Chapter 18 On both productive and unproductive labor

There is one kind of labor which, when added to things, increases their value; another kind of labor does not.The former can be called productive labor because it can produce value, and the latter can be called unproductive labor.The labor of the manufac- turer generally adds to the value of the raw materials worked, the value necessary for his own subsistence, and the value which furnishes his employer's profit.On the other hand, the labor of a domestic servant adds no value.Although the wages of manufacturing workers are paid in advance by the employer, in fact there is no cost to fulfill the employer.The labor of the manufac- turer is thrown upon the thing, and the value of the thing increases.The value thus added, generally replaces the value of the wages, and furnishes a profit.The maintenance fee of domestic servants is irrecoverable.To employ many laborers is the way to get rich, and to keep many servants is the way to be poor.But the labor of the domestic servant has its own value, and like the labor of the labourer, it should be paid.The labor of the manufac- turer , however, may be fixed and realized in particular or salable commodities, and may pass through a period of time, and will not be born and perish.It would seem to store up a portion of labor and call it up when necessary.That article, or the price of that article, may afterwards, if necessary, employ a quantity of labor equal to that originally employed in its production.The labor of domestic servants, on the other hand, is neither fixed nor realized in particular articles or salable commodities.It is very difficult to preserve the value of the labor of domestic servants, which is born and perishes, for the employment of an equal amount of labor at a later date.

The labor of some of the better classes of society, like that of domestic servants, produces no value, is neither fixed or realized in durable or salable commodities, nor can it be preserved for the subsequent employment of an equal amount of labour.The prince, for example, and his officials, his navy and army, are unproductive labourers.They are public servants whose communal livelihood is maintained by a portion of the annual produce of the labor of others.Their offices, however noble, useful, and necessary they may be, are, after all, perishing as they come and go, and cannot be reserved for future acquisitions of the same amount.Of course, they have done a lot in governing the country and defending the country, but this year's performance cannot buy next year's performance; this year's safety cannot buy next year's safety.In this class there are, of course, various occupations, some of the most noble and important, and some of which may be said to be of the least importance.The former are priests, lawyers, physicians, and literati; the latter are actors, singers, and dancers.In this class of labour, even the lowest, has some value, and the principle that governs the value of this labor is the same principle that governs the value of all other labour.But not even the noblest of this class of labor can produce anything with which an equal quantity of labor can be purchased at a later date.Like the dialogue of actors, the speeches of orators, the singing of musicians, the work of ordinary people, they all come and go.

The productive laborer, the unproductive laborer, and the non-laborer alike depend on the annual produce of the land and labour.However great the quantity of this product may be, it is by no means infinite, but finite.Therefore, the larger the portion that is used to maintain unproductive hands, the smaller must be the portion that is used to maintain productive hands, and so the next year's produce must be less.Conversely, the smaller the portion used to maintain unproductive hands, the larger must be the portion used to maintain productive hands, and the greater must be the next year's produce.Excepting the natural produce of the land, all the annual produce is the result of productive labour.

It is true that, in every country, the annual produce of land and labor is used to supply the domestic inhabitants for consumption and to provide income for them, but whether they come from the land or from the hands of productive laborers, they will naturally come out. into two parts.A part (often the greatest part) is used to replace the capital, to supplement the food, materials, and manufactures taken out of it; the other part is the revenue of the owner of the capital, either in the form of profit, or the income of the landlord in the form of ground rent.As far as the produce of the land is concerned, a part is used to replace the capital of the farmer, and another part is used to pay the profit as the income of the owner of the capital, or to pay the rent of the land as the income of the landlord.As regards the produce of great factories, a part (often the greatest part) is used to replace the capital of the manufacturer, and another part is paid out as a revenue to the owner of the capital.

That part of the annual produce which replaces capital is never at once employed in maintaining unproductive, but productive labourers.As for the portion originally designated as profit or rent-receipt, it may be employed in maintaining productive or unproductive labourers. He who invests part of his means as capital, wishes to recover his capital and make a profit at the same time.Therefore, he employs only productive labourers.This stock, first of all, serves the function of capital to its owner, and afterwards constitutes the revenue of productive labourers.As for that part of his means employed for the maintenance of unproductive labourers, from the moment it is thus employed, it is withdrawn from his capital, and placed in that stock which he reserves for immediate consumption.

Unproductive workers and those who do not work must depend on income.The income here referred to may be divided into two things: first, that part of the annual produce which was originally earmarked for certain persons as income from rent or profit; and employs productive labourers, but when it comes into the hands of those who acquire it, besides maintaining their food and clothing, they tend to maintain productive and unproductive labourers, without distinction.For example, not only big landlords and wealthy businessmen, but also ordinary workers often hire a servant to watch puppet shows when the wages are high.He thus maintains unproductive laborers with a portion of his income.Also, he may have to pay some taxes.Then those whom he maintains, though far more noble, are equally unproductive.But as a rule, that part of the annual produce which is intended to replace capital, is never diverted to maintain unproductive labourers, till it has employed enough productive labourers, which would have been employed, to set them to work. .It is by no means possible for the laborer to maintain an unproductive laborer with a part of his wages until he is paid for his work.And, that part of the salary is often not much.It is only his saved income; in the case of the productive laborer, in any case not much saved, but they have some.As far as taxes are concerned, since there are many people in this class, although each of them pays very little, what they pay is considerable.Rent and profit, wherever they are, are the principal resources on which the unproductive laborer lives.These two kinds of income are the easiest to save.Their owners employ producers as well as unproducers.In general, however, they seem to be particularly fond of the latter.The expenses of great lords are usually more for supporting idlers than for hardworking people.Though the capital of the rich merchant is employed only in employing the industrious people, yet, like the great lord, his revenues are largely devoted to the maintenance of unproductive people.

We have said that a part of the annual produce produced by the land, by productive labourers, as soon as it is produced, is earmarked as a fund for the replacement of capital, and a part as income from rent or profit.We now also know that, in any country, the proportion of producers to non-producers depends to a great extent on the proportion of these two parts.Moreover, this ratio is very different in poor and rich countries. In the rich countries of Europe today, a very large part of the produce of the land is used to replace the capital of the independent rich peasant, and the rest is used to pay his profits and the rent of the landlord.But in the old days when there were many feudal governments, the very small part of the annual produce was enough to compensate the capital for farming.Because the capital needed for farming at that time was just a few old cows and horses, and their food was the natural product of the wasteland, so they can also be regarded as part of the natural product.These livestock also generally belong to the landlord, who lends them to the cultivators of the land.The rest of the produce of the land also goes to the landlord, either as a rent of the land, or as the profit of a capital of little value.The cultivators are mostly servants of their masters, and their property is also the property of the landlord.Those tillers who were not slaves were tenants who could withdraw their rent at will.The rent they pay is often nominally the same as the exempt rent, but in fact it is still equal to the whole produce of the land.Moreover, in times of peace, the landlords can requisition their labor at any time, and in times of war, they must go out to perform military service.Although they lived far away from the landlord's home, they belonged to the landlord and were no different from domestic slaves living in the landlord's home.Since their labor is subject to the landlord's control, of course all the produce of the land belongs to the landlord.Things are very different in Europe now.Rent seldom constitutes more than a third, and sometimes less than a quarter, of the whole produce of the land.But the rents of improved lands, measured in quantity, are generally three or four times what they were in former times; and a third or a quarter of the annual produce is now taken out, and it seems to be three times as much as the whole of the previous annual produce. Or four times as much.In the epoch of ever-increasing agriculture, the rent, quantitatively speaking, has been increasing, but its proportion to the produce of the land has been decreasing.

In the rich countries of Europe, the great capitals are now invested in commerce and manufactures.In ancient times, there was little trade, simple manufacturing, and very little capital required.But the profits they afford must be great.In ancient times the rate of interest was seldom below ten percent.This proves that their profits must be sufficient to provide such a large interest.At present, the rate of interest in the progressive countries of Europe is seldom above six per cent; the rate of interest in the most advanced countries is sometimes as low as four per cent, three per cent, or even two per cent.Because rich countries have much more capital than poor countries, the income of the inhabitants of rich countries from the profits of capital is also much greater than in poor countries.But in the ratio of profit to capital it is usually much smaller.

The portion of the annual produce of land and labour, with which capital is replaced, is of course much greater in a rich country than in a poor one.But more than this, it forms a much greater proportion of the annual produce than what goes directly to rent and profit.Moreover, the funds for employing productive labor are, of course, much greater in rich countries than in poor ones.But it's not only that.We have said that, except for a part of the annual product of a country, which is designated as a fund for employing productive labour, the rest is not necessarily used for employing productive labor or for employing unproductive labour, but it is usually used in later years. One purpose.The funds for employing productive labour, also, account for a much greater proportion of the annual produce in rich countries than in poor ones.

The proportion of these two funds, in any country, necessarily determines the industriousness or idleness of the character of the people.We are more industrious than our forefathers, because, compared with two or three hundred years ago, the fund we have devoted to maintaining an industrious people is, in proportion, much larger than that used to maintain an idle one.Our ancestors, because they were not adequately rewarded for their hard work, were lazy.As the saying goes: It is better to play without benefit than to work without merit.In industrial and commercial towns, where most of the lower classes of inhabitants depend on the employment of capital, these inhabitants are mostly industrious, conscientious, and prosperous.Great cities in England and the Netherlands are good examples.In cities which are mainly maintained by the permanent or temporary presence of the monarch, the livelihood of the people depends mainly on the expenditure of income, and these people are mostly idle, depraved, and poor.Rome, Versailles, Compiègne, Fontainebleau, are good examples.As far as France is concerned, except for Rouen and Bordeaux, the industrial and commercial cities of the other parliamentary cities are insignificant.Most of the lower class people are idle and poor because most of them rely on the fees of court officials and those who come to litigate for their maintenance.The two cities of Rouen and Bordeaux are quite prosperous in commerce due to their geographical location.Rouen must have been the place of distribution for all the wants of Paris, whether imported or brought from all the coasts.Bordeaux is the distribution point for the wine produced in the Garonne Valley. These places are rich in wine production and are world-renowned. Foreigners like to drink it, so they export a lot.Such a good terrain will of course attract capital to invest in this area.Because of this, the industries of these two cities are thriving.The situation was different in the other parliamentary cities.People invest capital only to maintain the city's consumption. In other words, the amount of capital invested is limited and must not exceed the limit that the city can use.The same is true of Paris, Madrid, and Vienna.Of these three cities, Paris is the most industrious, but Paris is the chief market for the manufactures of Paris; and the consumption of Paris itself is the chief object of all business.London, Lisbon, and Copenhagen are the only cities in Europe that are not only the place where princes and princes reside for festivals, but also the place where industry and commerce converge.These three cities are well placed to serve as places of collection and distribution for the greater part of distant consumption.But it is not so easy to use capital profitably in a city that spends a lot of income, besides using it to supply local consumption, as it is in a large industrial and commercial city where the livelihood of the lower class people depends solely on the use of capital.The habit of idleness of the great majority of men who live by expending their income makes some who ought to be industrious be assimilated with it.The use of capital, therefore, is naturally at a disadvantage here than elsewhere.Before the merger of England and Scotland, Edinburgh's industry and commerce were very underdeveloped.Later, the Scottish Parliament moved, and the princes and nobles did not have to live there, and the industry and commerce there slowly revived.However, the Scottish Court of Justice and tax authorities have not been relocated, so a lot of income is still spent there.Therefore, in terms of industry and commerce, Edinburgh is far behind Glasgow.The livelihood of the inhabitants of Glasgow depends largely on the employment of capital.Again, we sometimes see the inhabitants of large villages, which have made great advances in manufactures, become lazy and poor, by the presence of princes and nobles.

The proportion of capital to income, therefore, seems to govern the proportion of industry to idleness everywhere.Where capital dominates, people are more industrious; where income is dominant, people are more lazy.The increase or decrease of capital naturally increases or decreases the real quantity of labour, increases or decreases the number of productive labourers, and therefore increases or decreases the exchange value of the annual produce of the land and labor of a country, and increases or decreases the real wealth and income of the people of the country. Capital increases through thrift; capital decreases through extravagance and extravagance.As much income as one saves, so much capital is increased.He can personally invest this increased capital to employ more productive laborers, or he can lend it to others at interest so that he can employ more productive laborers.As the capital of an individual can only be increased by savings in annual income or annual gain, the capital of a society of individuals can only be increased by this method. The immediate cause of capital increase is thrift, not industry.It is true that before there is frugality, there must be diligence first. The things saved by thrift are all obtained through hard work.But if there is only hard work and no frugality, and there is income but nothing to save, capital can never be increased.Thrift increases the funds for maintaining productive labourers, and thus increases the number of productive labourers.As their labor increases the value of the object of labor, thrift also tends to increase the exchange value of the annual produce of the land and labor of a country.Thrift promotes a greater quantity of labour; and a greater quantity of labor increases the value of the annual produce. What is saved annually is consumed as often as it is spent annually, and nearly at the same time.But the people who consume are different.Most of the annual expenditure of the rich is consumed by idle guests and household servants, who leave nothing behind as a reward.The annual savings which are converted directly into capital for profit are likewise and almost simultaneously consumed, but by laborers, manufacturers, artisans.They reproduce the value they consume each year and provide a profit.Now assuming that his income is all money, if he spends it all, the food, clothing and shelter he buys with all the income will be distributed to the former type of people.If a part of the savings is directly converted to capital for profit, and is used for personal use, or lent to others, then the food, clothing and shelter he purchases with this savings will be distributed among the latter.The consumption is the same, but the consumers are different. A frugal person, the income he saves every year can not only support a number of more productive laborers this year and the next, but also, like the founder of a factory, he has set up a permanent fund that can be maintained at any time in the future. as many productive workers.How this kind of fund will be distributed and where it will be used is of course not guaranteed by law, not regulated by trust deed or perpetual business certificate, but there is a strong principle to protect its safety, that is, the owner's personal interest.If any part of this fund is devoted to the maintenance of unproductive labourers, those who misuse it for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended, must suffer. This is how the extravagant misuses capital: by living beyond his means, he eats away at it.Like a man who diverts to blasphemous the proceeds of a pious fund, so he feeds idlers with the money his father and brother had saved for some business.As the fund for employing productive labour, has been reduced, so has the quantity of labor employed which increases the value of goods, so that the annual produce value of the land and labor of the nation has diminished, and the real wealth and income of the inhabitants of the nation have diminished.The extravagant feeds the idler by taking the bread of the industrious.If the frugality of another part is not enough to compensate the luxury of this part, the extravagant will not only impoverish himself, but will impoverish the whole country. Even if the extravagant spends all on domestic products and does not use any foreign products, the result will also affect the production fund of the society in the same way.A certain amount of food and clothing, which should be used to maintain productive labourers, is employed every year to maintain unproductive labourers.The value of the produce of a country, therefore, is always always, every year, less than it should be. It will be said, that the domestic money would not have been diminished, since such expenditures had not been expended in purchasing foreign goods, had not occasioned the export of gold and silver.But if this quantity of food and clothing were not consumed by producers, but distributed among producers, they would not only reproduce the whole value of their consumption, but would furnish a profit.This same amount of money will remain in the country, yet reproduce an equivalent value of consumer goods, so that the result will be two values, not just one. Moreover, no country in which the annual produce is ever diminishing in value can keep this same amount of money.The sole function of money is to circulate consumer goods.It is by means of money that food, materials, and manufactured goods can be bought and sold, and distributed to legitimate consumers.The quantity of money which can be annually circulated in a country depends on the value of the consumption goods which are annually circulated in the country.The articles of consumption which annually circulate in the country are either the immediate produce of the land and labor of the country, or are purchased with the produce of the country.As the value of the domestic produce diminishes, the value of the consumer goods annually circulated in the country must also decrease, and consequently the quantity of money which can be annually circulated in the country must also decrease.Money, which is driven out of domestic circulation by the annual decline of its produce, must not be thrown out of use.Because of the interests of the money owner, he would never want his money to be left unused.If there is no use in the country, he will ignore the law and prohibition, and send it to foreign countries to buy various consumer goods that are useful in the country.The annual exportation of money will continue for such a time as to cause the annual consumption of the people of the country to exceed the value of their annual produce.The gold and silver purchased in times of prosperity from the accumulated produce of the next year, sustain them for some time in this adversity.But in this case, the export of gold and silver is not the cause of the decline of the people's livelihood, but the result of the decline of the people's livelihood.In fact, this kind of export can even temporarily reduce the suffering of people's livelihood. Conversely, as the value of the annual produce of a country increases, the quantity of money must naturally increase.The annual increase in the value of consumer goods circulating in the country requires, of course, a greater quantity of money to circulate.A part, therefore, of the increased produce must be scattered, and where there is gold and silver, the necessary additional gold and silver are purchased.But in this case the increase of gold and silver was only the effect, not the cause, of the prosperity of the society.The conditions for buying gold and silver are the same everywhere.It always requires a certain amount of labor or capital to get it out of the mine, and to bring it to the market.People who work and invest in this cause always need the supply and income of agriculture, food and housing.This definite supply and income is the price at which gold and silver are purchased.As with the purchase of gold and silver in England, so with the purchase of gold and silver in Peru.The countries that need gold and silver need not worry about their lack of gold and silver for a long time, so long as they can pay this price.And the gold and silver that is not needed will not stay in the country for a long time. Whether, therefore, we say that what constitutes the real wealth and revenue of a country is the value of the annual produce of its labor and land, on plain and reasonable grounds, or whether we follow the popular prejudice, that what constitutes the real wealth and revenue of a country, Is the amount of precious metals circulating in the country. In short, from every point of view, luxury is the enemy of the public, and thrift is the benefactor of society. Let's talk about presumption again.The result of presumption is the same as luxury.All imprudent and hopeless projects in agriculture, mining, fishing, commerce, and industry tend to detract from the funds for employing productive labour.It is true that the capital invested in such a plan is consumed only by productive labourers, but because of improper use, the value they consume cannot be fully reproduced, and it inevitably reduces the social value compared with when it is properly used. on the production fund. Fortunately, in the case of large countries, the extravagance of individuals can have little influence.The frugality and prudence of the other part more than makes up for the extravagance and recklessness of the other part. When it comes to luxury, a person wastes money, of course, because he has the desire to enjoy himself now.The ardor of this desire is sometimes almost irresistible, but generally speaking, it is always temporary and accidental.Speaking of thrift, a man is thrifty, of course, because he has the desire to improve his own situation.Although this wish is calm and composed, we never give up this wish for a moment from the time we emerge from the womb until we die.From the end of our life to death, hardly any of us feel completely satisfied with our own position for a moment, do not seek progress, and do not want to improve.But how to improve? Most people think that increasing property is a necessary means. This means is the most common and obvious.The best way to increase property is to save a portion of your annual income or special income and hoard it.Therefore, although everyone has the desire to waste sometimes, and there is a kind of people who have this desire all the time, on average, in the process of our human life, the frugal psychology not only often predominates , and has a great advantage. Speaking of presumptuousness, no matter where, prudent and successful careers always predominate.Careless and unsuccessful careers are always in the minority.Although we often see frustrated people who go bankrupt, among the countless people who run business, it is always a very small part of the total number of people who fail.Only one out of a thousand.Bankruptcy is a great and embarrassing calamity to an innocent man.There are not many people who do not pay attention to avoid it.Of course, there are people who don't know how to avoid it, just as there are people who don't know how to avoid the gallows. It is true that a country with a large land and rich resources will not be impoverished by private extravagance, but the extravagance of the government can sometimes make it impoverished.In many countries the whole, or nearly the whole, of the revenue of the public is employed in the maintenance of the unproductive.The princes and ministers in the court and the priests and priests in the church are such people.Or the navy and the army, which have nothing to produce in peacetime, and nothing to pay for their maintenance in time of war.This was true even while the war continued.These people, because they have nothing to produce, are obliged to depend on the produce of other people's labour.Had they increased their numbers more than they should have, they might consume so much of the above produce in any one year that there would not be enough left over to maintain productive labourers, who could reproduce something in the next year.Therefore, the next year's reproduction will definitely not be as good as the previous year.If this chaotic situation continues, the reproduction in the third year will certainly not be as good as in the second year.Those unproductive people who are supposed to be maintained on only a part of the surplus income of the people may consume such a large part of the total income of the people that so many people are compelled to eat away at their capital, and at the fund for maintaining productive labour, so that no matter what No individual thrift or prudence can compensate for such a great waste. Yet, from experience, it seems, in most cases, that individual thrift and prudence compensate not only for individual extravagance, but for government waste as well.The consistent, constant, unceasing effort of every individual to improve his own condition is the great factor upon which the wealth of society, of nations, and of private individuals, rests.This continuous effort is often strong enough to overcome the waste of government, to save the great error of administration, and to make things better day by day.For example, although there are diseases and quack doctors in the world, there always seems to be an inexplicable power in people that can break through all difficulties and restore their original health. There are but two means of increasing the value of the annual produce of the land and labor of a country, either by increasing the number of productive labourers, or by increasing the productivity of those who are employed.Obviously, in order to increase the number of productive laborers, capital must first be increased, the fund for maintaining productive laborers must be increased.The only way to increase the productivity of the same number of employed laborers is to increase or improve the machinery and tools that facilitate and reduce labor.Otherwise, it is to make the distribution of work more appropriate.But in any case, there is a need to increase capital.The improvement of machinery requires an increase of capital, and the improvement of the distribution of work requires an increase of capital.Dividing the work into many parts, so that each workman is always devoted to one kind of work, requires a considerable increase in capital than if one person does all kinds of work concurrently.Therefore, if we compare the predecessors and descendants of the same nation, and find that the annual products of land and labor are more in the descendants than in the former, the cultivation of the land has improved, the industry has expanded and prospered, and the commerce has spread, we will It can be asserted that during these two eras, the capital of this country must have increased a lot.The thrift and prudence of one part of the people there must add to the capital more than the capital is corroded by the recklessness and waste of the government of another part.Having said that, I should make a statement that as long as the country is peaceful and the people are safe, even if the government is not prudent, this kind of progress can still be made in the country.However, in order to judge this progress correctly, we should not compare two eras that are too close together.Progress is so gradual, and the age is too recent, that not only does it fail to see its improvement, but sometimes, even if the country is generally improved, we often doubt it because we see the decline of a certain industry or the decline of a certain place. Its wealth and industry are in decline throughout the country. The annual produce of the land and labor of England is, of course, much greater now than it was a hundred years before the Restoration of Charles II.Now there are not many people who doubt the increase of England's annual production, but during this hundred years, almost every five years, there are several well-written books or pamphlets that say that England's national wealth It is declining sharply, the population is decreasing, and it is said that agriculture is regressing, industry is withering, and commerce is in decline.Moreover, such books are not necessarily all partisan propaganda, all are the products of fraud and ungratefulness.I know that many of them are written by very honest and intelligent writers.What these people narrate is not what they themselves believe. Moreover, the annual produce of the land and labor of England under Charles II's Restoration must have been much greater than it had been under Elizabeth's accession two hundred years before.Compared with the end of the era of York and Lancaster three hundred years ago, the annual produce of Elizabethan England must have been much greater.Pushing it forward, the era of York and Lancaster is of course better than the era of the Norman Conquest; the era of the Norman Conquest is of course better than the era of the Saxon Seven.In the era of the Saxon Seven, Britain certainly cannot be said to be a progressive country, but with Julia.Compared with the era of Caesar's invasion (at this time, the situation of the residents of England was not far from that of the barbarians in North America), it was considered a great progress. Yet at each period there has been much waste by private as well as by government, and many unnecessary and costly wars have been fought, and much of the annual produce which was used to maintain the producers has been diverted to the maintenance of the unproducers. .Sometimes, in times of great conflict, the profligacy of waste, the destruction of capital, would seem to anyone not only to impede the natural accumulation of wealth (which it did), but to cripple the country during this period. ended up in a more impoverished position.After the restoration of Charles II, England was the happiest and wealthiest, but how many disturbances and misfortunes happened then?If we had been born then, we must have worried about the future of England, saying that it would not only be in poverty, but be ruined altogether.Just think about it, after the Great Fire of London, followed by the Great Plague, and the revolutionary disturbances after the two wars of England and Holland, the wars against Ireland in 1688, 1702, 1742 and 17 Four costly wars against France in 1756 and two rebellions in 1715 and 1745.Not to mention anything else, as a result of the four Great Wars between Britain and France, the debt owed by Britain is more than 145 million pounds. Including the various special expenses caused by the war, the total may not be less than 200 million pounds. Pound.Since the Revolution, such a large portion of the annual produce of our country has frequently been employed to maintain a very large number of unproducers.If there had been no war, a large part of the capital then considered so expended would have been diverted to employ productive labourers.If the productive laborers reproduce the full value of their consumption and furnish a profit, the annual increase in the value of the annual produce of our country's land and labor can be imagined, and each year must increase still further. increase for the next year.If there had been no war at that time, more houses would have been built; the improved land would have been larger; the cultivation of the improved land would have been more perfect; manufacturing industries would have increased and existing manufacturing industries would have expanded; as for the real wealth of the nation It may be difficult for us to imagine how income and income will increase. The profusion of government, though it no doubt had checked the natural progress of wealth and improvement in England, could not stop it.The annual produce of land and labor in England is now much greater than it was under the Restoration; and much greater now than it was under the Revolution.Much more capital must be annually employed in England in the tillage of the land to sustain agricultural labour, than in former times.On the one hand, despite the demands of the government, on the other hand, there are countless individuals there who generally and constantly strive to improve their situation, economize and prudently accumulate capital step by step quietly.It is this effort, secured by law, to develop freely under the most favorable circumstances, which has, through almost all past ages, made England richer and better.Moreover, it is not hopeless that the future will continue in the same way forever.England, however, has never had a very thrifty government, and the inhabitants, therefore, have no thrifty character.It can be seen from this that the princes and ministers of England promulgated frugal laws without self-reflection, even banned the import of foreign luxury goods, and advocated the supervision of private economy and restraint of extravagance and waste. This is really the most presumptuous and arbitrary behavior.They do not know that they themselves are always, without exception, the most wasteful class in society.It is enough for them to pay attention to their own expenses. The people's expenses can be managed by the people themselves.If their waste does not cause the country to perish, what can be said about the people's waste. Frugality can increase social capital, and extravagance can decrease social capital.Therefore, a person whose expenditure equals his income neither accumulates capital nor eats away at it, neither increases nor decreases it.We should know, however, that of the various methods of spending some are more conducive to the increase of the wealth of nations than others. Some of the personal income is used to buy items that can be enjoyed immediately, and they can be used immediately, which will not be used in the future.有的用來購買比較耐久的可以蓄積起來的物品，今日購買了，就可以減少明日的費用，或增進明日費用的效果。例如，有些富翁簡直是室滿奴婢，廄滿犬馬，大吃大用的花。有些寧願食事儉約，奴婢減少，卻修飾莊園，整飭別墅，頻興建築，廣置有用的或專作為裝飾的傢具、書籍圖畫等等。有些，卻明璫瓔珞，灼爍滿前。還有些，則有如前數年逝世的某大王的寵臣，衣服滿箱，錦繡滿床。設有甲乙二富郎，財產相等，甲用其大部分收入，來購買比較耐久的商品，乙則用其大部分收入，米購買即享即用的物品。到後來，甲的境況，必能日漸改進，今日的費用，多少可以增進明日費用的效果。乙的境況，決不會比原先更好。到底，甲必較富於乙。甲尚有若干貨物，雖其價值不如當時所費，但總有多少價值。乙的費用，就連痕跡也沒留下來，十年或二十年浪費的結果，真是一無餘物。 對個人財富較有益的消費方法，對國民財富亦較有益。富人的房屋、傢具、衣服，轉瞬可一變而對下等人民中等人民有用。在上等階級玩厭了的時候，中下階級的人民，可以把它們買來，所以，在富人一般都是這樣使用錢財的時候，全體人民的一般生活狀況就逐漸改進了。在一個富裕已久的國家，下等人民雖不能自己出資建造大廈，但往往佔有大廈；雖不能自己定製上等傢具，但往往使用看上等傢具。往日西穆爾的邸宅，現今已經成為巴斯道上的客寓；詹姆士一世的婚床（那是皇后從丹麥帶來的嫁奩，作為鄰國通婚的禮物），幾年前，已經陳列在敦弗林的酒店。在有些無進步也無退步或已稍稍沒落的古城，我們有時可發現幾乎沒有一所房屋是眼前佔有人所蓋得起的。如果你進裡面去，還可見到許多還可適用的非常講究但已是老式的傢具。這些傢具絕不可能是眼前使用者花錢定製的。王宮別墅，書籍圖像，以及各種珍奇物品，常常又是光榮又是裝飾，不但對其所在的本地方如此，對其所屬國家亦如此。凡爾賽宮是法蘭西的裝飾和光榮，斯托威和威爾登是英格蘭的裝飾和光榮。義大利創造名勝古跡的財富，雖然是減落了，創造名勝古跡的大天才（也許因為沒有用處）雖然似乎是凐沒了，但那裡的名勝古跡，卻仍然博得世人的讚賞。 把收入花費在比較耐久的物品上，那不僅較有利於蓄積，而且又較易於養成儉樸的風尚。設使一個人在這方面花費得過多，他可幡然改計，而不致為社會人士所譏評。如果原來是婢僕成群，驟然撤減，如果原來是華筵廣設，驟然減省，如果原來是陳設豐麗，驟然節用，就不免為鄰人共見，而且好像是意味著自己承認往昔行為的錯誤。所以，像這樣大花大用的人，不是迫於破產，很少有改變習慣的勇氣。反之，如果他原愛用錢添置房屋、傢具、書籍或圖畫，以後如果自覺財力不濟，他就可以幡然改習，人亦不疑。因為此類物品，前已購置，無需源源購置不絕。在別人看來，他改變習性的原因，似乎不是財力不濟，而是意興已闌。 何況，費財於耐久物品，所養常多；費財於款待賓客，所養較少。一夕之宴，所費為二三百斤糧食，其中也許有一半傾於糞堆，所耗不可謂不大。設以宴會所費，用以僱用泥木工、技匠等等，則所費糧食的價值雖相等，所養的人數必加多。工人們將一便士一便士地、一鎊一鎊地購買這些糧食，一鎊也不會消耗毀棄。一則用以維持生產者，能增加一國土地和勞動的年產物的交換價值，一則用以維持不生產者，不能增加一國土地和勞動的年產物的交換價值。 讀者不要以為，費財於耐久物品，即為善行，費財於款待賓客，全為惡行。一個富人把他收入主要用於款待賓客時，即以收入的大部分，分濟友伴。如他用以購買耐久物品，利則僅及於一身，非有代價，即不許他人分享。因此，後一種的花費，特別是花於購珠寶、衣飾等等這些瑣細東西，常常不僅表示一種輕浮性向，而且表示卑下的自私自利性向。我上面的意思，不過是說，費財於耐久物品，由於助長有價商品的蓄積，所以可獎勵私人的節儉習慣，是較有利於社會資本的增進；由於所維持的是生產者而不是不生產者，所以較有利於國富的增長。第四章論貸出取