OCR Text |
Show h2G CliAPTER I. ON THE DEFtNITIONS bF 'wl<~ALTII AND PRO.O'UC'tiV.E LABOUR. SEcT. I.-On tlte Drjinitions of Wealth. PAGE :A definition of we~lth i de ir~ble though it Inay not be easy to give one not liable to n1c objection 25 > The liberty of a writer to define hi t rm a he pleases, provided he always use thcn1 in th en c proposed, may be doubted, a an inquiry ntay be rendered futile by an in" adequate or unusual d :finition 2G The comparative rrterit 6f the y tein of the Econom.i ts, and of "Adam tnith, depend 1nainly upon their different definition of wealth ib. .-fbe Econ01nists have confined the tenu ' vealth within too narrow limit 27 Lord Lauderdale aud other writer have given definitions which extend it too far ib. The Jine which it cen1s 1110 t natural to draw is, that which separates 1naterial fr01n imntaterial objects 28 Adam Stnith' definition of wealth i not free fi·om objection, though confined to material products ib. The material object which are ncce ary, u cful, or agreeable to mankind, proposed a a definition of '~realth . . . ib. In the application of this definition, a useful distinction ·may he n1ade between a rich country and a rich people . . . 29 ---~- •' SEcT. IJ . ._Of Productive ·Labour. ., The question of productive labour is dependent upon the definition of wealth, both in the systen1 of the Economists, and in that of Adam Smith . . . 29 The application of. the term productive to the labour which ·is productive of w·ealth, however defined~ is obviously useful · '30 Adam Smith's definition of productive labour has been thonght by SOllle to be too extei dccl, and by othets tOO confined . . . ib. It would be· difficult to proceed 'n' our inquil'ies into the hature and cause of the wealth of nations, without some classification of the different kinds of labour . · · ib. , Ul\Il\IAR Y. PAGE Such a cla jfication is nece ary-l t. To explain the nature of capital, and its effect in increa ing national wealth . 31 2clly, To explain the nature and operation of aving, a contradistingui heel fr01n spendi'ng ib. 3dly, To explain the causes which render favourable the it11- portan~ balance of produce and con umptiou . 33 And generally, to explain the cau cs why one nation i thriving, while another is declining . . 34 The incrca ing 'riches and pro perity of Europe since the feudal times could hardly be explained, if rncre per onal services were considered as equally productive of wealth with the· laboui:s of merchant anclinanufacturct ib. If s01ne distinction be necessary betwcert the diffe1·ent kind of labour, the next inquiry is, what thi distinction should be? · . 3~ The distinction adopted by the Econon1i ts would not enable ns to cxph1in· those appearances in · different countries, which, in con1n1on language, arc allowed to proceed fr01n different degrees of wealth 3 G The opposite opiniOI! to that· of the Economists has been ·already discussed, in the endeavour to shew that sotne di - tinction in the different kinds of labour is necessary :-37 A distinction betwec1i the different kinds' of labour i the corner- tone of Adar~1 · Smith's work ihr Anothei· ort of distinction, however, might be n1ade, diffe-rent from that of Adam Smith, which would not invali-date his reasonings ib. AU paid labour might be called productive of value; but productive in different degrees, according a the value of their results might exceed the value paid 3 Upon , this· principle, the labours of agriculture would generally be the most productive, the labours in manufacture the next, and mere personal services the least ib. This mode of considering the subject would establi h a scale of productiveness, instead of dividing labour into two kinds 39 The unproductive labourers of Adam Smith would, upon thi systen1, be placed in the lowest scale of prodnctivene s 40· The great objection to this system i , that it makes the pay- |