Of these funds some are alienable,as land;others are alienable and consumable,as capital;others inalienable,and yet consumable,as talents,which perish with their possessor.From these funds proceed all the revenues which keep society alive,and what appears paradoxical,although perfectly true,all these revenues are immaterial,since they are derived from an immaterial quality which is utility.The different utilities produced by our productive funds are compared with each other by their value,which I have no occasion to call exchangeable ,because in political economy I recognize no other than exchangeable.
As to the difficulty Mr.Ricardo makes,when he says that,by better understood processes,a thousand persons may produce twice and three times as much wealth without producing more value,this is no difficulty,when we consider,(as we ought,)production as an exchange,in which the productive services of our labor,our land,and capital are given in order to obtain productions.By means of these productive services,we acquire all the productions that are in the.world,and this by the bye is what gives value to productions;for,after having obtained them bv giving value for them,we cannot give them away for nothing.Now since our first property is the productive funds we possess,our first revenue the productive services which proceed from them,we are richer in proportion as our productive services are more valuable,as they obtain in the exchange called production,a greater or less quantity of useful things.And at the same time,as a greater quantity of useful things and their low price,are perfectly synonimous expressions,the producers are rich,when productions are more abundant and cheaper.I say producers in general,because competition compels them to give their productions for what they cost them;so that when producers of wheat or cloth succeed by help of the same productive services in producing a double quantity of wheat or cloth,all the other producers can purchase a double quantity of wheat or cloth with a like quantity of productive services,or what is the same thing,with the produce they derive from them.
Such,Sir,is the well-connected doctrine,without which I declare it to be impossible to explain the greatest difficulties of political economy,and particularly how a nation can be richer,when its productions diminish in value,although riches are value.You see that I am not afraid to reduce my pretended paradoxes to their simple expression.I strip them naked,and trust them to your equity,to that of Mr.Ricardo,and to the good sense of the public.But at the same time reserving to myself the right of explaining them,if they are ill understood,and of defending them boldly if unjustly attacked.
NOTES:
1.The Translation of Professor Malthus's Principles of Political Economy ,by M.F.S.Constancie,(who translated Mr.Ricardo's work)is in the press,and will appear in the course of the month of August,published by J.P.Aillaud,Bookseller,No.21,Quai Voltaire.It will consist of two octavo volumes,of about 400pages each.
2.Sismondi's New Principles of Political Economy ,vol.i.337,and following pages.
3.Malthus's Principles of Political Economy,page 354.(I quote from the English Edition,not having yet seen a translation).
4.Treatise on Political Economy ,or simple explanation of the manner in which riches are obtained,distributed and consumed,4th edition.Vol.ii.page 5.
5.Malthus's Principles etc.page 353.
6.What oftentimes makes English authors obscure is,that they confound by the example of Smith,under the name of labor,the services rendered by men,by capital,and by land.
7.A domestic produces personal services,which,as soon as produced,are unproductively consumed by his master.The service of a public functionary is also entirely consumed by the public,as it is produced.This is the reason why these different services do not produce any augmentation of wealth.The consumer enjoys these services but cannot accumulate them.This is particularly explained in my Treatise on Political Economy ,4th Ed.vol.i.page 124.How Mr.Malthus could print page 35after this,is inconceivable:in which he says that,"the progress which Europe has made since the feudal times cannot be explained,if per anal service is considered as productive as the labor of tradesmen and manufacturers.
It is the same with these services as with the labor of the gardener who has cultivated salads or strawberries.The wealth of Europe certainly does not proceed from the strawberries,because they,like personal service,are all unproductively consumed as they ripen,although not so quick as personal service.
I mention strawberries here,as a produce of very short duration,but it is not because a production is durable that it gives greater facility to accumulation.It is because it is so consumed as to produce its value in another article:for durable or not.every production is devoted to consumption,and is no further useful than by its consumption (this utility consists,either in satisfying a want,or in producing a fresh value).
When we begin to write upon political economy,the first thing to be done is to divest ourselves of the idea that a durable production accumulates better than a perishable one.
8.What the English call Want and Supply.
9.Fourth edition.Bk.I.ch.15.Bk.II ch.l.2.
3and 5.See also the Epitome at tho end of each work,particularly the words Productive Services,Charges of Production,Revenues,Profit,Value .
10.Malthus's Principles of Political Economy ,page 351.
11.A farmer who sells a sack of wheat for 30francs,and buys a piece of calico for 30francs,does he not exchange his wheat for the cloth?and the manufacturer who buys a sack of wheat for 30francs,the price of his piece of cloth,does he not exchange his cloth for a sack of wheat?
