prel-第3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！



however　rich　the　possessor　of　air　might　become　at　the　expense　of

the　rest　of　the　community；　all　persons　else　would　be　poorer　by

all　that　they　were　compelled　to　pay　for　what　they　had　before

obtained　without　payment。

　　　　This　leads　to　an　important　distinction　in　the　meaning　of　the

word　wealth；　as　applied　to　the　possessions　of　an　individual；　and

to　those　of　a　nation；　or　of　mankind。　In　the　wealth　of　mankind；

nothing　is　included　which　does　not　of　itself　answer　some　purpose

of　utility　or　pleasure。　To　an　individual　anything　is　wealth；

which；　though　useless　in　itself；　enables　him　to　claim　from　others

a　part　of　their　stock　of　things　useful　or　pleasant。　Take；　for

instance；　a　mortgage　of　a　thousand　pounds　on　a　landed　estate。

This　is　wealth　to　the　person　to　whom　it　brings　in　a　revenue；　and

who　could　perhaps　sell　it　in　the　market　for　the　full　amount　of

the　debt。　But　it　is　not　wealth　to　the　country；　if　the　engagement

were　annulled；　the　country　would　be　neither　poorer　nor　richer。

The　mortgagee　would　have　lost　a　thousand　pounds；　and　the　owner　of

the　land　would　have　gained　it。　Speaking　nationally；　the　mortgage

was　not　itself　wealth；　but　merely　gave　A　a　claim　to　a　portion　of

the　wealth　of　B。　It　was　wealth　to　A；　and　wealth　which　he　could

transfer　to　a　third　person；　but　what　he　so　transferred　was　in

fact　a　joint　ownership；　to　the　extent　of　a　thousand　pounds；　in

the　land　of　which　B　was　nominally　the　sole　proprietor。　The

position　of　fundholders；　or　owners　of　the　public　debt　of　a

country；　is　similar。　They　are　mortgagees　on　the　general　wealth　of

the　country。　The　cancelling　of　the　debt　would　be　no　destruction

of　wealth；　but　a　transfer　of　it：　a　wrongful　abstraction　of　wealth

from　certain　members　of　the　community；　for　the　profit　of　the

government；　or　of　the　tax…payers。　Funded　property　therefore

cannot　be　counted　as　part　of　the　national　wealth。　This　is　not

always　borne　in　mind　by　the　dealers　in　statistical　calculations。

For　example；　in　estimates　of　the　gross　income　of　the　country；

founded　on　the　proceeds　of　the　income…tax；　incomes　derived　from

the　funds　are　not　always　excluded：　though　the　tax…payers　are

assessed　on　their　whole　nominal　income；　without　being　permitted

to　deduct　from　it　the　portion　levied　from　them　in　taxation　to

form　the　income　of　the　fundholder。　In　this　calculation；

therefore；　one　portion　of　the　general　income　of　the　country　is

counted　twice　over；　and　the　aggregate　amount　made　to　appear

greater　than　it　is　by　almost　thirty　millions。　A　country；　however；

may　include　in　its　wealth　all　stock　held　by　its　citizens　in　the

funds　of　foreign　countries；　and　other　debts　due　to　them　from

abroad。　But　even　this　is　only　wealth　to　them　by　being　a　part

ownership　in　wealth　held　by　others。　It　forms　no　part　of　the

collective　wealth　of　the　human　race。　It　is　an　element　in　the

distribution；　but　not　in　the　composition；　of　the　general　wealth。

　　　　Another　example　of　a　possession　which　is　wealth　to　the　person

holding　it；　but　not　wealth　to　the　nation；　or　to　mankind；　is

slaves。　It　is　by　a　strange　confusion　of　ideas　that　slave　property

（as　it　is　termed）　is　counted；　at　so　much　per　head；　in　an　estimate

of　the　wealth；　or　of　the　capital；　of　the　country　which　tolerates

the　existence　of　such　property。　If　a　human　being；　considered　as

an　object　possessing　productive　powers；　is　part　of　the　national

wealth　when　his　powers　are　owned　by　another　man；　he　cannot　be

less　a　part　of　it　when　they　are　owned　by　himself。　Whatever　he　is

worth　to　his　master　is　so　much　property　abstracted　from　himself；

and　its　abstraction　cannot　augment　the　possessions　of　the　two

together；　or　of　the　country　to　which　they　both　belong。　In

propriety　of　classification；　however；　the　people　of　a　country　are

not　to　be　counted　in　its　wealth。　They　are　that　for　the　sake　of

which　its　wealth　exists。　The　term　wealth　is　wanted　to　denote　the

desirable　objects　which　they　possess；　not　inclusive　of；　but　in

contradistinction　to；　their　own　persons。　They　are　not　wealth　to

themselves；　though　they　are　means　of　acquiring　it。

　　　　It　has　been　proposed　to　define　wealth　as　signifying

〃instruments：〃　meaning　not　tools　and　machinery　alone；　but　the

whole　accumulation　possessed　by　individuals　or　communities；　of

means　for　the　attainment　of　their　ends。　Thus；　a　field　is　an

instrument；　because　it　is　a　means　to　the　attainment　of　corn。　Corn

is　an　instrument；　being　a　means　to　the　attainment　of　flour。　Flour

is　an　instrument；　being　a　means　to　the　attainment　of　bread。　Bread

is　an　instrument；　as　a　means　to　the　satisfaction　of　hunger　and　to

the　support　of　life。　Here　we　at　last　arrive　at　things　which　are

not　instruments；　being　desired　on　their　own　account；　and　not　as

mere　means　to　something　beyond。　This　view　of　the　subject　is

philosophically　correct；　or　rather；　this　mode　of　expression　may

be　usefully　employed　along　with　others；　not　as　conveying　a

different　view　of　the　subject　from　the　common　one；　but　as　giving

more　distinctness　and　reality　to　the　common　view。　It　departs；

however；　too　widely　from　the　custom　of　language；　to　be　likely　to

obtain　general　acceptance；　or　to　be　of　use　for　any　other　purpose

than　that　of　occasional　illustration。

　　　　Wealth；　then；　may　be　defined；　all　useful　or　agreeable　things

which　possess　exchangeable　value；　or；　in　other　words；　all　useful

or　agreeable　things　except　those　which　can　be　obtained；　in　the

quantity　desired；　without　labour　or　sacrifice。　To　this

definition；　the　only　objection　seems　to　be；　that　it　leaves　in

uncertainty　a　question　which　has　been　much　debated　　whether

what　are　called　immaterial　products　are　to　be　considered　as

wealth：　whether；　for　example；　the　skill　of　a　workman；　or　any

other　natural　or　acquired　power　of　body　or　mind；　shall　be　called

wealth；　or　not：　a　question；　not　of　very　great　importance；　and

which；　so　far　as　requiring　discussion；　will　be　more　conveniently

considered　in　another　place。

　　　　These　things　having　been　premised　respecting　wealth；　we　shall

next　turn　our　attention　to　the　extraordinary　differences　in

respect　to　it；　which　exist　between　nation　and　nation；　and　between

different　ages　of　the　world；　differences　both　in　the　quantity　of

wealth；　and　in　the　kind　of　it；　as　well　as　in　the　manner　in　which

the　wealth　existing　in　the　community　is　shared　among　its　members。

　　　　There　is　perhaps；　no　people　or　community；　now　existing；　which

subsists　entirely　on　the　spontaneous　produce　of　vegetation。　But

many　tribes　still　live　exclusively；　or　almost　exclusively；　on

wild　animals；　the　produce　of　hunting　or　fishing。　Their　clothing

is　skins；　their　habitations；　huts　rudely　formed　of　logs　or　boughs

of　trees；　and　abandoned　at　an　hour's　notice。　The　food　they　use

being　little　susceptible　of　storing　up；　they　have　no　accumulation

of　it；　and　are　often　exposed　to　great　privations。　The　wealth　of

such　a　community　consists　solely　of　the　skins　they　wear；　a　few

ornaments；　the　taste　for　which　exists　among　most　savages；　some

rude　utensils；　the　weapons　with　which　they　kill　their　game；　or

fight　against　hostile　competitors　for　the　means　of　subsistence；

canoes　for　crossing　rivers　and　lakes；　or　fishing　in　the　sea；　and

perhaps　some　furs　or　other　productions　of　the　wilderness；

collected　to　be　exchanged　with　civilized　people　for　blankets；

brandy；　and　tobacco；　of　which　foreign　produce　also　there　may　be

some　unconsumed　portion　in　store。　To　this　scanty　inventory　of

material　wealth；　ought　to　be　added　their　land；　an　instrument　of

production　of　which　they　make　slender　use；　compared　with　more

settled　communities；　but　which　is　still　the　source　of　their

subsistence；　and　which　has　a　marketable　value　if　there　be　any

agricultural　community　in　the　neighbourhood　requiring　more　land

than　it　possesses。　This　is　the　state　of　greatest　poverty　in　which

any　entire　community　of　human　beings　is　known　to　exist；　though

there　are　much　richer　communities　in　which　portions　of　the

inhabitants　are　in　a　condition；　as　to　subsistence　and　comfort；　as

little　enviable　as　that　of　the　savage。

　　　　The　first　great　adv