SIR,On reading your Principles of Political Economy ,the first object which struck my attention was that great evil which torments the human race,and prevents them from living on their productions.Although in the order of ideas,a discussion on the nature of wealth ought to precede this,in order to assist the mind in comprehending all the phenomena which relate to its formation and distribution,I have not thought it right to give it the preference,as it appears to be more peculiarly interesting to those who cultivate the science of political economy,without any view of carrying it into practice.Still I cannot lay down my pen without giving you my opinion on this head.I have your own sanction for so doing,in the noble candor with which you invite every discussion that may tend to enlighten the public."It is to be desired,"you say,(page 4)"that those who are looked upon by the public to be competent judges should agree upon the principal points."They cannot be made too clear.
You complain of the definition which Lord Lauderdale gives of wealth,when he says that "it is every thing man can desire,that can be useful or agreeable to him,"as being too vague,and I think you are very right.
I am seeking the definition which you think ought to be substituted for this,and I find that you give the term wealth to "all material objects that are necessary,useful,or agreeable to man"(page 28).The only difference I see between these two definitions consists in the word material,which you add to that of my Lord Lauderdale,and I nmst confess that this word appears too me to be contrary to the truth.
You will anticipate my reasons.The great discovery of political economy,and what will render it everlastingly precious,is the having shown that everything may be converted into wealth.From that time man has been made capable of knowing what it is necessary for him to do,to attain these happy means of satisfying his desires.But as I have formerly had occasion to observe,it is beyond the power of man to add a single atom to the mass of matter,of which the world is composed.If he creates wealth,wealth is not matter:there is no medium.By means of his capital and his land,man can only change the combination of matter,to confer utility upon it,but utility is an immaterial quality.
This is not all,Sir;I fear your definition does not contain the essential character of wealth.Allow me to give a few explanations in support of my idea.
Adam Smith and all the world have observed,that a glass of water,which is a very precious thing when we are thirsty,was not wealth..It is however a material object,it is either necessary,useful,or agreeable to man.
It fulfils all the conditions of your definition,and it is not wealth.
At least not that wealth which is the subject of our study,and that of your book.What is wanting to make it so?possessing value.
There are things indeed which are natural wealth,very precious to man,but which are not of that kind .about which political economy can be employed.
Can it increase them?Can it consume them?No,they are subject to other laws.A glass of water is under the government of natural law.The attachment of our friends,and our reputation in the world,depend upon the moral law,and not on that of political economy.What then is wealth,the main spring of this science?that which is susceptible of creation and destruction,of more and of less;and this more,this less,what is it against value.
You yourself,Sir,are obliged to confess it in many places.You say (page 340,)"It appears therefore,that the wealth of a nation depends partly on the quantity of production obtained by its labor,(it depends on this altogether,)and partly on the adaptation of this labor to the wants and means of the population,for the purpose of giving value to its productions."And in the following page,you are still more positive.After having gone further into the question,you admit that,"it is evident that in the present state of things,the value of commodities may be considered as the only cause of the existence of wealth."How can it be then,that so essential an ingredient as value,is wanting to your definition?
But that is not sufficient:we should know but very imperfectly the nature of wealth,if we were not well to define this word value.In order.
to possess great wealth,is it enough that we value our possessions very high?If I have,built a house which I find delightful,and think it might to estimate it at a hundred thousand francs,am I really worth a hundred thousand francs on account of this house?We receive a present from a person who is dear to us,which is inestimable in our eyes --does it follow that that makes us immensely rich?You cannot think so.In order for a value to be riches,it must be an admitted value;not by the possessor,but by another person..Now what irresistible proof can be given,that a value is admitted,if not,that in order to have it,other persons consent to give in exchange a certain quantity of other things,which are valuable.
Notwithstanding I may have estimated my house at a hundred thousand francs,what shall I have made of it,if I can find no one who will give me more than fifty thousand of those pieces which we call francs.It is in fact worth no more than fifty thousand,it makes me worth no more than fifty thousand,or whatever may be bought for fifty thousand francs.
