Chapter 26 or the principle of mercantilism

The generally popular notion that wealth consists of money, or gold and silver, arose naturally from the double function of money.Currency is both a medium of exchange and a measure of value.Because it is a medium of exchange, we can get what we want more easily with money than with any other commodity.We always feel that acquiring currency is a big thing.As long as you have currency, you can buy anything in the future without difficulty.As it is the measure of value, we estimate the value of other commodities by the quantity of money for which they can be exchanged.Those who have a lot of money are called rich; those who have very little money are called poor.Those who are frugal or want to get rich are said to be lovers of money; those who are not prudent, stingy, or extravagant are said to be indifferent to money.Getting rich is equivalent to having money.In short, according to the popular saying, wealth and money are synonymous no matter from which point of view.

Like rich people, rich countries are often perceived as having a lot of money.The hoarding of gold and silver is considered the shortest way to wealth in any country.After the discovery of America, there was a period when the Spaniards first asked when they went to an unfamiliar coast, whether there was any gold or silver found nearby.Based on this information, they judge whether the place has the value of colonization, or even the value of conquest.In the past, Prano, a monk dispatched by the King of France.Carbino went to meet one of the princes of the famous Genghis Khan.According to the ambassador, what the Tartars often ask is whether there are many cattle and sheep in the kingdom of France.Their questions serve the same purpose as those of the Spaniards.They want to know whether that country is rich enough for them to conquer.The Tartars and all other pastoral peoples are largely ignorant of the use of money; among them the cattle are the medium of exchange and the measure of value.To them, therefore, wealth consisted of cattle, as, to the Spaniards, wealth consisted of gold and silver.Of these two views, that of the Tartars is perhaps the closest to the truth.

Mr. Locke has pointed out the difference between money and other kinds of movable property.He says that other kinds of movables are so easily consumed that the wealth which consists of them is not sure; and that a country which is rich in them this year, even if it has nothing to export, will be very scarce in next year, if it be extravagant and wasteful.Money, on the other hand, is a reliable friend. Although it may pass from one person to another, if it can be kept from flowing abroad, it will not easily be wasted and consumed.Gold and silver, therefore, are in his opinion the strongest and surest part of the movable property of a country; and for this reason, he thinks, the increase of these metals should be the great object of the political economy of that country.

Others think that if a country can exist independently of the whole world, it does not matter how much money is in circulation in the country.The consumables which circulate by means of this money can only be exchanged for more or less money; and such a country, they think, is actually rich or poor according to the abundance or scarcity of these consumables.But they think differently of those countries which are connected with foreign countries, and sometimes have to fight abroad, so that it is necessary to maintain navy and army at a distance.They say that it is impossible to maintain a navy or an army at a distance, except by sending money to pay for their provisions;Every such nation, therefore, must do what it can to accumulate gold and silver in time of peace, that it may have the means to carry on foreign wars when it is needed.

In view of these generally current opinions, the nations of Europe endeavored, though without much success, to study every possible means of accumulating gold and silver in their own countries.Spain and Portugal, the chief proprietors of mines supplying Europe with these metals, prohibited the exportation of gold and silver by the most severe penalties or heavy duties.Most other European countries appear to have adopted similar prohibitions as part of their policies in the past.In some ancient Scotch Acts of Parliament, we are surprised to find that the exportation of gold and silver was also prohibited by heavy penalties.The same policy was followed in ancient times by France and England.

The merchants have on many occasions found this prohibition very inconvenient, when those countries have become commercial.It is often more advantageous for them to buy from foreign countries what they want, by the medium of gold and silver, to import into this country, or to transport it to another, than by any other commodity.They therefore objected to such a prohibition as a hindrance to trade. In the first place, they say, the exportation of gold and silver for the purchase of foreign goods does not necessarily diminish the quantity of gold and silver in the country.On the contrary, it tends to increase that quantity; for, if the consumption of foreign goods is not thereby increased at home, those goods can be re-exported abroad, and sold there at a high profit, and the treasure brought back, perhaps, will be less than Much more gold and silver were originally exported for the purchase of goods.Thomas.Meng compares the role of this foreign trade with the periods of sowing and harvesting in agriculture.He said: If we only saw the behavior of the farmer who scattered a lot of good grains into the field at the time of planting, we would definitely regard him as a madman rather than a farmer.But if we examine his labor during the harvest period, we shall find that his actions were both valuable and very rewarding.Harvesting is the purpose of his efforts.

In the second place, they say, this prohibition cannot prevent the exportation of gold and silver, which are easily smuggled abroad because of their large value and small size.They imagine that this exportation can only be prevented by due attention to the so-called balance of trade.When a country exports more in value than it imports, foreign countries owe it a balance, which must be paid in gold and silver, thereby increasing the quantity of gold and silver in the country.When the value of the import is greater than the value of the export, it owes the foreign country a balance, which must also be paid in gold and silver, thereby reducing the quantity of gold and silver in the country.They believe that prohibiting the export of gold and silver under such circumstances will not only fail to prevent the export of gold and silver, but will add a layer of danger to the export of gold and silver, thereby adding a layer of cost to the export of gold and silver.Under this prohibition, therefore, exchange would be even more unfavorable to the country in deficit; and the purchaser of foreign bills would pay the price not only for the natural risks, troubles, and expenses of sending the money to the bank which sold it, but also for the He paid the price for the unexpected risks arising from the prohibition of the export of gold and silver.The more the exchange is unfavorable to a country, the more must the balance of trade be unfavorable to it.The value of the currency of a country with a negative trade balance must be correspondingly much lower than that of a country with a positive trade balance.For example, if the exchange between Britain and the Netherlands is 5% unfavorable to Britain, a draft of 100 ounces of Dutch silver must be purchased with 105 ounces of British silver at the time of exchange.Since one hundred and five ounces of British silver are equal in value to one hundred ounces of Dutch silver, only a corresponding quantity of Dutch goods can be purchased.Conversely, one hundred ounces of Dutch silver is equal in value to one hundred and five ounces of British silver, so a corresponding quantity of British goods can be purchased.In short, the English goods sold to Holland will be sold so much lower, and the Dutch goods sold to England will be sold so much higher, all because of this difference in exchange.The English goods get back so much less Dutch money, and the Dutch goods get back so much English money.The balance of trade, therefore, must have been so much more unfavorable to England, and a greater quantity of gold and silver had to be sent to Holland to make up the difference.

Some of the above arguments are justified, while others are unreasonable.It is right to say that the exportation of gold and silver in trade is often in favor of the state.It is also right to say that prohibition cannot prevent the exportation of gold and silver, when private persons find it expedient.But it is preposterous in their argument that the maintenance or increase of the national quantity of gold and silver requires greater care of the government than the maintenance or increase of the quantity of other useful commodities in the country; supply, need not be given that kind of concern by the government.It is also preposterous to say that the high price of exchange must increase what they call the unfavorable balance of trade, or lead to a greater export of gold and silver.Such high prices, it is true, were extremely unfavorable to merchants who owed foreign debts.In buying foreign bills of exchange they pay so much more to the bank.However, while the risks created by the ban may cause banks to charge extra fees, it may not necessarily result in more currency being exported.This charge, generally paid at home at the time of the smuggling, does not induce a man to export a cent more than is required to be remitted.The high price of exchange, too, naturally induces the merchants to endeavor to balance their exports with their imports, and causes them to minimize their payments.Moreover, the high price of exchange must have an effect similar to that of a tax, in that it increases the price of foreign goods, and thereby reduces their consumption.The high price of exchange, therefore, does not increase, but only diminishes, what they call the deficit of their trade, and consequently the exportation of gold and silver.

Even so, those arguments convinced those who heard them.They are stated by merchants to parliament, princely councils, nobles and squires; by those who are supposed to know the trade to those who think they know nothing of the subject.The nobles and gentry, as well as the merchants, knew from experience that foreign trade can enrich the country, but none of them understood clearly how to enrich the country by foreign trade.Merchants knew full well how foreign trade enriched themselves.It was their job to understand the problem.But it is not their job to understand how foreign trade enriches the country.They never thought of it except when they were going to petition the country to revise the Foreign Trade Act.It is only when they petition for a change of law that they must state the favorable results of foreign commerce, and how the existing laws hinder such favorable results.Foreign commerce, they tell the magistrates who are to decide such matters, brings home money, but the laws of foreign commerce make it bring back less money than they would otherwise have.The magistrate also felt very satisfied after hearing this statement.This argument then had the desired effect.The ban on the export of gold and silver from France and England was limited to their own coinage.The exportation of foreign coin and bullion was at liberty.In Holland and elsewhere, this freedom even extended to the national coinage.The attention of the government was transferred from the surveillance of the exportation of gold and silver to that of the balance of trade, which was regarded as the sole cause capable of raising or lowering the quantity of gold and silver in the country.They abandon one fruitless supervision for another, more complex, more difficult, but equally fruitless.Thomas.Meng's book "England's Wealth from Foreign Trade" became the basic principle of political economy not only in England but in all other commercial countries.The inland or domestic trade, and what is more important, that trade which, with the same amount of capital, affords the greatest income, and which affords the greatest employment to the people of the country, is regarded only as an adjunct to foreign trade.Domestic trade, it is said, can neither bring money back from foreign countries, nor carry it out.The rise and fall of the home trade, therefore, can never make a country richer or poorer, unless it can indirectly affect the state of that of foreign commerce.

As a country without vineyards must obtain its wine from foreign countries, so a country without mines must undoubtedly obtain its gold and silver from foreign countries.Governments, however, do not seem to need to pay more attention to one item and less to another.A nation that can afford to buy wine will always get what it needs; a nation that can afford to buy gold and silver will never be short of those metals.Gold and silver, like all other commodities, must be bought at a price; and as they are the price of all other commodities, so are all other commodities the price of those metals.We are quite sure that free trade will always supply us with the wine we want, without the attention of the government; Give us all the gold and silver that we have for the circulation of goods, or for other purposes.

The quantity of every commodity which human industry can purchase or produce, in every country, will naturally be distributed according to the effective demand, that is to say, according to the willingness of those who are willing to pay all the rent, labor, and profit which would be required to produce it and bring it to market. demand, self-regulation.But this regulation according to effective demand is easiest and most exact in commodities such as gold and silver; because gold and silver are small in size and high in value, and are most easily transported from one place to another, and the From where it is cheap to where it is expensive, from where it exceeds effective demand to where it is insufficient.If, for instance, England's effective demand required a certain quantity of gold in addition to that which it possessed, a liner carrying passengers and cargo would bring fifty tons of gold from Lisbon, or from any other place from which gold could be purchased. , used to cast more than five million guineas.But if the effective demand requires corn of equal value, then at five guineas for a ton of corn, to import it would require ships of a million tons, or a thousand ships of a thousand tons each.Even with the use of England's naval vessels, it would not be able to carry them all. When the quantity of gold and silver imported into a country exceeds the effective demand, no amount of the vigilance of the government can prevent its exportation.The harsh laws of Spain and Portugal did not keep the gold and silver from spilling out.The imports from Peru and Brazil, which so superseded the effective demand of these two countries, lowered the price of gold and silver there below that in their neighbours.On the other hand, if the quantity of gold and silver in one country is insufficient to supply its effective demand, it will raise the price of gold and silver above that of neighboring countries, and the government need not worry about importing gold and silver.Even if the government tried its best to prohibit the importation of gold and silver, it could never be effected.The laws enacted by Lyquegas set up barriers to prevent the import of gold and silver into Sparta, but the abundant purchasing power of the Spartans broke through all these barriers.All severe tariff laws could not prevent the Dutch and Goldenberg East India companies from importing tea into England, which was cheaper than the English East India company.The price of a pound of tea is usually calculated in silver, with a maximum of 16 shillings, so the volume of a bowl of tea is about 100 times that of 16 shillings; if calculated in gold coins, it is more than 2,000 times.The difficulty of tea smuggling should also be multiplied accordingly. Many goods cannot be transferred from a market with sufficient stock to a market with insufficient stock at will because of their volume, but gold and silver can be easily transported from a market with abundant gold and silver to a market with insufficient gold and silver.It is partly from this account that the price of gold and silver is not constantly fluctuated, as is the price of most other commodities, in excess or deficiency of stocks.It is true that the price of gold and silver is not completely static, but most of its changes are slow, gradual and uniform.It may be supposed, for example, without much ground, that the value of gold and silver, in Europe during the present century and the preceding century, has been constantly but gradually falling, owing to the continual imports from the Spanish West Indies.Such a revolution in commerce as was wrought by the discovery of America would be necessary to bring about a sudden change in the price of gold and silver, and thus an immediate and appreciable rise or fall in the money price of all other goods. Nevertheless, if a country which can afford to buy gold and silver is at any time short of gold and silver, it will be more convenient for it to try to supply it than for any other commodity.If the raw materials of manufactures are scarce, industry will come to a standstill.If there is not enough food, the people will inevitably suffer from hunger.However, if the money is insufficient, it can be replaced by barter, and it can be bought and sold on credit with monthly or annual liquidation, and it can be made up by properly adjusted paper money.The first method is very inconvenient, the second method is more convenient, and the third method is not only convenient, but also sometimes brings some benefits.Therefore, the concern of the government of any country to maintain or increase the domestic supply of money is unnecessary on any point. Yet complaints about the scarcity of money are all too common.Money, like wine, must be constantly wanting only by those who have neither the means to purchase it nor the credit to lend it.And men of means and credit are seldom wanting money or wine.But those who complain about the scarcity of money are not necessarily unscrupulous prodigal sons.At times there was a general feeling of scarcity of money throughout the commercial city and its neighbourhood.Overbusiness is a common cause of this phenomenon.A prudent man, who does not plan his business according to his capital, ends up like the wasteful man who does not live within his means, having neither means to buy money nor credit to lend it.Before the plan can be accomplished, their means are exhausted, and then their credit.They go everywhere to borrow money from people, but people say there is no money to lend.Even this general complaint of the scarcity of money is not always a proof that there is a disproportionate amount of gold and silver in the circulation of the country, but only that there are many who desire it and are unable to pay for it.When the profits of trade happen to be greater than usual, merchants, great and small, are liable to the error of over-trading.They did not always export more money than usual, but they brought in unusual quantities of goods on credit both at home and abroad, and shipped them to distant markets, hoping to recover the price of the goods before payment was due.If the price cannot be recovered before the payment date, they will not have the ability to buy currency, and there will be no real collateral for borrowing currency.The common complaint about the scarcity of money arose, not from the scarcity of gold and silver, but from the difficulty of borrowing by those who wanted to borrow, and from the reluctance of creditors to lend, fearing that they would not be able to recover their debts. It would be too ludicrous to try to prove seriously that wealth consists not of money or gold and silver, but of what it buys, and that money has value only in so far as it buys goods.Money, no doubt, is always a part of the capital of a country; but, as we have said, it is usually only a small part, and always the most unprofitable part. The reason why merchants generally find it easier to buy goods with money and more difficult to buy money with goods is not because money is a more important constituent of wealth than goods, but because money is a known and established medium of exchange, It is easy to exchange with everything, but it is not so easy to obtain currency to exchange goods.Moreover, most goods are more perishable than money, and may often suffer much greater loss if they are preserved.A merchant is more likely to have a demand for money which he cannot meet when he has goods in his hands than if he has the price of them in a treasury.Moreover, his profits arise directly from selling more goods than from buying less, so that he is generally more eager to exchange goods for money than to exchange money for goods.However, the abundance of goods piled up in warehouses and unable to be sold in time may sometimes cause the bankruptcy of individual merchants, but it can never cause the same disaster to a country or a place.The whole capital of a merchant often consists of perishable goods, which must be ordered to buy money.But but an insignificant part of the annual produce of the land and labor of one country can be pre-appointed to buy gold and silver from neighboring countries.Most of them are circulated and consumed domestically.Even the surplus which is shipped abroad, is often employed in the greater part in the purchase of other foreign goods.The failure, therefore, of that part of the goods intended to be bought for gold and silver, cannot bankrupt a country.It may, it is true, suffer some loss and inconvenience, and may be obliged to resort to some means necessary for a substitute currency.But the annual produce of its land and labor remains the same, or nearly the same, because it has as much, or nearly as much, expendable capital to maintain itself.Exchanging goods for money is not always as easy as exchanging money for goods, but in the long run, exchanging goods for money is more necessary than exchanging money for goods.Goods are useful for many other things than buying money; but money is useless except for buying goods.Therefore, money necessarily pursues goods, but goods do not always or need to pursue money.Those who buy goods often intend to consume or use them themselves, and do not always want to sell them again, but those who sell them always want to buy them again.The former usually completes all his tasks by purchasing goods, while the latter can only complete half of his tasks by selling goods.People need money not for the money itself, but for the things they can buy with it. Consumable articles, it is said, are soon destroyed, while gold and silver, being of greater durability, accumulate, and increase the real wealth of nations to incredible proportions in a long period of time, so long as they are not continually exported.The exchange, therefore, of such durable commodities for those which are perishable, is said to be the most unfavorable commerce to nations.However, our ironware is also an extremely durable commodity, and if it is not exported, it may accumulate in a long period of time, and increase the number of domestic pots and kettles to an incredible degree.But it would not be regarded as an unfavorable trade if we exchanged English iron for French wine.We see at a glance that in any country the number of such utensils is bound to be limited by the practical use; It is absurd to multiply the pots unnecessarily; if the quantity of food increases, it is easy to increase the number of pots with it, by using a part of the increased quantity of food to buy pots, or to increase the iron used to make pots. Just work.It is equally easy to see that the quantity of gold and silver in any one country is limited by the practical use of these metals, either in coins for currency, or in vessels for furniture.In every country, the quantity of the coin is governed by the value of the commodities which circulate in the country by means of the coin; and when the value of the commodities increases, a part of them is at once sent to foreign countries where there is gold and silver coin, to purchase the commodities necessary for the circulation of the commodities. Increased mintage.We also know that the number of gold and silver utensils is controlled by the number and wealth of domestic luxury families. When the number and wealth of luxury families increase, it is likely that part of the increased wealth will be sent to places with gold and silver utensils to buy what they need. Increased gold and silver vessels.As it is absurd to increase the happiness of a luxurious family by purchasing more kitchen utensils than it needs, it is also absurd to require a nation to increase its wealth by importing or keeping more gold and silver than it needs.Investments in unnecessary utensils, not only fail to increase, but detract from the quantity and quality of the food of the household; likewise, investment in unnecessary gold and silver, necessarily diminishes the wealth which is employed in food, clothing, shelter, and the maintenance of the people.It must be remembered that gold and silver, whether minted into coins or made into vessels, are as much utensils as kitchen utensils.If you increase the use of gold and silver, increase the consumable articles that can be circulated, controlled and manufactured with gold and silver, the quantity of gold and silver must be increased; but if you try to increase their quantity by extraordinary means, it must be decreased. Their use would even reduce their quantity, since the quantity of gold and silver must be limited by its use.As gold and silver are so easily transported, and the losses from idleness so great, if more gold and silver are accumulated than is required, no law can prevent their immediate exportation abroad. It is not necessary for a country to accumulate gold and silver if it wants to wage war abroad and maintain its navy and army sent far away.It is not gold and silver, but consumable articles, that maintain the navy and army.The annual produce of domestic industry, that is to say, the annual revenue of the land, labor, and consumable capital of this country, is the means of purchasing these consumable articles in distant countries.A country with such means can sustain wars against distant countries. There are three different ways that a country can purchase the payment and food of the troops sent abroad.First, to send abroad a part of the accumulated gold and silver; secondly, to send abroad a part of the annual produce of manufactures; thirdly, to send abroad a part of the annual produce of the country. What may be called the gold and silver accumulated or stored in a country may be divided into three parts: first, the money in circulation; second, the gold and silver vessels of private households; Such gold and silver can seldom be saved from the currency of a country, since there can be no great surplus in this respect.The value of the goods bought and sold annually in any country requires a certain amount of money to circulate and distribute them to the real consumers, but no more than is necessary.The channels of circulation necessarily attract a sufficient amount of money, but once saturated they cannot accommodate more.But in the case of foreign wars, usually a certain amount is drawn from this channel.The number of persons to maintain at home has been greatly reduced by the deportation of such a large number of persons.As the goods in domestic circulation have diminished, the money necessary for their circulation must also diminish.On such occasions it is customary to issue large quantities of paper money, as in England Treasury, Admiralty, and Bank Notes.These paper moneys, as they took the place of the gold and silver in circulation, afforded the country an opportunity of sending to foreign countries greater quantities of gold and silver.However, the cost of foreign wars is huge, and it will last for several years. It is extremely insufficient to rely on the resources provided by the above-mentioned methods to maintain it. It is useless to melt down the gold and silver vessels of private households.France, at the outset of the last war, employed this method, but did not gain enough from it to compensate for the loss of casting. In former times, the accumulated treasures of kings provided a much larger and more durable resource.But today, except the king of Prussia, there seems to be no king in all Europe whose policy is to accumulate wealth. The funds for sustaining the foreign wars of this century, perhaps the most expensive in history, seem to have depended very little on the exportation of currency in circulation, the gold and silver of private households, or the treasures of the treasury.The previous war against France cost England more than ninety million pounds, of which not only seventy-five million pounds were newly raised in national debt, but also an additional tax of two shillings per pound of land tax, and an annual repayment fund from the repayment fund. money borrowed.More than two-thirds of this expense were expended abroad, in Germany, Portugal, and America, in the ports of the Mediterranean, in the East and West Indies.The King of England had no accumulated treasure.We never hear of very large quantities of gold and silver vessels being melted down.At that time it was not always supposed that there was not more than eighteen millions pounds of gold and silver in circulation in the country.But since the recent reformation of the gold coin, it has been believed that that estimate is too low.Let us, therefore, assume, by the most exaggerated statistics that I can remember to have seen or heard, that our country's gold and silver amounted to thirty millions of pounds.If the war had been fought in our currency, then even by this statistic the whole amount must have been shipped out and back at least twice in a period of six or seven years.If such a supposition could be made, it furnishes the most conclusive argument for the unnecessary attention of the government to the preservation of money, since, on this supposition, the whole of the money in the There was a round trip without incident.During this period, however, the channels of circulation do not appear to be any more empty than usual, and those who have means of exchange for money seldom feel want of money.During the whole period of the war, and especially towards its close, the foreign trade was more profitable than usual.This situation gave rise to a general over-trading in the ports of England which it tends to give rise to.This phenomenon in turn gave rise to the dissatisfaction with the scarcity of money, which often accompanies the phenomenon of overtrading.Many are short of money, because they have neither means to buy it nor credit to borrow it, and because the debtor finds it hard to borrow, the creditor finds it hard to get it back.Those, however, who possessed value in exchange for gold and silver, were generally able to exchange their value for gold and silver. The great expense of the last war must therefore have been paid not chiefly by the exportation of gold and silver, but by the exportation of certain commodities from England.When a government or government agent contracts with a merchant to send money to a foreign country, the merchant issues a promissory note to the foreign correspondent, and in payment of this promissory note, he will naturally try to ship out commodities instead of gold and silver. .If that country did not need English goods, he would try to ship them elsewhere, and buy a promissory note to pay what was owed to that country.A fair profit is always made in sending commodities to salable markets, but it is seldom any profit in sending gold and silver abroad.When these metals are shipped abroad to purchase foreign commodities, the merchants derive their profits not from the purchase of the commodities, but from the sale of the goods back.But if he sends out the gold and silver only to pay his debts, he cannot get back the commodity, and therefore cannot make a profit.Naturally, therefore, he racked his brains to pay his foreign debts by exporting commodities instead of gold and silver. The author of "The State of Britain" points out that during the last war, Britain exported a lot of goods, but did not send any return goods. In addition to the above three kinds of gold and silver, in all great commercial countries there are also large quantities of gold and silver bullion which are alternately imported and exported, to carry on foreign commerce.This gold and silver bullion, which circulates among the commercial states like national money, may be regarded as the currency of the great commercial republics.The flow and direction of the national currency is governed by the commodities circulating within the country, and the currency and direction of the currency of the great commercial republic are governed by the commodities circulating among the countries.Both are used to facilitate exchange, one between different individuals in the same country, and the other between different individuals in different countries.Perhaps a part of the currency of the great merchant republic was spent in the last war.In a time of all-out war, one would naturally think that this currency flows in a different direction than in peacetime, that it circulates more around the battlefield, and that the wages and provisions of the belligerent armies are all around and adjacent to the place of engagement. country purchases.But the money of the great commercial republic, which England thus employs annually, must be purchased annually, either in British commodities, or in other things for which they are exchanged.So in the final analysis, it is still commodities, still the annual product of a country's land and labor, that are the basic resources that enable us to wage war.It is considered natural that such great annual expenses must be paid out of the enormous annual produce.In 1761, for example, the cost was over nineteen million pounds.No accumulation of gold and silver would ever be able to sustain so great an annual expense.Even the annual production of gold and silver cannot support such a great expenditure.According to the most reliable statistics, the annual importation of gold and silver into Spain and Portugal does not generally exceed six million pounds; in some years it is not enough to cover the four months of the last war. When an army is sent to a distant country, its pay and food must be purchased far away.To purchase these things, or to buy into the money of the great commercial republics to buy them, several commodities are exported.The commodities most fitted to be exported for this purpose seem to be those more skilfully made manufactures, that is, manufactures of small size and great value, and which can, therefore, be transported at little expense to remote places.A country whose industry annually produces such a large surplus of manufactures to export to foreign countries, can carry on for many years a costly foreign war without exporting much gold and silver, or even such a large amount of gold and silver to export. .It is true that a great part of the annual surplus of manufactures must be exported under these circumstances, and though it returns profit to the merchant, it does not return any profit to the country, from which the government buys foreign promissory notes for the purchase of armies abroad. pay and food.There is always, however, a part of the exportation of surplus manufactures which returns profit.During the war, the government will double down on the manufacturing demands.In the first place, for the purchase of the supplies and provisions of the army, the government issues promissory notes to foreign countries, and in order to pay the promissory notes, the government requires the manufactures to manufacture commodities for shipment abroad; It must be purchased from a foreign country, and in exchange for this kind of goods, the government requires the manufacturing industry to ship the goods to foreign countries.In the most destructive foreign wars, the greater part of the manufactures tend to flourish extremely;They may prosper when the state declines, and decline when the state returns to prosperity.What I have said above may be exemplified by the different conditions of the many different branches of British manufactures during the last war, and during the period after the war. No foreign war, costly or protracted, is to be waged by the exportation of the native produce of the land.把大量原生產物運往外國以購買軍隊的餉給和食糧，費用太大。而且沒有幾個國家所生產的原生產物，除了足夠維持本國居民生活所需外，還能有大量剩餘。因此，以大量原生產物輸往外國，實無異奪去人民一部分的必要生活資料。至於製造品的輸出，情形就有所不同。製造業工人的生活資料仍保存在國內，所輸出的僅是他們產品的剩餘部分。休謨屢次注意到往昔英國國王不能不斷地進行長期對外戰爭的事實。那時英國除了土地原生產物和若干最粗陋的製造品，就沒有其他東西可以用來購買遠地軍隊的餉給和食糧。但原生產物不能從國內消費中大量節省下來，粗製造品和原生產物的運輸費用又過於巨大。所以，他們不能長期對外作戰，並不是因為缺少貨幣，而是因為缺少比較精巧的工業品。英格蘭的買賣在那時和現在都是以貨幣為媒介的。那時貨幣流通量對通常買賣次數和價值的比例，必定和現在相同，更確切地說，必定比現在大，因為那時沒有紙幣，現在紙幣卻已代替了大部分金銀。在商業和製造業不甚發達的國家，遇有非常事件發生，臣民對君主很難有多大援助，其理由我將在下面說明。所以，在這樣的國家裡，君主都努力累積財寶，作為預防不測事件的唯一手段。即使沒有這種必要，君王在這樣的情況下也自然會傾向於為累積所必需的節儉。在那樣簡樸的狀態下，甚至君主的消費也不受愛好宮廷豪華的虛榮心的支配，而用於賞賜佃戶，款待家臣。虛榮心幾乎總是導致浪費，但賞賜和款待卻很少引起這種結果。因此，每一個韃靼酋長都有財寶。查理十二世有名的同盟者烏克蘭哥薩克酋長馬捷帕的財寶據說很多。梅羅文加王朝的法蘭西國王都有財寶。在他們分封兒子時，也把財寶分給他們。撒克遜君王以及征服後最初幾個國王，也似乎曾經累積過財寶。每一個新朝代所做的第一件事通常就是奪取前王的財寶，作為獲得繼承權的最重要的手段。先進的商業國家的君王，卻沒有累積財寶的同樣的必要，因為他們在非常事故發生時，通常都能得到臣民的特別援助。他們累積的傾向也沒有那樣厲害。他們自然地、也許必然他倣傚那個時代流行的辦法，他們的消費和領土內各大業主的消費一樣，會受豪華的虛榮心的支配。宮廷中毫無意義的裝飾一天比一天華麗，其用費之大，不僅阻止累積，而且往往侵及預定供更必要的用途的基金。德西利達斯關於波斯宮廷所說的話，可適用於歐洲一些君主的宮廷。他說：他在那裡只看到許多富麗的東西，看不到什麼力量；看到許多奴婢，看不到幾個軍人。 金銀的輸入，不是一國得自國外貿易的主要利益，更不是唯一利益。經營國外貿易的任何地方之間，毫不例外地都可從中得到兩種不同的利益。那就是，輸出他們所不需要的土地和勞動年產物的剩餘部分，換回他們所需要的其他物品。通過以剩餘物品換取其他物品來滿足他們一部分的需要並增加他們的享受，這種貿易使剩餘物品有了價值。利用這個辦法，國內市場的狹隘性並不妨礙任何工藝或製造業部門的分工發展到十分完善的程度。由於給國內消費不了的那一部分勞動成果開拓了一個比較廣闊的市場，這就可以鼓勵他們去改進勞動生產力，竭力增加他們的年產物，從而增加社會的真實財富與收入。對於彼此進行對外貿易的所有不同的國家，對外貿易都不斷地從事完成這些偉大而重要的工作。當然，經營國外貿易的商人一般總是較多地注意供應本國人民的需要和輸出本國的剩餘物品，較少地注意供應別國人民的需要和輸出別國的剩餘物品，所以最受國外貿易的利益的，是商人所在的國家，但通商各國也都得到巨大的利益。以金銀輸入沒有金銀礦山但又需要金銀的國家，無疑是對外貿易業務的一部分，但這是最不重要的一部分。單為了這種打算而經營國外貿易的國家，恐怕在一世紀內還沒有機會裝滿一船金銀。 美洲的發現之所以使歐洲變得富裕，並非由於輸入金銀的緣故。因為美洲金銀礦山豐饒，這些金屬的價格降低了。與十五世紀相比，現今購買金銀器皿所需付給的穀物或勞動，約為當時的三分之一。歐洲每年花費同量的勞動和商品，就能買到大約三倍於當時的金銀器皿。但是，當一種商品跌到從前售價的三分之一時，不僅原來有資力購買這商品的人可購買三倍於此的數量，而且許許多多原來沒有資力購買這商品的人也能購買；現在有資力購買金銀器皿的人數，也許比從前增加到十倍以上，也許增加到二十倍以上。因此，歐洲現有的金銀器皿，不僅可能比設若美洲金銀礦尚未發現而甚至在其目前進步狀態下所會有的金銀器皿多三倍以上，而且可能多二十倍乃至三十倍以上。直到現在為止，歐洲無疑地已經獲得了實在的便利，不過那確是一種微不足道的便利。金銀價格的低廉使這些金屬不像以前那樣宜於充作貨幣。為了購買同一東西，我們必須攜帶較多的金銀，並在口袋裡帶一個先令而不像從前那樣只帶四便士的一個銀幣。很難說上述的便利和不便利，哪一種較不重要，這兩者本來都不會使歐洲的情況發生任何根本的變化。然而美洲的發現確曾使歐洲的情況發生了非常大的變化。美洲的發現給歐洲各種商品開闢了一個無窮的新市場，因而就有機會實行新的分工和提供新的技術，而在以前通商範圍狹隘，大部分產品缺少市場的時候，這是決不會有的現象。勞動生產力改進了，歐洲各國的產品增加了，居民的實際收入和財富也跟著增大了。歐洲的商品對美洲來說幾乎都是新奇的，美洲的許多商品對歐洲來說也是新奇的。於是發生了一系列以前從未想到過的新的交易，它當然對舊大陸有利，但自然對新大陸也同樣有利。由於歐洲人蠻橫地侵害別人的權利，一件對所有國家本來都是有利的事情，卻成為若干不幸的國家遭到摧殘和破壞的根源。 幾乎同時發生的經由好望角至東印度的航道的發現，也許開闢了一個比美洲更大的國外貿易市場，雖然距離更遠。美洲當時只有兩個在各方面都比野蠻人優越的民族，它們在被發現後不久就被消滅了。其餘的都不過是野蠻人。但是，中國、印度斯坦、日本等帝國以及東印度的幾個帝國，雖然沒有比較豐富的金銀礦山，在其他各方面卻比墨西哥或秘魯更為富裕，土地耕種得更好，一切工藝和製造業更為進步；即使我們相信西班牙各作家關於那些帝國往昔情況的誇大記載，也仍得承認這一點，其實這些作家的話顯然是不足置信的。文明富國間交易的價值，總會比文明富國與未開化人和野蠻人交易的價值大得多。但歐洲從美洲貿易所得的利益，卻一向比它從東印度通商所得的利益大得多。葡萄牙人獨佔東印度貿易幾乎達一百年之久，其他歐洲國家要把任何貨物運到東印度去或從東印度購入任何貨物，都須間接經過葡萄牙人之手。上世紀初葉荷蘭人開始侵入東印度時，他們把全部東印度的商業交由一家獨佔公司經營。英國人、法國人、瑞典人和丹麥人隨後都倣傚他們的先例，所以，歐洲任何大國都沒有享受到對東印度自由貿易的利益。這種貿易之所以不及美洲貿易有利的唯一原因是，美洲貿易、即歐洲幾乎每一國家對其所屬殖民地的貿易是其一切臣民可以自由經營的。那些東印度公司的專營的特權、雄厚的財富，以及這些財富為它們從本國政府獲得的惠益和保護，已經引起不少嫉妒。這種嫉妒心理使人往往把它們的貿易看作是完全有害的，因為經營這種貿易的國家每年都輸出大量的白銀。有關的方面回答說，由於這種不斷地輸出白銀，他們的貿易一般說來可能使歐洲陷於貧困，但對於從事貿易的具體國家來說，卻並非如此；因為，通過輸出一部分回程貨到歐洲其他國家，這種貿易每年給本國帶回的白銀數量遠遠超過輸出的白銀數量。反對者和答辯者都以我剛才一直在考察的流行的想法為根據。所以，關於他們任何一方，我們都不必多所論述了。由於每年有白銀輸往東印度，歐洲的銀器也許比另一種情況下稍為貴一些，銀幣所能購買的勞動和商品大概也多一些。在這兩個結果中，前者所受的損失很小，後者所得的利益很小，兩者都微不足道，不值得社會任何部分的注意。東印度的貿易由於為歐洲商品開闢了一個市場，或者用近似的說法，為那些商品所購買的金銀開闢了一個市場，就一定會增加歐洲商品的年產量，因而也增加歐洲的實際財富和收入。它們至今增加得很少，也許是因為那種貿易處處受到限制的緣故。 關於財富存在於貨幣或金銀之中這一流行的說法，我認為有必要作詳盡的考察，雖然這樣做難免令人感到沉悶。我已經說過，按照普通的說法，貨幣往往表示財富；這種詞義的含糊使這一流行的見解在我們聽來非常熟悉，甚至那些確信這種說法是謬論的人也往往會忘記自己的原則，在推理的過程中把它當做確定不移的、不可否認的真理。英國有幾個研究商業的優秀作家在開頭就指出，一個國家的財富不僅在於金銀，而且在於它的土地、房屋和各種各樣可消費的物品。但在他們推理的過程中，他們卻似乎把土地、房屋和可消費的物品統統忘記了；他們的論證往往認為：一切財富在於金銀，增加那些金屬是國家工商業的巨大目標。 但是，財富在於金銀，以及無金銀礦山的國家只有通過貿易差額、即使輸出價值超過輸入價值才能輸入金銀這兩個原則既然已經確立，那末，政治經濟學的巨大目的就一定變成盡量減少供國內消費的外國商品的輸入，盡量增加國內產業產品的輸出了。因此，使國家致富的兩大手段就是限制輸入和獎勵輸出。 輸入的限制有二種。 第一，凡能由本國生產的供國內消費的外國商品，無論從什麼國家輸入，都一律加以限制。 第二，在對某些外國的貿易中，如果貿易差額被認為不利於本國，那就幾乎是無論何種貨物。只要是從那些國家輸入的，都一律加以限制。 這些不同的限制有時採用高關稅的方法，有時採用絕對禁止的方法。 獎勵輸出的方法，有時是退稅，有時是發給獎勵金，有時是同主權國家訂立有利的通商條約，有時是在遙遠的國家建立殖民地。 在下述兩種不同的情況下允許退稅。已納關稅或國產稅的國內製造品，在輸出時往往將課稅的全部或一部發還；輸入時已經課稅的外國商品，如再輸出，則有時將課稅的全部或一部發還。 獎勵金的頒發，用以獎勵某些新興的製造業，或用以獎勵被認為應受特殊照顧的其他一些工業。 通過有利的通商條約，本國的貨物或商人在某一外國獲得了其他國家的貨物和商人所不能享受的特權。 在遙遠的國家建立殖民地，不僅使殖民地建立國的貨物和商人享有某些特權，而且往往使他們取得獨佔權。 上述兩種限制輸入的方法連同四種獎勵輸出的方法，乃是使貿易差額有利，以增加國內金銀量的六種主要的手段，為重商主義所倡導。我將在以下各章分別加以討論。對於這六種手段有沒有所說的把貨幣輸入到國內來的傾向，我將不再多加注意，而主要考察這些手段的每一種對於國家產業的年產物可能有什麼影響。這些手段既然會增加或減少國家年產物的價值，顯然也一定會增加或減少國家的實際財富和收入。第二章論限制從