But it may be said, surely if I get only P for what I paid P for at home, I had better have carried out P: then I should have imported twice as much B as n+r. B. Very true; and so you had better have carried out dC, the equivalent in coral. You may make more profit upon C or P than upon A, yet good profit on that too. If more upon C than upon A, you lose by bringing home C for A, (dC for mA, in the example before given,) and the same is true of P, or of any other thing (allowing for variation of expenses of freight, &c.) that may be sold abroad for more of the article A than it can at home. The rule to know what article is (mercantilely speaking) most advantageous, (expenses being the same) is obvious enough.' Let mA, nB, &c. pS, qT, &c. be equivalent quantities in one market, and m'A, n'B, &c. p'S, q'T, &c. be equivalent quantities in another; and among all these let S he the most advantageous to export, and T to import. Then making a fraction of the multipliers of S, and a similar one of the multipliers of T, the quotients of these fractions, i.e. the quotient of divided by, is the greatest possible, i.e. greater than any similar quotient formed by the multipliers of the articles-greater, for example, than n divided by m m n' For since S is the most advantageous to export, and T to import, the excess of the ratio p q above the ratio p': q' is the greatest possible; i.e. (p : q)—p′ : q') is a maximum. But this excess is the ratio pg': p'q; therefore pq p'q is a maximum: but when a ratio is a maximum, the quotient of the antecedent divided by the consequent is also a maximum: therefore PL is a maximum. But this is the same as p'q fore is a maximum; which was to be shown. divided by, which there To those who are not accustomed to the management of ratios, it may appear easier thus. Since p'S, q'T are equivalent, so are any other quantities of S and T in the same proportion. Now if we multiply both p and ✅ by the same multiplier 2, we shall not change their proportion, and we p' shall thereby have the equivalents pS, q'T; where the multiplier of S is the same as in the other set, mA, nB, pS, qT; in a similar manner as we had formerly m the multiplier of A, the same in mA, B, as in mA, n+r.B. Consequently for the same reason that it was true there that the greater the profit, the greater must nr be with respect to n, it will be true here that the greater the profit, the greater must q'T be with respect to q; i.e. dividing both by qʻ, the greater must be with respect to The variation in the expenses of freight, &c. is not here taken into account. It may seem that since, p, q, &c. include not only numbers, but various denominations, as yards, pounds, &c. they cannot be properly compared together. In the first place, when we speak of the ratio of p to 9, we may There may be a hundred reasons for not carrying out the article which (mercantilely speaking) is the most advantageous. For example, it may be contrary to your religion, or to your superstition, or to the laws of the country, or to the general interests of the country, or both to the laws and to the general interests, &c. &c. Does any man imagine, that upon carrying out an article of export, and procuring a good price for it, (in money,) he has exported at a loss, because, upon inquiry, he can find a species of goods, (coral, for example,) which, if it had been used for money, he would have lost upon? And why is he to consider the value of silver, when he does not mean ultimately to deal in that article, rather than the value of any thing else? Would profits be converted into losses, while the thing exported and the thing imported remain the same, by the mere circumstance of the medium of exchange in the foreign country becoming coral or sugar, and so leaving silver and gold under the name of merchandise? So long as the facilities of making or procuring things (independently of their prices) remain the same in a country, and the wants and wishes of mankind remain unchanged, that country has no need to fear a falling off in foreign trade. Whenever a facility is diminished in any branch, without some new facility arising in other branches, there an actual loss must be sustained. In such case, certain articles would relatively rise at home. But if such diminution should take place universally-if, for example, it should ever happen that every article we now make or procure, should require twice as much labor at our hands as it now does, the relative values would remain the same, however scanty the supply might be; and if universally, except one article, the relative values of all other articles would remain unchanged, and there would be the same advantage in exchanging them abroad, one against another, as now. Also their values at home, in terms of that one quantity, (their prices in it,) would keep their proportion, but would be increased. Suppose the manufacture we most excel in should become twice. as dear, and twice as difficult to make, in England as in foreign countries; and the one we least excel in, six times as dear and diffi imagine the denominations set aside, and only the abstract numbers intended. But secondly, this comparison of unlike quantities is not at all necessary here; it has been used as being familiar, and to avoid complicated enunciation. The same results will take place, if, instead of comparing p with q, and p' with qʻ, &c. we compare p with p', and q with q', &c.; for the condition that makes a maximum of the difference between the ratios pg and p': q', also makes a maximum of the difference between the ratios p p and q g'. These two differences are in fact one and the same. cult to make; it would be strange folly to persist in manufacturing the article which requires six times the expense and trouble, rather than augment the produce of that which costs only twice the expense, and export the surplus in exchange. If, indeed, upon that evil happening to us, the foreigners would be so good as to make all things for us, the sum of labor and trouble in the world would be diminished. But we can procure nothing but by our own labor; and if we do choose to work, surely we had better procure our things with the least trouble possible. Such a falling-off in our strength, or our skill, or the properties of our soil or mines, &c. would indeed be an impoverishment of the nation, in the true sense of the word, but has nothing to do with converting the profit of foreign trade into loss. Fortunately there is no such evil threatening us. Quite the contrary. If our manufactures in general do grow dearer, it is from a diminution in the value of silver. There is no increase of trouble or labor in making them. If these things be duly considered, it will appear that the danger of having our export trade injured by the rise in the price of our manufactures, is merely imaginary. 'One might instance hardware and wine. VOL. XII. Pam. NO. XXIII. R |