| OCR Text |
Show ON THE IMJ\tlEDIATE CAUSES ( CH. VII. cessary, useful, and agreeable to 1nankind," I stated as a consequence that a country 'vas rich or poor according to the abundance or scantiness in which these objects were supplied, compared with the extent of territory. - It will be readily allowed that this definition does not include the question of what II?ay be called the an1ount of disposable produce, or the fund for taxation; but still I must consider it as a much more correct definition of . the wealth of a country than any that should refer to this disposable part alone. What should we say of the wealth of this country, if it were possible that its rents and profits could remain the same, 'vhile its population and produce were reduced two-thirds ? Certainly it would be n1uch poorer according to the above definition ; and there are not many that would dissent from such a conclusion. That it would be desirable, ir1 a definition of national \\realth, to include the consideration of disposable produce, as \Veil as of actual quantity and value, cannot be doubted; but such a definition seems to be in its nature impossible, ·because in each individual case it must depend upon opinion, what increase of disposable produce spould be accounted equivalent to a given din1inution of gross produce. We n1ust content ourselves therefore \Vith refer- . ring generally to the amount and value vf national produce; and it ·may be subsequently stated as a separate, though very important consideration, that particular countries, with the satne an1ount and sEC. VI.] OF THE PROGRESS OF 'VEALTH. 425 value of produce, have a larger or smaller proportion of that produce disposable. In this respect, no doubt, a country with a fertile territory will have a prodigious advantage over those whose wealth depends almost entirely on manufactures. With the same population, the same rate of profits, and the same amount and value of produce, the landed nation would have much the largest portion of its wealth disposable. Fortunately, it happens but seldom that we have to determine the amount of advantage or disadvantage occasioned by the increase of the neat, at the expense of the gross revenue. The interest of individual capitalists unifor1nly prompts them to the saving of labour, in whatever business they are engaged; and both theory and experience con1- bine to she\v that their successful efforts in this direction, by increasing the powers of prod~ction, afford the n1eans of increasing, in the greatest practicable degree, the atnount and value of the gross produce,* provided always that such a dis- • From what has been here said, the reader will see that I can by no means agree with Mr. Ricardo, in his chapter On Gross and Net Revenue. I should not hesitate a . moment in saying, that a country with a neat revenue from rents and profits, consisting of food and clothin()" for five n1illions of men, woul(l be decidedly richer a!ld more 0 powerful, if such neat revenue were obtained from seven millions of men, rather than five, supposing them to be equally well supported. The whole produce would be greater; and the additional two millions of labourers would some of the1n unquestionably have a part of th-eir wages disposable. But I would further ask what is to become of the capital as well as the people in the case of such a change ? It is obvious that a con .. |
