If the enterpriser,the producer of a piece of cloth,at the same time that he divides between himself and his brother producers a sum of 30francs,for the productive services which have been employed in the manufacture of the cloth,is obliged to pay besides 6francs to the tax-gatherer,either he must cease to manufacture cloth,or must sell his piece for 36francs.(25)But the piece being at 36francs,the producers,who altogether have only received 30for it,can only purchase five-sixths of that same piece which previously they could purchase entirely,he who bought an ell of it could now only buy five-sixths of an ell,and so of the rest.
The producer of wheat,who on his part pays to another tax-gatherer a contribution of 6francs for a sack which cost 30francs in productive services,is obliged to sell his sack for 36francs instead of thirty.
The consequence of which is,that the producers of wheat and the producers of cloth,whether they want wheat or cloth,can only,with the profit they have made,purchase five-sixths of their productions.
This effect taking place in two reciprocal productions,may take place generally in all productions.--Without changing the position of the question,we may suppose that the producers,to whatever production they have devoted themselves,have occasion successively for drink,autumnal provisions,lodging,amusements,and articles of luxury or necessity.And still they will find these productions dearer than they can afford,whatever their income may be,according to the rank they hold among producers.There will always be,in the hypothesis which serves as our example,a sixth of the productions remaining unsold.
It is true,that the 6francs levied by the collector go to somebody,and that those whom the collector represents,(public functionaries,military men,or state pensioners,)may employ this money in the purchase of the remaining sixth,either of the wheat or cloth or of any other production.
--This is indeed the fact;but observe that consumption takes place at the expense of the producers,and that the collector,or his constituents,if they consume a sixth of the productions,thereby compel the producers to feed and clothe themselves --in fact to live upon five-sixths of what they produce.
This will be admitted;but at the same time it will be said,that it is possible for every one to live upon five-sixths of what he produces.--I will admit it myself if it is wished;but I shall ask in my turn,if you think the producer would live as well if two-sixths or a third,instead of one-sixth,were taken from him.No --but he would still live.Ah!you think he would live!In this case,I ask if he would still live if two-thirds --three-quarters --were taken from him;but I perceive that no answer is given.
Now,Sir,I flatter myself that my answer to your most forcible objections will be easily understood,as well as my answer to those of M.Sismondi.
If,you say,it is sufficient to create fresh productions,in order to be enabled to consume or exchange them for those which superabound,and thereby procure a vent for both the one and the other,why are they not created?Are the capitals wanting?They abound;enterprises are sought for,in which to employ them to advantage:it is evident they are not to be found you say (page 499);that every kind of commerce is so overloaded with capitals dnd laborers,both of which offer their productions at a reduced price says M.Sismondi.(26)I do not mean to say,that it is the act of a dupe,to devote oneself to the useful arts;but you must admit,gentlemen,that if it should ever become so,the effect would be no other than that of which you complain.
In order to buy those productions which superabound,it would be necessary to create other productions;but if the situation of producers was too disadvantageous;if after having used means of production sufficient to produce a bullock,a sheep only was the result;if only the same portion of utility as is found in a sheep could be obtained in exchange against any other produce,who would produce at such a disadvantage?Those who had devoted themselves to production,would have made a bad bargain;they would have made an advance which the utility of their production is not sufficient to repay.Whoever should be ~so unwise as to create a production capable of purchasing the former,would have to struggle against the same disadvantages,and would get into the same embarrassment.The profit he would obtain from his production would not indemnify him for his expences;and what he could purchase with this production would be worth no more.
Then the workman could no longer live by his labor,and would become a burthen to his parish.(27)Then the enterpriser,no longer enabled to live upon his profits,would renounce his industry.
He would purchase stock,or rather go abroad to seek better fortune,a more lucrative occupation,or what comes exactly to the same thing,a production which should be accompanied with less expences.(28)If he should there meet with other inconveniences,he would still seek another scene for his talents,and different countries would be seen driving away,seizing by the head,both their capitals and laborers;that is to say,what is sufficient to carry the prosperity of human societies to the highest pitch,when they know their real interest and the means of benefiting by it.
I shall not take upon myself to say which of the features of this picture are suitable to your country,or to any other,but I leave them to your examination,and to that of all honest men,of good intentions,and who desire to found their happiness on the interesting,laborious,and useful part of mankind.
