Let things therefore take their natural course, and shoes will be made at your doors when it is fit for them to be made there."To these reasons our legislators might possibly reply, "We confess that the first pairs of shoes that we get, will cost us much more, thus made at home, than they would do were we to buy them abroad.But then it will only be for the first articles manufactured that we shall pay so high, in the end they will come cheaper to us at home than from abroad; and it is to effect this desirable result, that we are going to undertake the project.We don't understand very well what you mean by the natural course of affairs, but we think the sooner we can get them to take a course, that will before long make things cheaper to us, the better." The answer to this in the words of our author would be: "I don't at all dispute, that, by means of this project, this particular manufacture may be acquired sooner than it could be otherwise, and after a certain time, may be made at home as cheap, or cheaper, than abroad.But, though the industry of your society may be thus carried with advantage into a particular channel sooner than it could have been otherwise, it will by no means follow that the sum total, either of its industry, or its revenue, can ever be augmented by any such project.The industry of your society can augment only in proportion as its capital augments, and its capital can augment only in proportion to what can be saved out of its revenue.But the immediate effect of this project of yours is to diminish its revenue; and what diminishes its revenue is certainly not very likely to augment its capital faster than it would augment, were you to leave capital and industry to find their natural employments."Our legislators might still possibly answer."As far as we can comprehend your arguments they reduce themselves to this.We have to give out what is a considerable sum to us, before we can carry this project into effect, and, for this outlay, you think we shall get no adequate return.Now in this our opinion differs from yours.We know indeed that we must expend something, but we think that in the long run we shall be better repaid for this expenditure, by this undertaking, than by any other in which we could employ our finds.We never yet got any thing without giving something for it, and, although we in this instance give money or money's worth, and get chiefly knowledge and skill in return, yet if you will take the trouble of examining the calculations we have been making of the saving which we shall in a few years effect, chiefly by means of this knowledge and skill, on what we annually pay for shoes and boots, we think you will agree with us that we shall gather in three times what we gave out.""No no," our philosopher would exclaim, "this is quite unnecessary, I see now how the case stands.I perceive you have got a theory as well as I have.But your theory is that of practical men who reason upon facts, whereas my theory is built upon general axioms.Now there is this great difference between two such theories, that when they are opposed to each other the latter, such as mine must always be right, the former such as yours wrong.My main axiom on which is founded a great system is, that capital always augments by accumulation.This you perceive is a general axiom, and however it may be that there may be apparent exceptions to it yet as it is a general axiom, it is a philosophical consequence that these exceptions can only be apparent.Your theory is opposed to this axiom of mine, for you pretend to say that capital may be augmented by other means than simple accumulation, and very strangely assert that, after giving it out of your hands, you will get it replaced to you, with large profit, out of the skill and knowledge which the outlay has procured you.But, as in proof of this you bring me only facts and figures, you will see of course that it is quite unnecessary for me to notice such arguments; for, however plainly it might from them appear that your scheme is practicable and must ultimately liberally repay your advances, yet, this conclusion being proved by reasoning, is a theory, and that theory having the disadvantage of not being drawn like mine from general axioms, and being merely a laborious deduction from particular observations, it must of necessity follow from indubitable philosophical principles, that it is wrong, and mine right.
The case being so, you are, I hope, men of too good sense to dispute the matter farther.Should you however persevere I must take the liberty of telling you that you are too narrow-minded theorists, and that, by interfering, in the manner you are about to do, with the natural course of events, you will infallibly waste the resources of your infant community, and retard its prosperity."I apprehend such philosophic arguments would not have had much success with them or other men of practice, and that, even should we take the procedure adopted by individuals, as a fit model for that of nations, we would not find that it altogether agreed with the rules which the doctrines of Adam Smith inculcate.The reason is, that individuals, as well as nations, acquire wealth from other sources than mere saving from revenue; that skill is as necessary, and consequently as valuable, a cooperator with the industry of both, as either capital or parsimony; and that therefore the expenditure which either may be called on to make to attain the requisite skill, is very well bestowed.
