FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39  
40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>   >|  
rgument is a bad fallacy#. The fact is, that a person who has riches cannot help employing labour of some kind or other. If he saves up his money he probably puts it into a bank; but the banker does not keep it idle. The banker lends it out again to merchants, manufacturers and builders, who use it to increase their business and employ more hands. If he buy railway shares or government funds, those who receive the money put it to some other profitable use. If the rich man actually hoards up his money in the form of gold or silver, he gets no advantage from it, but he creates so much more demand for gold or silver. If many rich people were to take to hoarding up gold, the result would be to make gold mining more profitable, and there would be so many more gold miners, instead of railway navvies, or other workmen. We see then that, when a rich person decides how to spend his money he is deciding not how many more workpeople shall be set to work, but what kind of work they shall do. If he decide to give a grand fancy ball, then in the end there will be so many more milliners, costumiers, lacemakers, confectioners, &c. A single ball indeed will have no great effect; but, if many people were to do the same, there would soon be more tradespeople attracted to these trades. If, on the other hand, rich people invest their money in a new railway, there will be so many more surveyors, engineers, foremen, navvies, iron puddlers, iron rollers, engine mechanics, carriage builders, &c. The question really comes to this, whether people are made happier by more fancy balls, or by more railways. A fancy ball creates amusement at the time, but it costs a great deal of money, especially to the guests who buy expensive costumes. When it is over there is no permanent result, and no one is much the better for it. The railway, on the other hand, is no immediate cause of pleasure, but it cheapens goods by enabling them to be carried more easily: it allows people to live in the country, instead of the crowded town, or it carries them on pleasant and wholesome excursions. We see, then, that it is simple folly to approve of consumption for its own sake, or because it benefits trade. In spending our wealth we ought to think solely of the advantage which people get out of that spending. #15. The Fallacy of Non-consumption.# Some people fall into the opposite fallacy of thinking that all spending is an evil. The best thing to do with wealth
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39  
40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

people

 
railway
 

spending

 
profitable
 

silver

 

consumption

 
navvies
 

result

 

advantage

 

creates


wealth

 
banker
 

builders

 

person

 

fallacy

 

question

 

cheapens

 
carriage
 

pleasure

 

costumes


guests

 

expensive

 

railways

 

happier

 

amusement

 
permanent
 
wholesome
 

Fallacy

 
solely
 

opposite


thinking
 

crowded

 

carries

 

pleasant

 
country
 

carried

 

easily

 

mechanics

 
excursions
 

benefits


simple

 
approve
 

enabling

 

decide

 

government

 
shares
 

increase

 
business
 

employ

 

receive