ccidentally_ but _necessarily_ that the equilibrium is established,
or at least inclines to establish itself: and can it be denied that
perfect freedom in exchanges is of all systems the one which favors
this tendency?
I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one
from any trade. There are tailors at Barnegat, but that does not
prevent tailors from being in New York also, although the latter have
to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture,
workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not
only to reestablish the balance, but also to make it lean on their
side.
When, therefore, the question is about equalizing the advantages of
labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of
exchange is not the best umpire.
This self-levelling faculty of political phenomena is so important,
and at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the
providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of
society, that I must ask permission a little longer to turn to it the
attention of the reader.
The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in
being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is
impossible for us to compete with it.
We must examine this proposition under other aspects. For the
present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a
disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in
themselves, the former a descending, the latter an ascending power,
which must end by placing them in a just equilibrium?
Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B;
you thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B
must be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys
much more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you
upon your own ground.
In the hypothesis, labor being in great demand in A, soon rises in
value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little
sought after in B, soon fall in price.
Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B
to A. It is abundant in A, very scarce in B.
But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases
a large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_,
which proceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominal
dearness_, the consequence of a superabundance of the precious metal
|