the high price of bullion-第14章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





sugar　cost　more　money　in　England　than　in　France。　What！　they　would



have　said；　do　you　believe　it　possible　for　us　to　send　a　parcel　of



coffee　to　France　to　sell　there　for　100　l。　when　that　coffee　cost



here　105　l。　…　when　by　sending　100　l。　of　the　105　l。　we　should



equally　discharge　the　debt　contracted　for　the　imported　corn？　And；



I　say；　do　you　believe　it　possible　that　we　shall　agree　to　send；　or



France　agree　to　receive　（if　the　transaction　is　on　her　account）



100　l。　in　money；　when　95　l。　invested　in　coffee　and　exported　will



be　equally　valuable　as　the　100　l。　when　it　arrives　in　France？　But



coffee　is　not　wanted　in　France；　there　is　a　glut　of　it；　…　allowed；



but　money　is　wanted　still　less；　and　the　proof　is；　that　a　hundred



pounds　worth　of　coffee　will　sell　for　more　than　a　hundred　pounds



worth　of　money。　The　only　proof　which　we　can　possess　of　the



relative　cheapness　of　money　in　two　places；　is　by　comparing　it



with　commodities。　Commodities　measure　the　value　of　money　in　the



same　manner　as　money　measures　the　value　of　commodities。　If　then



commodities　will　purchase　more　money　in　England　than　in　France；



we　may　justly　say　that　money　is　cheaper　in　England；　and　that　it



is　exported　to　find　its　level；　not　to　destroy　it。　After　comparing



the　relative　value　of　coffee；　sugar；　ivory；　indigo；　and　all　other



exportable　commodities　in　the　two　markets；　if　I　persist　in



sending　money；　what　further　proof　can　be　required　of　money　being



actually　the　cheapest　of　all　these　commodities　in　the　English



market；　in　relation　to　the　foreign　markets；　and　therefore　the



most　profitable　to　be　exported？　What　further　evidence　is



necessary　of　the　relative　redundance　and　cheapness　of　money



between　France　and　England；　than　that　in　France　it　will　purchase



more　corn；　more　indigo；　more　coffee；　more　sugar；　more　of　every



exportable　commodity　than　in　England？



　　　　I　may；　indeed；　be　told　that　the　Reviewer's　supposition　is　not



that　coffee；　sugar；　indigo；　ivory；　etc。　etc。　are　cheaper　than



money；　but　that　these　commodities　and　money　are　equally　cheap　in



both　countries；　that　is　to　say；　that　one　hundred　pounds　sent　in



money；　or　invested　in　coffee；　sugar；　indigo；　ivory；　etc。　etc。



will　be　of　equal　value　in　France。　If　the　value　of　all　these



commodities　were　so　nicely　poised；　what　would　determine　an



exporter　to　send　the　one　in　preference　to　the　other；　in　exchange



for　corn；　in　relation　to　which　they　are　all　cheaper　in　England？



If　he　sends　money；　and　thereby　destroys　the　natural　level；　we　are



told　by　the　Reviewers　that　money　would　on　account　of　its



increasing　quantity　in　France；　and　its　decreasing　quantity　in



England；　become　cheaper　in　France　than　in　England；　and　would　be



re…imported　in　exchange　for　goods　till　the　level　were　restored。



But　would　not　the　same　effects　take　place　if　coffee　or　any　of　the



other　commodities　were　exported；　whilst　they　were　equally



valuable　in　relation　to　money　in　both　countries？　Would　not　the



equilibrium　between　supply　and　demand　be　destroyed；　and　would　not



the　diminished　value　of　coffee；　etc。　in　consequence　of　their



increased　quantity　in　France；　and　their　increased　value　in



England；　from　their　diminished　quantity；　produce　their



re…importation　into　England？　Any　of　these　commodities　might　be



exported　without　producing　much　inconvenience　from　their　enhanced



price；　whereas　money；　which　circulates　all　other　commodities；　and



the　increase　or　diminution　of　which；　even　in　a　moderate



proportion；　raises　or　falls　prices　in　an　extravagant　degree；



could　not　be　exported　without　the　most　serious　consequences。　Here



then　we　see　the　defective　principle　of　the　Reviewers。　On　my



system；　however；　there　would　be　no　difficulty　in　determining　the



mode　in　which；　in　a　case　so　extremely　improbable；　as　that　of　an



equal　value　in　both　countries；　for　all　commodities；　money



included；　and　corn　alone　excepted；　the　returns　would　be　made　so



as　to　preserve　the　relative　amount　and　the　relative　value　of



their　respective　currencies。



　　　　If　the　circulating　medium　of　England　consisted　wholly　of　the



precious　metals；　and　were　a　fiftieth　part　of　the　value　of　the



commodities　which　it　circulated；　the　whole　amount　of　money　which



would　under　the　circumstances　supposed　be　exported　in　exchange



for　corn；　would　be　a　fiftieth　part　of　the　value　of　such　corn：　for



the　rest　we　should　export　commodities；　and　thus　would　the



proportion　between　money　and　commodities　be　equally　preserved　in



both　countries。　England；　in　consequence　of　a　bad　harvest；　would



come　under　the　case　mentioned　at　page　＇53＇　of　this　work；　of　a



country　having　been　deprived　of　a　part　of　its　commodities；　and



therefore　requiring　a　diminished　amount　of　circulating　medium。



The　currency　which　was　before　equal　to　her　payments　would　now



become　superabundant　and　relatively　cheap；　in　the　proportion　of



one　fiftieth　part　of　her　diminished　production；　the　exportation



of　this　sum；　therefore；　would　restore　the　value　of　her　currency



to　the　value　of　the　currencies　of　other　countries。　Thus　it



appears　to　be　satisfactorily　proved　that　a　bad　harvest　operates



on　the　exchange　in　no　other　way　than　by　causing　the　currency



which　was　before　at　its　just　level　to　become　redundant；　and　thus



is　the　principle　that　an　unfavourable　exchange　may　always　be



traced　to　a　relatively　redundant　currency　most　fully　exemplified。



　　　　If　we　can　suppose　that　after　an　unfavourable　harvest；　when



England　has　occasion　for　an　unusual　importation　of　corn；　another



nation　is　possessed　of　a　superabundance　of　that　article；　〃but　has



no　wants　for　any　commodity　whatever；〃　it　would　unquestionably



follow　that　such　nation　would　not　export　its　corn　in　exchange　for



commodities：　but　neither　would　it　export　corn　for　money；　as　that



is　a　commodity　which　no　nation　ever　wants　absolutely；　but



relatively；　as　is　expressly　admitted　by　the　Reviewers。　The　case



is；　however；　impossible；　because　a　nation　possessed　of　every



commodity　necessary　for　the　consumption　and　enjoyment　of　all　its



inhabitants　who　have　wherewithal　to　purchase　them；　will　not　let



the　corn　which　it　has　over　and　above　what　it　can　consume　rot　in



its　granaries。　Whilst　the　desire　of　accumulation　is　not



extinguished　in　the　breast　of　man；　he　will　be　desirous　to　realise



the　excess　of　his　productions；　above　his　own　consumption；　into



the　form　of　capital。　This　he　can　only　do　by　employing；　himself；



or　by　loans　to　others；　enabling　them　to　employ；　an　additional



number　of　labourers；　as　it　is　by　labour　only　that　revenue　is



realized　into　capital。　If　his　revenue　be　corn；　he　will　be



disposed　to　exchange　it　for　fuel；　meat；　butter；　cheese；　and　other



commodities　in　which　the　wages　of　labour　are　usually　expended；



or；　which　is　the　same　thing；　he　will　sell　his　corn　for　money；　pay



the　wages　of　his　labourers　in　money；　and　thereby　create　a　demand



for　those　commodities　which　may　be　obtained　from　other　countries



in　exchange　for　the　superfluous　corn。　Thus　will　be　reproduced　to



him　articles　more　valuable；　which　he　may　again　employ　in　the　same



manner；　adding　to　his　own　riches；　and　augmenting　the　wealth　and



resources　of　his　country。



　　　　No　mistake　can　be　greater　than　to　suppose　that　a　nation　can



ever　be　without　wants　for　commodities　of　some　sort。　It　may



possess　too　much　of　one　or　more　commodities　for　which　it　may　not



find　a　market　at　home。　It　may　have　more　sugar；　coffee；　tallow；



than　it　can　either　consume　or　dispose　of；　but　no　county　ever



possessed　a　general　glut　of　all　commodities。　It　is　evidently



impossible。　If　a　county　possesses　every　thing　necessary　for　the



maintenance　and　comfort　of　man；　and　these　articl