturers.
The increase in useful labor actually employed in a society depends wholly on the increase in the capital employing it. That increase in capital, in turn, must exactly equal the savings from revenue of either the people who manage and direct its employment or others who lend it to them. If merchants, artisans, and manufacturers are, as this system seems to suppose, naturally more inclined to thrift and saving than landowners and cultivators, they are correspondingly more likely to increase the useful labor employed in their society and, consequently, its real revenue: the annual produce of its land and labor.
Fifth and finally, even if the inhabitants’ revenue in every country consisted entirely, as this system seems to suppose, of the subsistence their industry could obtain, the revenue of a trading and manufacturing country would still, all else being equal, always be far greater than that of a country without trade or manufacturing. Trade and manufacturing allow a country to import more subsistence each year than its own land could provide in its present state of cultivation. The inhabitants of a town, though often owning no land themselves, draw through their industry enough of the raw produce of other people’s land to provide both their working materials and their subsistence. What a town always is in relation to the surrounding countryside, one independent state or country can often be in relation to other independent states or countries. Thus Holland draws a great part of its subsistence from other countries: live cattle from Holstein and Jutland, and grain from nearly every country in Europe. A small quantity of manufactured produce buys a great quantity of raw produce. A trading and manufacturing country therefore naturally buys much of other countries’ raw produce with a small part of its own manufactured produce; a country without trade and manufacturing, conversely, generally has to surrender much of its raw produce to buy a very small part of other countries’ manufactured produce. One exports what can support and accommodate very few people and imports the means of supporting and accommodating many. The other exports the means of supporting and accommodating many and imports enough for only a few. The inhabitants of the first must always enjoy much more subsistence than their own land could provide in its present state of cultivation. The inhabitants of the second must always enjoy much less.
For all its imperfections, however, this system is perhaps the closest approach to the truth yet published on political economy, and for that reason deserves the attention of everyone who wishes to examine the principles of that important science. Its insistence that labor employed on the land is the only productive labor may be too narrow; yet its doctrine is as sound as it is generous and liberal in maintaining that the wealth of nations consists not of money, riches that cannot be consumed, but of consumable goods reproduced annually by society’s labor, and that perfect liberty is the only effective way of making that annual reproduction as great as possible. Its followers are numerous. Because people are fond of paradoxes, and of appearing to understand what lies beyond the grasp of ordinary people, its paradox about the unproductive nature of manufacturing labor has perhaps done much to increase its admirers. For some years they have formed a sizable school known in the French republic of letters as the Economists. Their writings have certainly served their country, not only by opening to general discussion many subjects never properly examined before, but also by influencing public administration to some degree in favor of agriculture. In response to their arguments, French agriculture has been freed from several burdens under which it formerly labored. The term for which a lease can be granted so as to bind every future buyer or owner of the land has been extended from nine to twenty-seven years. The old provincial restrictions on moving grain from one province of the kingdom to another have been entirely removed; and freedom to export it to every foreign country has become the general law of the kingdom in ordinary cases. In their many works, which address not only Political Economy properly so called, or the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, but every other branch of civil government, this school follows the doctrine of Mr Quesnai implicitly and with no significant variation. Their writings therefore offer little variety for the most part. The clearest and most coherent account of the doctrine appears in a small book by Mr Mercier de la Riviere, formerly intendant of Martinico, entitled The natural and essential Order of Political Societies. The admiration of this entire school for its master, himself a man of the greatest modesty and simplicity, rivals that of any ancient philosophers for the founders of their systems. “Since the world began,” says a diligent and respected writer, the Marquis de Mirabeau, “there have been three great inventions chiefly responsible for the stability of political societies, apart from the many other inventions that have enriched and adorned them. First is writing, which alone gives humanity the power to transmit its laws, contracts, annals, and discoveries without alteration. Second is money, which binds together all relations among civilized societies. Third is the economical table, the outcome of the other two, completing both by perfecting their purpose: the great discovery of our age, whose benefits our posterity will reap.”
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete English text of all five books.
Some theoretical physicians seem to have believed that the human body could stay healthy only with one exact routine of diet and exercise. In their view, even the slightest departure from that routine must cause some illness or disorder in proportion to the departure. Experience, though, suggests that the body often stays perfectly healthy, at least to all appearances, under a great variety of routines. Some are even generally thought to be quite unhealthy. A healthy body seems to have some unknown ability to protect itself, preventing or correcting many harmful effects of even a very poor routine. Mr Quesnai, who was himself a physician and a very theoretical one, seems to have thought similarly about a society. He apparently believed it could thrive only under one exact routine: perfect liberty and perfect justice. He seems to have overlooked people's constant natural effort to improve their own situation. In a society, that effort can prevent and correct many harmful effects of economic policies that are somewhat biased and oppressive. Such policies certainly slow a nation's natural progress toward wealth and prosperity, more or less. But they cannot always stop it altogether, much less reverse it. If no nation could prosper without perfect liberty and perfect justice, no nation in the world would ever have prospered. Fortunately, nature has provided society with ample ways to remedy many harmful effects of human folly and injustice. It has similarly equipped the human body to remedy many effects of laziness and excess.
The chief error of this system, however, seems to be its description of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants as entirely barren and unproductive. The following points show why that description is inappropriate:
First, this class admittedly reproduces the value of what it consumes each year. At a minimum, it preserves the stock or capital that supports and employs it. On that basis alone, it seems quite wrong to call the class barren or unproductive. We would not call a marriage barren if it produced just a son and daughter to replace the father and mother. The population would not grow, but it would stay the same. Farmers and farmworkers do, of course, produce an annual net product beyond replacing the stock that supports and employs them. This provides the landowner with rent free of that expense. A marriage producing three children is certainly more productive than one producing only two. Similarly, the labor of farmers and farmworkers is certainly more productive than that of merchants, artisans, and manufacturers. But one class's greater output does not make the other barren or unproductive.
Second, for the same reason, it seems quite wrong to treat artisans, manufacturers, and merchants like household servants. Servants' labor does not preserve the fund that supports and employs them. Their masters bear the entire cost of supporting and employing them, and their work does not repay it. Their services generally disappear at the moment they are performed. They do not become goods that can be sold to replace the value of the servants' wages and support. By contrast, the work of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants naturally becomes just such salable goods. That is why, in the chapter where I discuss productive and unproductive labor, I counted artisans, manufacturers, and merchants as productive workers and household servants as barren or unproductive ones.
Third, however one looks at the matter, it seems wrong to say that the labor of artisans, manufacturers, and merchants does not increase society's real revenue. Suppose, for example, as this system seems to do, that the value of what this class consumes each day, month, and year exactly equals the value of what it produces over the same periods. It still would not follow that its labor adds nothing to real revenue—the real value of the annual produce of society's land and labor. Suppose an artisan produces ten pounds worth of work in the first six months after harvest and consumes ten pounds worth of grain and other necessities over those same months. The artisan has nevertheless added ten pounds in value to the annual produce of society's land and labor. While consuming a half-year's revenue of ten pounds worth of grain and necessities, the artisan has made work worth just as much. That work can buy another half-year's revenue for the artisan or someone else. The value of what has been consumed and produced during those six months is therefore twenty pounds, not ten. It is possible, of course, that no more than ten pounds worth of this value ever existed at a single moment. But if a soldier or household servant had consumed the ten pounds worth of grain and necessities instead, the portion of annual produce existing at the end of the six months would have been ten pounds less than it actually is thanks to the artisan's work. So even if the value of the artisan's output at any one moment is no greater than what the artisan consumes, the value of goods actually in the market at every moment is greater because of that output than it would otherwise be.
When advocates of this system say that artisans, manufacturers, and merchants consume as much as they produce in value, they probably mean only that their revenue, or the funds available for their consumption, equals the value they produce. But if they had said this more accurately, a reader might readily have realized that any savings from this revenue must increase society's real wealth to some extent. To put together anything resembling an argument, they therefore had to phrase the claim as they did. Even if things were actually as their claim seems to assume, the argument would still not establish their conclusion.
Fourth, farmers and farmworkers can no more increase real revenue without saving than artisans, manufacturers, and merchants can. By real revenue I mean the annual produce of their society's land and labor. A society can increase that annual produce in only two ways: first, by improving the productive power of the useful labor it already supports; or second, by increasing the amount of that labor.
The productive power of useful labor improves when, first, workers become more capable and, second, their machinery improves. The labor of artisans and manufacturers can be divided into more tasks than that of farmers and farmworkers, with each worker's task made simpler. It can therefore benefit much more from both kinds of improvement [See book i chap. 1.] In this respect, farmers have no advantage over artisans and manufacturers.
An increase in the useful labor actually employed in a society depends entirely on an increase in the capital that employs it. That increase in capital, in turn, must exactly equal the savings from revenue, whether made by the people who manage how the capital is employed or by others who lend it to them. If merchants, artisans, and manufacturers are naturally more inclined to save than landowners and farmers, as this system seems to suggest, they are correspondingly more likely to increase useful employment in their society. They are therefore more likely to increase its real revenue, the annual produce of its land and labor.
Fifth and last, suppose that a country's inhabitants derived all their revenue, as this system seems to assume, from the amount of food and other necessities that their work could obtain for them. Even on that assumption, and with other things equal, the revenue of a trading and manufacturing country must always be much greater than that of a country without trade or manufacturing. Trade and manufacturing let a country import more necessities each year than its own land, at its present level of cultivation, could provide. Town residents often own no land, but their work draws enough raw produce from other people's land to provide both their materials and their necessities. A town always stands in this relationship to its surrounding countryside, and an independent country can often stand in the same relationship to other independent countries. Holland, for example, gets much of what it needs from other countries: live cattle from Holstein and Jutland, and grain from nearly every country in Europe. A small amount of manufactured goods buys a large amount of raw produce. Thus a trading and manufacturing country naturally uses a small part of its manufactured output to buy a large part of other countries' raw produce. A country without trade or manufacturing, by contrast, generally has to give up a large part of its raw produce to buy a very small part of other countries' manufactured goods. The first country exports goods that support and provide comforts for only a few people and imports necessities and comforts for many. The second exports necessities and comforts for many and imports them for only a few. The first country's people must therefore enjoy far more necessities than their own land could yield at its present level of cultivation. The second country's people must enjoy far less.
Despite all its flaws, this system may come closer to the truth than anything yet published on political economy. Anyone wishing to examine the principles of this important subject carefully should therefore consider it. Its claim that working the land is the only productive labor may be too narrow. Yet it rightly presents national wealth as the consumable goods that society's labor produces each year, not as a store of money that cannot itself be consumed. It also presents perfect liberty as the only effective means of making that annual production as great as possible. In these respects its teaching seems both correct and open-minded. It has many followers. People like paradoxes and like to seem to understand things beyond ordinary people's grasp. So its paradoxical claim that manufacturing labor is unproductive has probably helped attract admirers. For some years its followers have formed a fairly large group, known in French intellectual circles as the Economists. Their writings have certainly helped their country. They have brought into general discussion many subjects that had never been properly examined, and have also influenced public administration to some degree in favor of agriculture. As a result of their arguments, French agriculture has been freed from several burdens it previously faced. A lease that remains valid against every future buyer or owner of the land can now last twenty-seven years instead of nine. The old provincial restrictions on moving grain between provinces have been completely removed. In ordinary cases, freedom to export grain to all foreign countries has become the general law of the kingdom. This group has written many works, covering not only political economy—the nature and causes of the wealth of nations—but every other branch of civil government. In all these works, they follow Mr Quesnai's doctrine without question or any noticeable variation. There is consequently little variety among most of their writings. The clearest and best-organized account of the doctrine appears in a short book by Mr Mercier de la Riviere, formerly intendant of Martinico, called The natural and essential Order of Political Societies. The group's admiration for its founder, himself a very modest and unpretentious man, rivals that shown by any ancient philosophers toward the founders of their schools. The Marquis de Mirabeau, a diligent and respected writer, says: “There have been, since the world began, three great inventions that have chiefly given stability to political societies, apart from the many other inventions that have enriched and adorned them. The first is writing. It alone lets people pass down their laws, agreements, records, and discoveries without changing them. The second is money, which connects all the relationships among civilized societies. The third is the economical table, which results from the other two and completes both by fulfilling their purpose. It is the great discovery of our age, though our descendants will reap its benefits.”