"It has been thought that protection in our case should simply represent the difference which exists between the cost price of a commodity which we produce and the cost price of the same commodity produced by our neighbours.... A protective duty calculated on this basis would only ensure free competition....; free competition exists only when there is equality in the conditions and in the charges. In the case of a horse race, we ascertain1 the weight which each horse has to carry, and so equalize the conditions; without that there could be no fair competition. In the case of trade, if one of the sellers can bring his commodity to market at less cost, he ceases to be a competitor, and becomes a monopolist.... Do away with this protection which represents the difference of cost price, and the foreigner invades our markets and acquires a monopoly."*
"Every one must wish, for his own sake, as well as for the sake of others, that the production of the country should be protected against foreign competition, whenever the latter can furnish products at a lower price."**
* M. le Vicomte de Romanet.
** Matthieu le Dombasle.
This argument recurs2 continually in works of the protectionist school. I propose to examine it carefully, and I solicit3 earnestly the reader's patience and attention. I shall consider, first of all, the inequalities which are attributable to nature, and afterwards those which are attributable to diversity of taxation4.
In this, as in other cases, we shall find protectionist theorists viewing their subject from the producer's stand-point, whilst we advocate the cause of the unfortunate consumers, whose interests they studiously keep out of sight. They institute a comparison between the field of industry and the turf. But as regards the latter, the race is at once the means and the end. The public feels no interest in the competition beyond the competition itself. When you start your horses, your end, your object, is to find out which is the swiftest runner, and I see your reason for equalizing the weights. But if your end, your object, were to secure the arrival of some important and urgent news at the winning-post, could you, without inconsistency, throw obstacles in the way of any one who should offer you the best means of expediting your message? This is what you do in commercial affairs. You forget the end, the object sought to be attained5, which is material prosperity; you disregard it, you sacrifice it to a veritable petitio principii; in plain language, you are begging the question.
But since we cannot bring our opponents to our point of view, let us place ourselves in theirs, and examine the question in its relations with production.
I shall endeavour to prove,
1st, That to level and equalize the conditions of labour, is to attack exchange in its essence and principle.
2d, That it is not true that the labour of a country is neutralized6 by the competition of more favoured countries.
3d, That if that were true, protective duties would not equalize the conditions of production.
4th, That liberty, freedom of trade, levels these conditions as much as they can be levelled.
5th, That the least favoured countries gain most by exchange.
I. To level and equalize the conditions of labour is not simply to cramp8 exchanges in certain branches of trade, it is to attack exchange in its principle, for its principle rests upon that very diversity, upon those very inequalities of fertility, aptitude9, climate, and temperature, which you desire to efface10. If Guienne sends wine to Brittany, and if Brittany sends corn to Guienne, it arises from their being placed under different conditions of production. Is there a different law for international exchanges? To urge against international exchanges that inequality of conditions which gives rise to them, and explains them, is to argue against their very existence. If protectionists had on their side sufficient logic11 and power, they would reduce men, like snails12, to a state of absolute isolation13. Moreover, there is not one of their sophisms which, when submitted to the test of rigorous deductions14, does not obviously tend to destruction and annihilation.
II. It is not true, in point of fact, that inequality of conditions existing between two similar branches of industry entails15 necessarily the ruin of that which is least favourably16 situated17. On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses are employed in useful labour, each produces a beneficial result in proportion to its powers; and if the more vigorous renders the greater service, it does not follow that the other renders no service at all. We cultivate wheat in all the departments of France, although there are between them enormous differences of fertility; and if there be any one department which does not cultivate wheat, it is because it is not profitable to engage in that species of culture in that locality. In the same way, analogy shows us that under the regime of liberty, in spite of similar differences, they produce wheat in all the countries of Europe; and if there be one which abandons the cultivation18 of that grain, it is because it is found more for its interest to give another direction to the employment of its land, labour, and capital And why should the fertility of one department not paralyze the agriculturist of a neighbouring department which is less favourably situated? Because the economic phenomena19 have a flexibility20, an elasticity21, levelling powers, so to speak, which appear to have altogether escaped the notice of the protectionist school. That school accuses us of being given up to system; but it is the protectionists who are systematic22 in the last degree, if the spirit of system consists in bolstering23 up arguments which rest upon one fact instead of upon an aggregation24 of facts. In the example which we have given, it is the difference in the value of lands which compensates25 the difference in their fertility. Your field produces three times more than mine. Yes, but it has cost you ten times more, and I can still compete with you. This is the whole mystery. And observe, that superiority in some respects leads to inferiority in others. It is just because your land is more fertile that it is dearer; so that it is not accidentally, but necessarily, that the equilibrium26 is established, or tends to be established; and it cannot be denied that liberty is the regime which is most favourable27 to this tendency.
I have referred to a branch of agricultural industry; I might as well have referred to industry in a different department. There are tailors at Quimper, and that does not hinder there being tailors also in Paris, though the latter pay a higher rent, and live at much greater expense. But then they have a different set of customers, and that serves not only to redress28 the balance, but to make it incline to their side.
When we speak, then, of equalizing the conditions of labour, we must not omit to examine whether liberty does not give us what we seek from an arbitrary system.
This natural levelling power of the economic phenomena is so important to the question we are considering, and at the same time so fitted to inspire us with admiration29 of the providential wisdom which presides over the equitable30 government of society, that I must ask permission to dwell upon it for a little.
The protectionist gentlemen tell us: Such or such a people have over us an advantage in the cheapness of coal, of iron, of machinery31, of capital—we cannot compete with them.
We shall examine the proposition afterwards under all its aspects. At present, I confine myself to the inquiry32 whether, when a superiority and an inferiority are both present, they do not possess in themselves, the one an ascending33, the other a descending34 force, which must ultimately bring them back to a just equilibrium.
Suppose two countries, A and B. A possesses over B all kinds of advantages. You infer from this, that every sort of industry will concentrate itself in A, and that B is powerless. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys much more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I respect your hypothesis.
On this hypothesis, labour is much in demand in A, and will soon rise in price there.
Iron, coal, land, food, capital, are much in demand in A, and they will soon rise in price there.
Contemporaneously with this, labour, iron, coal, land, food, capital, are in little request in B, and will soon fall in price there.
Nor is this all. While A is always selling, and B is always buying, money passes from B to A. It becomes abundant in A, and scarce in B.
But abundance of money means that we must have plenty of it to buy everything else. Then in A, to the real dearness which arises from a very active demand, there is added a nominal35 dearness, which is due to a redundancy of the precious metals.
Scarcity36 of money means that little is required for each purchase. Then in B a nominal cheapness comes to be combined with real cheapness.
In these circumstances, industry will have all sorts of motives—motives, if I may say so, carried to the highest degree of intensity37—to desert A and establish itself in B.
Or, to come nearer what would actually take place under such circumstances, we may affirm that sudden displacements39 being so repugnant to the nature of industry, such a transfer would not have been so long delayed, but that from the beginning, under the free regime, it would have gradually and progressively shared and distributed itself between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand—that is to say, according to the laws of justice and utility.
And when I assert that if it were possible for industry to concentrate itself upon one point, that very circumstance would set in motion an irresistible40 decentralizing force, I indulge in no idle hypothesis.
Let us listen to what was said by a manufacturer in addressing the Manchester Chamber41 of Commerce (I omit the figures by which he supported his demonstration):—
"Formerly42 we exported stuffs; then that exportation gave place to that of yams, which are the raw material of stuffs; then to that of machines, which are the instruments for producing yarn43; afterwards to the exportation of the capital with which we construct our machines; finally, to that of our workmen and our industrial skill, which are the source of our capital. All these elements of labour, one after the other, are set to work wherever they find the most advantageous44 opening, wherever the expense of living is cheaper and the necessaries of life are moat easily procured45; and at the present day, in Prussia, in Austria, in Saxony, in Switzerland, in Italy, we see manufactures on an immense scale founded and supported by English capital, worked by English operatives, and directed by English engineers."
You see very clearly, then, that nature, or rather that Providence46, more wise, more far-seeing than your narrow and rigid47 theory supposes, has not ordered this concentration of industry, this monopoly of all advantages upon which you found your reasoning as upon a fact which is unalterable and without remedy. Nature has provided, by means as simple as they are infallible, that there should be dispersion, diffusion48, solidarity50, simultaneous progress; all constituting a state of things which your restrictive laws paralyze as much as they can; for the tendency of such laws is, by isolating51 communities, to render the diversity of condition much more marked, to prevent equalization, hinder fusion49, neutralize7 countervailing circumstances, and segregate52 nations, whether in their superiority or in their inferiority of condition.
III. In the third place, to contend that by a protective duty you equalize the conditions of production, is to give currency to an error by a deceptive53 form of speech. It is not true that an import duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remain, after the imposition of the duty, the same as they were before. At most, all that such a duty equalizes are the conditions of sale. It may be said, perhaps, that I am playing upon words, but I throw back the accusation54. It is for my opponents to show that production and sale are synonymous terms; and if they cannot do this, I am warranted in fastening upon them the reproach, if not of playing on words, at least of mixing them up and confusing them.
To illustrate55 what I mean by an example: I suppose some Parisian speculators to devote themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of Portugal can be sold in Paris for a penny apiece, whilst they, on account of the frames and hot-houses which the colder climate would render necessary, could not sell them for less than a shilling as a remunerative56 price. They demand that Portuguese57 oranges should have a duty of elevenpence imposed upon them. By means of this duty, they say, the conditions af production will be equalized; and the Chamber, giving effect, as it always does, to such reasoning, inserts in the tariff58 a duty of elevenpence upon every foreign orange.
Now, I maintain that the conditions of production are in nowise changed. The law has made no change on the heat of the sun of Lisbon, or on the frequency and intensity of the frosts of Paris. The ripening59 of oranges will continue to go on naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and artificially on the banks of the Seine—that is to say, much more human labour will be required in the one country than in the other. The conditions of sale are what have been equalized. The Portuguese must now sell us their oranges at a shilling, elevenpence of which goes to pay the tax. That tax will be paid, it is evident, by the French consumer. And look at the whimsical result. Upon each Portuguese orange consumed, the country will lose nothing, for the extra elevenpence charged to the consumer will be paid into the treasury60. This will cause displacement38, but not loss. But upon each French orange consumed there will be a loss of elevenpence, or nearly so, for the purchaser will certainly lose that sum, and the seller as certainly will not gain it, seeing that by the hypothesis he will only have received the cost price. I leave it to the protectionists to draw the inference.
IV. If I have dwelt upon this distinction between the conditions of production and the conditions of sale, a distinction which the protectionists will no doubt pronounce paradoxical, it is because it leads me to inflict62 on them another, and a much stranger, paradox61, which is this: Would you equalize effectually the conditions of production, leave exchange free.
Now, really, it will be said, this is too much; you must be making game of us. Well, then, were it only for curiosity, I entreat63 the gentlemen protectionists to follow me on to the conclusion of my argument. It will not be long. I revert64 to my former illustration.
Let us suppose for a moment that the average daily wage which a Frenchman earns is equal to a shilling, and it follows incontestably that to produce directly an orange in France, a day's work, or its equivalent, is required; while to produce the value of a Portuguese orange, only a twelfth part of that day's labour would be necessary; which means exactly this, that the sun does at Lisbon what human labour does at Paris. Now, is it not very evident that if I can produce an orange, or, what comes to the same thing, the means of purchasing one, with a twelfth part of a day's labour, I am placed, with respect to this production, under exactly the same conditions as the Portuguese producer himself, excepting the carriage, which must be at my expense. It is certain, then, that liberty equalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as far as they can be equalized, since it leaves no other difference, but the inevitable65 one arising from the expense of transport.
I add, that liberty equalizes also the conditions of enjoyment66, of satisfaction, of consumption, with which the protectionists never concern themselves, and which are yet the essential consideration, consumption being the end and object of all our industrial efforts. In virtue67 of free trade, we enjoy the sun of Portugal like the Portuguese themselves. The inhabitants of Havre and the citizens of London are put in possession, and on the same conditions, of all the mineral resources which nature has bestowed69 on Newcastle.
V. Gentlemen protectionists, you find me in a paradoxical humour; and I am disposed to go further still. I say, and I sincerely think, that if two countries are placed under unequal conditions of production, it is that one of the two which is least favoured by nature which has most to gain by free trade. To prove this, I must depart a little from the usual form of such a work as this. I shall do so nevertheless, first of all, because the entire question lies there, and also because it will afford me an opportunity of explaining an economic law of the highest importance, and which, if rightly understood, appears to me to be fitted to bring back to the science all those sects70 who, in our day, seek in the land of chimeras71 that social harmony which they fail to discover in nature. I refer to the law of consumption, which it is perhaps to be regretted that the majority of economists72 have neglected.
Consumption is the end and final cause of all the economic phenomena, and it is in consumption consequently that we must expect to find their ultimate and definitive74 solution.
Nothing, whether favourable or unfavourable, can abide75 permanently76 with the producer. The advantages which nature and society bestow68 upon him, the inconveniences he may experience, glide77 past him, so to speak, and are absorbed and mixed up with the community in as far as the community represents consumers. This is an admirable law both in its cause and in its effects, and he who shall succeed in clearly describing it is entitled, in my opinion, to say, "I have not passed through life without paying my tribute to society." Everything which favours the work of production is welcomed with joy by the producer, for the immediate78 effect of it is to put him in a situation to render greater service to the community, and to exact from it a greater remuneration. Every circumstance which retards79 or interrupts production gives pain to the producer, for the immediate effect of it is to circumscribe80 his services, and consequently his remuneration. Immediate good or ill circumstances—fortunate or unfortunate—necessarily fall upon the producer, and leave him no choice but to accept the one and eschew81 the other.
In the same way, when a workman succeeds in discovering an improved process in manufactures, the immediate profit from the improvement results to him. This was necessary, in order to give his labour an intelligent direction; and it is just, because it is fair that an effort crowned with success should carry its recompense along with it.
But I maintain that these good or bad effects, though in their own nature permanent, are not permanent as regards the producer. If it had been so, a principle of progressive, and, therefore, of indefinite, inequality would have been introduced among men, and this is the reason why these good or evil effects become very soon absorbed in the general destinies of the human race.
How is this brought about? I shall show how it takes place by some examples.
Let us go back to the thirteenth century. The men who then devoted82 themselves to the art of copying received for the service which they rendered a remuneration regulated by the general rate of earnings83.* Among them there arose one who discovered the means of multiplying copies of the same work rapidly. He invented printing.
In the first instance, one man was enriched, and many others were impoverished84. At first sight, marvellous as the invention proves itself to be, we hesitate to decide whether it is hurtful or useful. It seems to introduce into the world, as I have said, an indefinite element of inequality. Guttemberg profits by his invention, and extends his invention with its profits indefinitely, until he has ruined all the copyists. As regards the public, in the capacity of consumer, it gains little; for Guttemberg takes care not to lower the price of his books, but just enough to undersell his rivals.
But the intelligence which has introduced harmony into the movements of the heavenly bodies, has implanted it also in the internal mechanism85 of society. We shall see the economic advantages of the invention when it has ceased to be individual property, and has become for ever the common patrimony86 of the masses.
At length the invention comes to be known. Guttemberg is no longer the only printer; others imitate him. Their profits' at first are large. They are thus rewarded for having been the first to imitate the invention; and it is right that it should be so, for this higher remuneration was necessary to induce them to concur87 in the grand definite result which is approaching. They gain a great deal, but they gain less than the inventor, for competition now begins its work. The price of books goes on falling. The profit of imitators goes on diminishing in proportion as the invention becomes of older date; that is to say, in proportion as the imitation becomes less meritorious88.....
* The author, here and elsewhere, uses the French word
profits; but it is clear from the context that he does not
refer to the returns from capital, in which sense alone the
English economists employ the term profits. We have
therefore substituted the words earnings or wages.—
Translator,
The new branch of industry at length reaches its normal state; in other words, the remuneration of printers ceases to be exceptionally high, and comes, like that of the copyist, to be regulated by the ordinary rate of earnings. Here we have production, as such, brought back to the point from which it started. And yet the invention is not the less an acquisition; the saving of time, of labour, of effort to produce a given result, that is, to produce a determinate number of copies, is not the less realized. But how does it show itself? In the cheapness of books. And to whose profit? To the profit of the consumer, of society, of the human race. The printers, who have thenceforth no exceptional merit, no longer receive exceptional remuneration. As men, as consumers, they undoubtedly90 participate in the advantages which the invention has conferred upon the community. But that is all. As printers, as producers, they have returned to the ordinary condition of the other producers of the country. Society pays them for their labour, and not for the utility of the invention. The latter has become the common and gratuitous91 heritage of mankind at large.
I confess that the wisdom and the beauty of these laws call forth89 my admiration and respect. I see in them Saint-Simonianism:
To each according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its works. I see in them, communism; that is, the tendency of products to become the common heritage of men; but a Saint-Simonianism, a communism, regulated by infinite prescience, and not abandoned to the frailties92, the passions, and the arbitrary will of men.
What I have said of the art of printing, may be affirmed of all the instruments of labour, from the nail and the hammer to the locomotive and the electric telegraph. Society becomes possessed93 of all through its more abundant consumption, and it enjoys all gratuitously94, for the effect of inventions and discoveries is to reduce the price of commodities; and all that part of the price which has been annihilated95, and which represents the share invention has in production, evidently renders the product gratuitous to that extent. All that remains96 to be paid for is the human labour, the immediate labour, /and it is paid for without reference to the result of the invention, at least when that invention has passed through the cycle I have just described—the cycle which it is designed to pass through. I send for a tradesman to my house; he comes and brings his saw with him; I pay him two shillings for his day's work, and he saws me twenty-five boards. Had the saw not been invented, he would probably not have made out to furnish me with one, and I should have had to pay him the same wages for his day's work. The utility produced by the saw is then, as far as I am concerned, a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a part of that inheritance which, in common with all my brethren, I have received from my ancestors. I have two workmen in my field. The one handles the plough, the other the spade. The result of their labour is very different, but the day's wages are the same, because the remuneration is not proportioned to the utility produced, but to the effort, the labour, which is exacted.
I entreat the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that I have not lost sight of free trade. Let him only have the goodness to remember the conclusion at which I have arrived: Remuneration is not in proportion to the utilities which the producer brings to market, but to his labour.*
* It is true that labour does not receive a uniform
remuneration. It may be more or less intense, dangerous,
skilled, etc. Competition settles the usual or current price
in each department—and this is the fluctuating price of
which I speak.
I have drawn97 my illustrations as yet from human inventions. Let us now turn our attention to natural advantages.
In every branch of production, nature and man concur. But the portion of utility which nature contributes is always gratuitous. It is only the portion of utility which human labour contributes which forms the subject of exchange, and, consequently, of remuneration. The latter varies, no doubt, very much in proportion to the intensity of the labour, its skill, its promptitude, its suitableness, the need there is of it, the temporary absence of rivalry98, etc. But it is not the less true, in principle, that the concurrence99 of natural laws, which are common to all, counts for nothing in the price of the product.
We do not pay for the air we breathe, although it is so useful to us, that, without it, we could not live two minutes. We do not pay for it, nevertheless; because nature furnishes it to us without the aid of human labour. But if, for example, we should desire to separate one of the gases of which it is composed, to make an experiment, we must make an exertion100; or if we wish another to make that exertion for us, we must sacrifice for that other an equivalent amount of exertion, although we may have embodied101 it in another product. Whence we see that pains, efforts, and exertions102 are the real subjects of exchange. It is not, indeed, the oxygen gas that I pay for, since it is at my disposal everywhere, but the labour necessary to disengage it, labour which has been saved me, and which must be recompensed. Will it be said that there is something else to be paid for, materials, apparatus103, etc.? Still, in paying for these, I pay for labour. The price of the coal employed, for example, represents the labour necessary to extract it from the mine and to transport it to the place where it is to be used.
We do not pay for the light of the sim, because it is a gift of nature. But we pay for gas, tallow, oil, wax, because there is here human labour to be remunerated; and it will be remarked that, in this case, the remuneration is proportioned, not to the utility produced, but to the labour employed, so much so that it may happen that one of these kinds of artificial light, though more intense, costs us less, and for this reason, that the same amount of human labour affords us more of it.
Were the porter who carries water to my house to be paid in proportion to the absolute utility of water, my whole fortune would be insufficient104 to remunerate him. But I pay him in proportion to the exertion he makes. If he charges more, others will do the work, or, if necessary, I will do it myself. Water, in truth, is not the subject of our bargain, but the labour of carrying it. This view of the matter is so important, and the conclusions which I am about to deduce from it throw so much light on the question of the freedom of international exchanges, that I deem it necessary to elucidate105 it by other examples.
The alimentary106 substance contained in potatoes is not very costly107, because we can obtain a large amount of it with comparatively little labour. We pay more for wheat, because the production of it costs a greater amount of human labour. It is evident that if nature did for the one what it does for the other, the price of both would tend to equality. It is impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain much more than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition would prevent it.
If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable108 lands should come to be augmented109, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who would reap advantage from that phenomenon for it would resolve itself into abundance and cheapness. There would be less labour incorporated in each quarter of corn, and the cultivator could exchange it only for a smaller amount of labour worked up in some other product. If, on the other hand, the fertility of the soil came all at once to be diminished, nature's part in the process of production would be less, that of human labour would be greater, and the product dearer. I am, then, warranted in saying that it is in consumption, in the human element, that all the economic phenomena come ultimately to resolve themselves. The man who has failed to regard them in this light, to follow them out to their ultimate effects, without stopping short at immediate results, and viewing them from the producer's standpoint, can no more be regarded as an economist73 than the man who should prescribe a draught110, and, instead of watching its effect on the entire system of the patient, should inquire only how it affected111 the mouth and throat, could be regarded as a physician.
Tropical regions are very favourably situated for the production of sugar and of coffee. This means that nature does a great part of the work, and leaves little for human labour to do. But who reaps the advantage of this liberality of nature? Not the producing countries, for competition causes the price barely to remunerate the labour. It is the human race that reaps the benefit, for the result of nature's liberality is cheapness, and cheapness benefits everybody.
Suppose a temperate112 region where coal and iron-ore are found on the surface of the ground, where one has only to stoop down to get them. That, in the first instance, the inhabitants would profit by this happy circumstance, I allow. But competition would soon intervene, and the price of coal and iron-ore would go on falling, till the gift of nature became free to all, and then the human labour employed would be alone remunerated according to the general rate of earnings.
Thus the liberality of nature, like improvements in the processes of production, is, or continually tends to become, under the law of competition, the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, of the masses, of mankind in general. Then, the countries which do not possess these advantages have everything to gain by exchanging their products with those countries which possess them, because the subject of exchange is labour, apart from the consideration of the natural utilities worked up with that labour; and the countries which have incorporated in a given amount of their labour the greatest amount of these natural utilities, are evidently the most favoured countries. Their products which represent the least amount of human labour are the least profitable; in other words, they are cheaper; and if the whole liberality of nature resolves itself into cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming, country which reaps the benefit.
Hence we see the enormous absurdity113 of consuming countries which reject products for the very reason that they are cheap. It is as if they said, "We want nothing that nature gives us. You ask me for an effort equal to two, in exchange for a product which I cannot create without an effort equal to four; you can make that effort, because in your case nature does half the work. Be it so; I reject your offer, and I shall wait until your climate, having become more inclement114, will force you to demand from me an effort equal to four, in order that I may treat with you on a footing of equality."
A is a favoured country. B is a country to which nature has been less bountiful. I maintain that exchange benefits both, but benefits B especially; because exchange is not an exchange of utilities for utilities, but of value for value. Now A includes a greater amount of utility in the same value, seeing that the utility of a product includes what nature has put there, as well as what labour has put there; whilst value includes only what labour has put there. Then B makes quite an advantageous bargain. In recompensing the producer of A for his labour only, it receives into the bargain a greater amount of natural utility than it has given.
This enables us to lay down the general rule: Exchange is a barter115 of values; value under the action of competition being made to represent labour, exchange becomes a barter of equal labour. What nature has imparted to the products exchanged is on both sides given gratuitously and into the bargain; whence it follows necessarily that exchanges effected with countries the most favoured by nature are the most advantageous.
The theory of which in this chapter I have endeavoured to trace the outlines would require great developments. I have glanced at it only in as far as it bears upon my subject of free trade. But perhaps the attentive116 reader may have perceived in it the fertile germ which in the rankness of its maturity117 will not only smother118 protection, but, along with it, Fourierisrme, Saint-Simonianisme, communisme, and all those schools whose object it is to exclude from the government of the world the law of competition. Regarded from the producer's point of view, competition no doubt frequently clashes with our immediate and individual interests; but if we change our point of view and extend our regards to industry in general, to universal prosperity—in a word, to consumption—we shall find that competition in the moral world plays the same part which equilibrium does in the material world. It lies at the root of true communism, of true socialism, of that equality of conditions and of happiness so much desired in our day; and if so many sincere publicists, and well-meaning reformers seek after the arbitrary, it is for this reason—that they do not understand liberty.*
four years afterwards, was developed in the Harmonies
économiques. Remuneration reserved exclusively for human
labour; the gratuitous nature of natural agents; progressive
conquest of these agents, to the profit of mankind, whose
wellbeing and tendency to relative equalization of
conditions; we recognise here the essential elements of the
most important of all the works of Bastiat.—Editor.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
recurs
|
|
| 再发生，复发( recur的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
solicit
|
|
| vi.勾引；乞求；vt.请求，乞求；招揽(生意) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
neutralized
|
|
| v.使失效( neutralize的过去式和过去分词 )；抵消；中和；使（一个国家）中立化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
neutralize
|
|
| v.使失效、抵消，使中和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
cramp
|
|
| n.痉挛；[pl.](腹)绞痛；vt.限制，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
aptitude
|
|
| n.(学习方面的)才能，资质，天资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
efface
|
|
| v.擦掉，抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
snails
|
|
| n.蜗牛；迟钝的人；蜗牛( snail的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
entails
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的第三人称单数 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
flexibility
|
|
| n.柔韧性，弹性，（光的）折射性，灵活性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
elasticity
|
|
| n.弹性，伸缩力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
bolstering
|
|
| v.支持( bolster的现在分词 )；支撑；给予必要的支持；援助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
aggregation
|
|
| n.聚合，组合；凝聚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
compensates
|
|
| 补偿，报酬( compensate的第三人称单数 )； 给（某人）赔偿（或赔款） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
redress
|
|
| n.赔偿，救济，矫正；v.纠正，匡正，革除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
equitable
|
|
| adj.公平的；公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
ascending
|
|
| adj.上升的，向上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
descending
|
|
| n. 下行 adj. 下降的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
scarcity
|
|
| n.缺乏，不足，萧条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
displacement
|
|
| n.移置，取代，位移，排水量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
displacements
|
|
| n.取代( displacement的名词复数 )；替代；移位；免职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
yarn
|
|
| n.纱，纱线，纺线；奇闻漫谈，旅行轶事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
procured
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
solidarity
|
|
| n.团结；休戚相关 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
isolating
|
|
| adj.孤立的，绝缘的v.使隔离( isolate的现在分词 )；将…剔出（以便看清和单独处理）；使（某物质、细胞等）分离；使离析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
segregate
|
|
| adj.分离的，被隔离的；vt.使分离，使隔离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
deceptive
|
|
| adj.骗人的，造成假象的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
remunerative
|
|
| adj.有报酬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
Portuguese
|
|
| n.葡萄牙人；葡萄牙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
tariff
|
|
| n.关税，税率；(旅馆、饭店等)价目表，收费表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
ripening
|
|
| v.成熟，使熟( ripen的现在分词 )；熟化；熟成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
entreat
|
|
| v.恳求，恳请 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
revert
|
|
| v.恢复，复归，回到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
chimeras
|
|
| n.（由几种动物的各部分构成的）假想的怪兽( chimera的名词复数 )；不可能实现的想法；幻想；妄想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
definitive
|
|
| adj.确切的，权威性的；最后的，决定性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
glide
|
|
| n./v.溜，滑行；(时间)消逝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
retards
|
|
| 使减速( retard的第三人称单数 )； 妨碍； 阻止； 推迟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
circumscribe
|
|
| v.在...周围划线，限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
eschew
|
|
| v.避开，戒绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
earnings
|
|
| n.工资收人；利润，利益，所得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
impoverished
|
|
| adj.穷困的，无力的，用尽了的v.使（某人）贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 )；使（某物）贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
patrimony
|
|
| n.世袭财产，继承物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
meritorious
|
|
| adj.值得赞赏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
frailties
|
|
| n.脆弱( frailty的名词复数 )；虚弱；（性格或行为上的）弱点；缺点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
annihilated
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的过去式和过去分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
rivalry
|
|
| n.竞争，竞赛，对抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
concurrence
|
|
| n.同意；并发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
elucidate
|
|
| v.阐明，说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
alimentary
|
|
| adj.饮食的，营养的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
arable
|
|
| adj.可耕的，适合种植的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
Augmented
|
|
| adj.增音的 动词augment的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
draught
|
|
| n.拉，牵引，拖；一网（饮，吸，阵)；顿服药量，通风；v.起草，设计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
temperate
|
|
| adj.温和的，温带的，自我克制的，不过分的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
inclement
|
|
| adj.严酷的，严厉的，恶劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
attentive
|
|
| adj.注意的，专心的；关心(别人)的，殷勤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
maturity
|
|
| n.成熟；完成；(支票、债券等)到期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
smother
|
|
| vt./vi.使窒息；抑制；闷死；n.浓烟；窒息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |