Economic Sophisms

The protectionists proceed, if not intentionally then at least logically, on this premise original: "datum": a nation is rich when it is in want of everything.

For they say: we must favor the producer by securing him a good market for his product. For this purpose, it is necessary to raise the price, and in order to raise the price, we must restrict the supply; and to restrict the supply is to create scarcity.

Let us just suppose that at the present moment, while all these laws are in full force, we take a complete inventory—not in value, but in weight, measure, volume, and quantity—of all the commodities existing in the country that are suited to satisfy the needs original: "wants" and tastes of its inhabitants: grain original: "corn", meat, cloth, fuel, colonial products, and so on.

Suppose, again, that the next day all the barriers that prevent the introduction of foreign products are removed.

Finally, suppose that in order to test the result of this reform, a new inventory is taken three months later.

Is it not true that there will be found in France more grain, cattle, cloth, linen, iron, coal, sugar, and so on, at the time of the second inventory than at the time of the first?

This is so true that our protective tariffs have no other purpose than to hinder all these things from reaching us, to restrict the supply, and to prevent price drops original: "depreciation" and abundance.

Now I would ask: Are the people who live under our laws better fed because there is less bread, meat, and sugar in the country? Are they better clothed because there is less cloth and linen? Better warmed because there is less coal? Better assisted in their labor because there are fewer tools and less iron, copper, and machinery?

But it may be said: "If the foreigner floods original: "inundates" us with his products, he will take away our money."

And what does that matter? People do not eat money. They do not clothe themselves with gold or warm themselves with silver. What does it matter whether there is more or less money in the country, if there is more bread on our sideboards,

---

that of dearness (cheapness). It is quite remarkable that the common instinct expresses the idea with this phrase original: "periphrase": advantageous market original: "marché avantageux" or good bargain/cheap original: "bon marché". The protectionists would do well to change this wording original: "locution", for it implies an economic system opposed to their own.