11

NOMINAL PRICES

Do you desire to be in a situation to decide between liberty and protection? Do you desire to appreciate the impact of an economic phenomenon? Inquire into its effects upon the abundance or scarcity of commodities, and not upon the rise or fall of prices. Distrust nominal prices; they will only land you in an inextricable labyrinth.

Mr. Matthieu de Dombasle, after having shown that Protection raises prices, adds:

12

DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES?

Let us inquire whether injustice is not done you by fixing legislatively the people from whom you are to purchase the things you have need of—bread, meat, linens, or cloth; and in dictating, if I may say so, the artificial scale of prices which you are to adopt in your dealings.

Is it true that protection, which admittedly makes you pay dearer for everything, and entails a loss upon you in this respect, raises proportionately your wages?

On what does the rate of wages depend?

13

THEORY—PRACTICE

As advocates of Free Trade, we are accused of being theorists, and of not taking practice sufficiently into account. “What fearful prejudices were entertained against Mr. Say,” says Mr. Ferrier,1

14

CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES

There is one thing that confounds me; and it is this: Sincere publicists, studying the economy of society from the producer’s point of view, have laid down this double formula:

“Governments should order the interests of consumers who are subject to their laws, in such a way as to be favorable to national industry.”

“They should bring distant consumers under subjection to their laws, for the purpose of ordering their interests in a way favorable to national industry.”

15

RECIPROCITY AGAIN

Mr. De Saint-Cricq inquires: “Whether it is certain that the foreigner will buy from us as much as he sells?”

Mr. de Dombasle asks: “What reason we have to believe that English producers will take from us, rather than from some other country of the world, the commodities they have need of, and an amount of commodities equivalent in value to that of their exports to France?”

I wonder how so many men who call themselves practical men should have all reasoned without reference to practice!

16

17

A NEGATIVE RAILWAY

I have said that when, unfortunately, one has regard to the interest of the producer, and not to that of the consumer, it is impossible to avoid running counter to the general interest because the demand of the producer, as such, is only for efforts, wants, and obstacles.

I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeaux newspaper.

Mr. Simiot proposes this question:

Should the proposed railway from Paris to Madrid offer a break of continuity at Bordeaux?

18

THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES

We cannot wonder enough at the facility with which men resign themselves to continue ignorant of what it is most important that they should know; and we may be certain that such ignorance is incorrigible in those who venture to proclaim this axiom: There are no absolute principles.

You enter the legislative precincts. The subject of debate is whether the law should prohibit international exchanges, or proclaim freedom.

A deputy rises, and says:

19

NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

Among the arguments we hear adduced in favor of the restrictive regime we must not forget that which is founded on national independence.

“What should we do in case of war,” it is said, “if we are placed at the mercy of England for iron and coal?”

English monopolists do not fail to cry out in their turn:

“What would become of Great Britain in case of war if she is dependent on France for provisions?”

20

HUMAN LABOR—NATIONAL LABOR

Machine-breaking and the prohibition of foreign commodities—are two acts founded on the same doctrine.

We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is introduced, and who nevertheless adhere to the protectionist system. Such men are grossly inconsistent!