th two words. It is very essential, then, to
understand their meaning.
It must be granted at the outset that a series of events have happened
well calculated to disconcert both sides.
In order to produce _high prices_ the protectionists have obtained high
tariffs, and still low prices have come to disappoint their
expectations.
In order to produce _low prices_, free traders have sometimes carried
their point, and, to their great astonishment, the result in some
instances has been an increase instead of a reduction in prices.
For instance, in France, to protect farmers, a law was passed imposing a
duty of twenty-two per cent. upon imported wools, and the result has
been that native wools have been sold for much lower prices than before
the passage of the law.
In England a law in behalf of the consumers was passed, exempting
foreign wools from duty, and the consequence has been that native wools
have sold higher than ever before.
And this is not an isolated fact, for the price of wool has no special
or peculiar nature which takes it out of the general law governing
prices. The same fact has been reproduced under analogous circumstances.
Contrary to all expectation, protection has frequently resulted in low
prices, and free trade in high prices. Hence there has been a deal of
perplexity in the discussion, the protectionists saying to their
adversaries: "These low prices that you talk about so much are the
result of our system;" and the free traders replying: "Those high prices
which you find so profitable are the consequence of free trade."
There evidently is a misunderstanding, an illusion, which must be
dispelled. This I will endeavor to do.
Suppose two isolated nations, each composed of a million inhabitants;
admit that, other things being equal, one nation had exactly twice as
much of everything as the other--twice as much wheat, wine, iron, fuel,
books, clothing, furniture, etc. It will be conceded that one will have
twice as much wealth as the other.
There is, however, no reason for the statement that the _absolute
prices_ are different in the two nations. They possibly may be higher in
the wealthiest nation. It may happen that in the United States
everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that, nevertheless,
the people there are less generally supplied with everything; by which
it may be seen that the abundance of products, and not the absolute
price, constitutes wealth. In order, then,
|