Ricardo,according to M.Say,repeats and affirms it.'M.Say has proved in the most satisfactory manner,'says he,that there is no capital,however large,that cannot be employed,because the demand for produce is only bounded by production.'No person produces but with the intention of consuming or selling the article he produces,and no one sells but with the intention of buying some other production,which may be of immediate use,or contribute to future production.
"The producer becomes therefore consumer of his produce,or buyer and consumer of the produce of some other person."Upon this principle,"continues M.de Sismondi,"it becomes absolutely impossible to comprehend or explain the best demonstrated fact in all the history of commerce,viz.the choaking up the markets."(2)I shall first of all observe,to those persons to whom the facts about which M.de Sismondi afflicts himself with some reason,appear conclusive,that they are in effect conclusive;but that conclusion is against himself.
There are too many English goods offered in Italy and elsewhere,because there are not a sufficient quantity of Italian goods suited to England.
A country buys only what it can pay for;for if it did not pay,others would soon cease to sell to it.Now with what do the Italians pay the English?
With oil,silks,and raisins;besides these articles and a few others,if they want more English productions,with what would they pay for them?
With money!But they must obtain the money wherewith to pay for the English productions.You see clearly,Sir,that in order to obtain productions,a nation,as well as an individual,must have recourse to its own productions.
It is said that the English sell at a loss in those places which they inundate with their goods,which I readily believe.They multiply the goods offered,which depreciates it;and they take specie in payment as much as they can,which consequently makes more scarce and more valuable.--Being become more precious,a less quantity is given in each exchange.
This is the reason they are obliged to sell at a loss.But suppose for a moment,that the Italians had more capital --that they employed their land and their industrious powers better --in a word,that they produced more;and suppose,at the same time,that the English laws,instead of having been framed upon the absurd idea of the balance pf commerce,had admitted,on moderate terms,every thing that the Italians could have produced,in payment for English productions;can you imagine that English goods would then incumber the Italian ports,or doubt that a still greater quantity of goods would find a ready sale?
The Brazils,a vast country,highly favored by nature,could consume a hundred times the English goods which accumulate there,and don't sell;but it would be necessary that Brazil should produce all that it is capable of producing;and how is this poor Brazil to succeed in this?All the efforts of her citizens are paralised by her Administration.If any branch of industry appears likely to yield a profit,the executive power seizes and destroys it.If any one finds a precious stone,it is taken away from him.Great encouragement to seek for more wherewith to buy European goods!!
The English Government rejects,on its part,by means of its Custom Houses and Importation Duties,the production which the English might bring from abroad,in exchange for their goods,and even the necessary provisions ,of which their manufacturers stand so much in need;and this because it is necessary that the English farmers should sell their wheat at above eighty shillings per quarter,in order to enable them to pay the enormous taxes.All these nations complain of the sufferings to which they have reduced themselves by their own fault.This puts me in mind of invalids who are out of temper with their sufferings,but who will not correct themselves of those excesses which are the primary cause of them.I know that an oak is not so easily grubbed up as a pernicious weed.
I know that old barriers are not taken away,however rotten they may be,when they are supported by the dirt which has collected around them.Iknow that certain corrupt and corrupting governments stand in need of monopolies and custom-duties,to pay for the vote of the honorable majorities who pretend to be the representatives of nations.I am not sufficiently unjust to desire that one should govern with a view to the general interest,in order to obtain all the votes without paying for them;but at the same time,why should I be surprised that deplorable consequences should be the result of so many vicious systems?
You will readily admit with me,Sir,at least I presume so,the mischief which nations do to each other by their jealousies,their sordid interest,or by the ignorance of those who set themselves up as their organisers;but you maintain that,even supposing they have had more liberal institutions,the commodities produced may exceed the wants of consumers.Well,Sir,I am ready to defend myself on this ground.
Let us pass over the war which nations carry on against each other with their "douaniers ,"let us consider each people in their relations with themselves,and let us understand,once for all,whether we are beyond the reach of consuming what we are capable of producing.
