Chapter 12 Chapter 11 Land Rent

Land rent is the highest price paid by the renter to the landlord according to the actual situation of the land.When the landlord rents out the land, he must provide the renter with seeds, and also purchase and maintain livestock and other agricultural tools.Therefore, when the landlord formulates the lease, he will try to make the lessee obtain the amount of land products, which must not only be sufficient to compensate the agricultural capital he has advanced in advance, but also provide the ordinary profits of the local agricultural capital.This amount is obviously the smallest share acceptable to the tenant, because he will not be willing to lose money, and the landlord will never leave him a little more profit.Even if the portion of the produce distributed to the tenants should exceed this amount (or the price that can be obtained above this amount), the excess will naturally be managed by the landlord to appropriate for himself in the form of ground rent.Therefore, land rent is the highest price paid by the renter to the landlord according to the condition of the land.

Sometimes, of course, the landlord may accept a rent a little less than this amount from leniency or ignorance (which is common), and a rent slightly above this amount from the same ignorance (which is less common), That is, they are willing to accept capital profits that are slightly lower than the ordinary profits of local agricultural capital.This amount of rent may still be regarded as the natural rent due to the greater part of the leased land. Rent may appear to some to be just profit or interest to the landlord, since he has invested capital in the improvement of the land.To a certain extent this is undoubtedly true, but to a great extent it is not.The so-called interest or profit on the stock of improved land is generally only an addition to the rent of land.Because, even if the landlord does not improve the land, he will still collect land rent; moreover, the landlord may not always contribute to the improvement of the land, but sometimes it is the renter who contributes to the improvement of the land.But the landlord, when renewing the lease with the tenant, often demands an increase in the rent, as if he had paid for the improvement of the land; and sometimes he even demands rent from the tenant for natural things which cannot be improved by human power at all.In several places in Great Britain, for example, (notably Scotland) grows a sea-weed called kelp, which, when burned, turns into an alkali-salt, and is a good material for making glass and soap, among other things.It grows on rocks that are submerged by the high tide of the sea twice a day.Therefore, even if its output has increased, it is definitely not the result of human efforts.But all the land on the coast where this sea-weed grows is, like the fields, subject to rent by the landlord.

The vicinity of the Shetland Islands is rich in fish, and a large part of the food of the local residents is fish.Residents must live near the sea if they want to profit from aquatic products.The rent they pay to the landlords of these zones, therefore, is in proportion to the profit they derive from them.This ratio is different from the ratio of farmers' benefits from the land.The land rent in the offshore area is paid in fish.It is indeed very rare, however, that the price of fish should include an element of ground-rent.Here we see an example. From this point of view, the price of this kind of land rent paid for the use of land is obviously monopolized.Here the landlord pays very little for the improvement of the land, yet he receives a rent which is quite disproportionate to this expense.The rent of land near the sea, therefore, is not in proportion to what the landlord can collect, but to what the tenant can pay.

Only the produce of such land can be frequently sold in the market at the ordinary price, sufficient to replace the capital advanced for its listing, and to furnish the ordinary profit.If, after the sale of these produce at the ordinary price, the proceeds not only replace the advanced capital and provide the ordinary profit, but also have a surplus, the surplus will naturally be paid to the landlord in the form of rent; Even if it is sold in the market, it cannot provide land rent to the landlord.The determining factor in these situations is market demand.Under the influence of market demand, some produce of the land will sell for more than its original cost, and it will always afford rent to the landlord; but some of the produce of the land will sell for less than or equal to its original cost, so that It cannot always provide rent to the landlord.

Rent, therefore, differs from wages and profit in the manner in which it forms a part of the price of commodities.We should pay attention to this point.Because wages and profits determine the level of prices, while ground rent is determined by prices.The level of wages and profits when a commodity comes to market determines the price of the commodity; the level of land rent is determined by the price of this commodity, that is to say, the difference between the price of this commodity and the capital required to pay wages and profits, Determine the level of land rent. This chapter is divided into three sections.In these three sections, I will specifically discuss the following three issues respectively.The first, the produce of land which always affords rent; the second, the produce of land which from time to time affords rent; and the third, the changes in the relative values ​​which naturally arise between these two produce of land (or their manufactures) at different stages of improvement.

Man, like other animals, proliferates in proportion to his means of subsistence, so that he always needs more or less food.Food, at any time, can buy or command a greater or lesser quantity of labour, so that there can always be found persons willing to work for it.Of course, if labor wages are relatively high, the result may be that the amount of labor that can be purchased for food may not be equal to the amount of labor that can be purchased with the minimum wage.However, the food that can buy and maintain a certain amount of labor can always satisfy the life of ordinary laborers in the neighbourhood.

Almost any land will produce enough labor to sustain it to market, and a part surplus.This surplus is not only sufficient to compensate the capital and profits advanced by the farmer for employing labor, but also provides land rent to the landlord. There is a kind of grass which grows in the desolate wilderness of Norway and Scotland, which can be used to raise livestock, and the milk obtained and the breeding livestock are not only enough for all the labor required to maintain the livestock, but also a part of the ordinary profit can be paid to the herdsman or to the owner of the herd. people, with a small surplus to pay as ground rent.Of course, when the condition of the pasture becomes better and better, the rent of the pasture will also increase accordingly.

The same area of ​​good land will support more cattle than that of bad land, and will enable them to be gathered in a smaller area, thereby reducing the labor of feeding and harvesting.In this way, not only the cost of maintenance would be reduced, but the quantity of produce would be increased, and the landlord would benefit from both. Regardless of the quantity of the land's products, as long as the land is different, the rent will be different; moreover, whether the land is fertile or not, the rent will be different because of the position of the land.Land of the same degree of fertility yields a higher rent in the vicinity of a city than in a remote country.In fact, the same amount of labor is required in the cultivation of the land as in the former, but as the produce of remote places requires a greater reduce.However, as I have said before, the profit margins in remote places are generally higher than those near urban areas.Of the remainder of this reduction, therefore, only an insignificant part belongs to the landlord.

With the advent of good roads, canals, or navigable rivers, transportation costs were also reduced.In this way, the market in remote places and near the city will be close to the same level.Traffic improvements, therefore, are the most effective of all improvements.Remote areas must occupy the largest area in the countryside. If the transportation in this vast area is convenient, it can promote local development and at the same time destroy the monopoly of rural areas near cities, so it is beneficial to cities and even to rural areas near cities. .Because, after the transportation is improved, not only can some competing commodities be transported to the old market, but also the agricultural products near the city can be promoted to open up many new markets.

Monopoly is the most taboo for good business management, which can only be established by free and general competition.Driven by freedom and general competition, everyone employs good business practices for self-defense. About fifty years ago, some states and counties in the suburbs of London petitioned Parliament to express their opposition to the extension of toll roads to remote states and counties.The reason being, that the hay and corn of the outlying counties, produced by cheap labour, would then be brought to the London market, and sold at a lower price than the neighboring counties, thereby causing a fall in rent in the neighboring counties of London, And eventually lead to the decline of their farming career.But the fact is just the opposite.Since then, instead of falling, their land rent has increased, and their cultivation has improved.

A field of moderate fertility produces much more food than a good pasture.Though the cultivation of a field requires a much greater quantity of labor, still a much greater quantity of food remains after deducting the maintenance of the seed and all the labour.Hence, when it is considered that the value of the former has always been less than or equal to the value of the same pound of meat and bread, the above-mentioned greater surplus is everywhere of greater value, and furnishes a greater Capital gains and land rent.This situation seems to be very common in the early stages of agricultural development. But the relative value of these two foodstuffs, bread and livestock meat, has been very different in different periods of agricultural development.In the early days of agricultural development, most of the land in the country was not developed and was mainly used to raise livestock, so there was more livestock meat than bread.As a result, food such as bread will become the object of competition because the supply exceeds the demand, so its price will be higher. According to Ulloa, in the capital of Argentina 40 or 50 years ago, the price of a cow was generally four reals (21 and a half pence in British currency), and it could be bought in a cow with 200 or 300 head of cattle. Randomly selected from the group.Uloa also said that the price of that cow was almost equal to the amount of labor it took to capture it.However, Uloa did not mention the price of bread, probably because there is nothing to say about the price of bread. In fact, the amount of labor involved in the cultivation of corn is everywhere great.Moreover, Argentina was located on the Plata River, which was able to lead directly from Europe to the Potosi silver mine at that time, so its labor price could not be much lower.It's a different story, though, if most of the country is used as arable land.At this time, the output of bread will be more than that of livestock meat, and the object of people's competition will also become livestock meat, making the price of livestock meat higher than the price of bread. In addition, with the expansion of cultivated land, there is less and less uncultivated wilderness, so that the supply of domestic animal meat exceeds the demand.As a result, much arable land must be used to raise livestock.Therefore, the price of livestock must be sufficient to pay the rent and capital profit that can be collected when the land is cultivated, in addition to the labor required to maintain it.But cattle raised on wild and improved land, after being sorted according to quality and weight, sell equal cattle for the same price.The landlord of the heath, therefore, takes the opportunity to increase his rent in proportion to the price of his cattle.Thus, less than a century ago, in many parts of the Highlands of Scotland, the price of butcher's meat was equal to, or even less than, that of oat bread.Since the unification of England and Scotland, the livestock market in the Scottish Highlands has gradually expanded to England.In the Highlands of Scotland the common price of butcher-meat is now three times higher, and the rent three or four times higher, than it was at the beginning of this century.At present, in all parts of Great Britain, a pound of the best meat is generally worth about two pounds or more of the best white bread, and in good times even about three or four pounds of the best white bread. The rent and profit of unimproved pastures, therefore, are in a certain degree conditioned by those of improved pastures, as the improvement progresses; and by those of improved pastures.Moreover, grain can be harvested every year, but livestock can only be harvested every four or five years.Therefore, on the same acre of land, the yield of livestock meat is much less than that of corn.The higher price of butcher's meat, therefore, is only a compensation for the lower yield.If the price exceeds this limit, more fields will be converted to pastures; and if the price does not reach this limit, a part of the pastures will necessarily be converted to fields.We must observe, however, that only in countries where the greater part of the land has been improved can the rent and profit of pasture be equal to that of corn; The rent and profit of the land will be equal to the rent and profit of the land that produces human food. It is quite different, however, in some places, where the rent and profit of pastures are much higher than those of cultivated land.For example, the increased demand for milk and fodder in the vicinity of great cities, and the high price of cattle meat, have led to an increase in the price of pasture beyond its natural proportion to that of corn.And this kind of local interest will obviously not extend to remote areas. The population of some countries may sometimes become so densely populated by special circumstances that all the land in the country cannot produce pasture and corn to satisfy the needs of its inhabitants.At this time, the country will use most of its land to produce those large and difficult to transport pastures, and buy from abroad the grain for the people to eat.This is the situation in the Netherlands right now. In the prosperous era of ancient Rome, most of the land in ancient Italy was used to produce pasture.According to Cicero: "Old Cato once said that for a person who manages private land, if he is good at breeding, then his profits and benefits are the most; The second place; and if he is not good at breeding, his income can only take the third place; the profits and benefits obtained from farming take the fourth place.” In ancient Rome, grain was often distributed to the people at no or very low cost.This practice affected its neighboring ancient Italy, which greatly hindered the cultivation of ancient Italy.Most of this grain came from provinces conquered by ancient Rome.These conquered provinces were obliged, if not taxed, to sell to the Roman Republic a tenth of all their produce at the legal price of sixpence a peck.The Roman Republic received these grains and distributed them to the people at low prices, thereby reducing the price of grains in the old Roman territories and hindering the cultivation of grains in neighboring ancient Italy. Moreover, in open places where corn is chiefly cultivated, the rent of enclosed meadows is often higher than that of the adjacent fields.The rent of enclosed meadows is so high, not so much from the higher value of the produce of the meadows, as from the fact that enclosures facilitate the rearing and plowing of animals, and thereby produce the value of the produce of the field.This high rent would soon be reduced if the neighboring lands were enclosed.Now, it seems that rents are so high in Scotland only because there are so few enclosures.Once the enclosed land increases, its land rent will probably also fall.It is more profitable to enclosure the land for cattle than to cultivate it.Because, not only does this reduce the amount of labor required to watch the animals, but it also allows the animals to eat better without being disturbed by guardians or guard dogs. And where there is no such local interest, the rent and profit of land suitable for the cultivation of corn, or other general vegetable food, naturally determine the general rent and profit of that land. On the same area of ​​land, if you only rely on natural pasture to raise livestock, you can only raise a few livestock; but if you use kohlrabi, carrots, cabbage and other artificial pastures, or other methods, you can raise many livestock. Thus slightly lowering the price of livestock meat above the price of bread in advanced countries.In fact, this practice does lower the price of livestock meat.It is at least true, I believe, that the relative price of cattle meat to bread is now much lower in the London market than it was at the beginning of the last century. In the appendix of "The Biography of Prince Henry" written by Dr. Burch, the price of the prince's daily purchase of livestock meat is described in detail.At that time, a cow weighing 600 pounds could generally be bought for only nine pounds and ten shillings (that is, thirty-one shillings and eight pence for every hundred pounds). (Prince Henry died on November 6, 1612, at the age of nineteen). Food was expensive in March 1764.At that time, Congress investigated the reasons for this phenomenon and collected many evidences, including the testimony of a Virginia businessman.The merchant said that in March 1763 he bought beef at the ordinary price of twenty-four to twenty-five shillings per hundred pounds; It cost twenty-seven shillings to buy beef of the same quality and quantity.But this high price in 1764 was four shillings and eightpence less than the daily price paid by Prince Henry.Besides, the merchant bought the beef for the voyage, so it must be the best beef.Prince Henry pays an average of three and four-fifths pence per pound for his daily beef purchases.According to this calculation, the retail price of the best meat was at least four and a halfpence or fivepence a pound at that time. The result of the parliamentary investigation in 1764 was that the retail price of the best beef at that time was four to four and a quarter pennies per pound; or two and three quarters pennies a pound.Witnesses said such prices were generally around half a penny above the normal market price in March.But even that high price seemed cheap compared to the usual retail price in Prince Henry's day. In the Windsor market during the first twelve years of the last century, the average price of the best wheat was £1.18s.36pence a hunter, or nine Winchester bushels.During the twelve years preceding and including 1764, however, the average price of the best wheat in the same market was two pounds a shilling nine and a halfpence a hunter.Therefore, in the first twelve years of the last century, the price of wheat was much lower than it was in the twelve years before and including 1764; and the price of livestock meat was much lower. Much higher than its selling price in the twelve years before 1764 (including 1764). No matter which big country it is, most of its arable land will be used to produce food for people or livestock, and its land rent and profits determine the rent and profits of other arable land.As soon as a piece of land has been employed in the production of some particular produce, it yields less rent and profit than said profit, it is immediately converted into field or pasture; and if it yields less rent and profit than If the above profits are greater, it will not be long before a part of the field or pasture is converted to that particular produce. To make the land more fit for that particular produce, it will be necessary to improve or cultivate it, at an initial expense perhaps greater than that expended on the field or pasture.In general, however, a greater expense of improvement would furnish a greater rent, and a greater expense of cultivation would furnish a greater profit on stock, and thus justly compensate the interest or remuneration of the greater expense.Land with hops, fruit trees, and vegetables is generally more capable of yielding rent and profit of stock than field or meadow.But to make the land suitable for such crops as hops would require greater cost of improvement, and more careful and ingenious cultivation, a greater rent should be paid to the landlord, and a greater sum should be paid to the farmer. Big capital gains. Furthermore, since harvests of these crops (especially hops and fruit) are quite erratic, their prices must also provide something like an insurance profit to cover all unexpected losses.From the circumstances of the planters, I am sure that they are seldom well paid for their skills.Today, many wealthy people regard planting as a self-entertaining pastime, planting all kinds of precious flowers and trees, when they should be the best customers of professional growers.Therefore, those who make a living by planting will not get much benefit. When the land is improved, the benefit to the landlord seems to be only sufficient to replace the expense.In ancient times, besides the cultivation of the vineyard, the only easily watered vegetable garden on the farm seems to have provided the most valuable produce.Two thousand years ago, Democritus, known as the "father of agricultural technology" by the ancients, specifically discussed this.Democritus thinks that it is not cost-effective to surround a vegetable garden with a stone wall, because the profit of the vegetable garden is not enough to repay the cost of the stone wall; The sun has dried it, but it has not been fired, so it is not suitable for wind and rain-to come to the wall, and it needs to be repaired after the bricks are damaged by wind and rain. Colummeler quotes Democritus without objection, and advocates the use of thorns and thistles for hedges.Colummeller says this thorn fence is a proven good fence that is both durable and difficult to invade.However, in the time of Democritus, this method of enclosure does not seem to have been known to the common people.It was Varro who first recommended Colummeller's opinion, and then Palladias also adopted it. From the opinion of these agricultural improvers of antiquity, it seems that the value of the produce of a vegetable garden is only slightly greater than the cost of special cultivation and watering.Hitherto, those countries which are nearer to the sun have thought it necessary to have a source of water in order to keep the garden full of water.In Europe today, gardens are still fenced in most areas.In Great Britain, and some other northern countries, the means of enclosure are necessary to obtain good fruit.Therefore, the cost of building and maintaining its walls is indispensable, and this requires that the price of these good fruits must be sufficient to cover these costs.If fruit trees are used to enclose a vegetable garden which cannot be compensated by its produce for the construction and maintenance of the wall, it will also give the vegetable garden the benefit of enclosing it. The most valuable part of the farm is the well-planted and well-cultivated vineyards.This agricultural truth seems to have been universally recognized in all wine-producing countries, ancient and modern.And according to Colummeler, in ancient Italy, various farmers debated over the merits of planting new vineyards.Colommeler strongly favored the planting of new vineyards.There is also a lover of exotic plants, who is as enthusiastic as Colummeler in favor of planting new vineyards.They tried to prove that the benefits of planting new vineyards were the greatest by comparing the cost of cultivation with the profits obtained. In such new industries, however, especially in agriculture, the comparison of profits and expenses is generally very unreliable.If this cultivation could have achieved as much profit as Colummeler imagines, then the debate on this issue would not arise here.To this day, it remains a hotly debated issue in wine-producing countries.In these countries the lovers and advocates of higher cultivation, such as the agricultural writers, are as strongly in favor of the planting of new vineyards as Colummeler.But the owners of old vineyards in France are eager to prevent new ones from being planted.From this it appears that the writers were right, for even experienced owners of old vineyards find it more profitable to grow vines than other plants. On the other hand, however, the superior profitability of the vineyards seems unsustainable without the shelter of laws restricting the freedom to grow the vine. In 1731, the King issued a decree to the owners of the old vineyards.This decree stipulates that all owners of old vineyards are not allowed to plant new vineyards, nor to replant vineyards that have been idle for at least two years, unless they have the king's dispensation.If you want to get this kind of license from the king, you have to ask the governor to check and prove that the land is only suitable for growing grapes. It is said that the situation at that time was that there was a shortage of grain and pasture, but there was a surplus of wine, so this edict was issued.If, however, it were true that there was a surplus of wine, the profit of the cultivation of the vine would consequently fall below the natural proportion of the profit of the pastures and fields, so that the planting of new vineyards would be permitted even if the above-mentioned decree had not been issued. Effectively prevent.It is even more unfounded to say that the corn was scarce because of the increase of the vineyards.Because, as we know, in those grape-growing regions in France that are suitable for growing grains, such as Bergentes, Guyen and Haut-Languedoc, the cultivation of grains is very careful. If one kind of cultivation requires many labourers, the other must therefore find a good market and be encouraged.Reducing the number of people who buy wine is certainly an effective way of rewarding the grain farming enterprise.This is simply promoting agriculture by deterring manufacturing.Therefore, for some crops that need to spend a lot of land improvement fees to grow, or crops that have a large annual cultivation cost, even if their land rent and profits greatly exceed those of grain or pasture, and other crops If the excess is only sufficient to compensate its high expense, its rent and profit are still subject to those of the common crops. Of course, due to the lack of land suitable for growing a particular crop, sometimes the supply exceeds the demand.Now whoever wants to acquire those produce can buy them at a slightly higher price than the general price.This slightly higher price would slightly exceed all the rent, wages, and profits which must be paid for those produce in its passage from production to market.These rents, wages, and profits are calculated according to the natural rates of rent, wages, and profits, or those of the greater part of cultivated land.It is only in this high price that the remainder after deducting the expenses of improvement and cultivation can be out of the normal proportion to the like remainder of corn or pasture, and can exceed it at will.Naturally, most of this excess had to go to the landlords. One thing we must know, is that only in the vineyards where common wine is produced, there is the ordinary and natural proportion of the rent and profit of wine to that of corn or pasture.The soil of this kind of vineyard is either soft, or contains gravel or sand, and the wine produced can only be praised for its concentration and hygiene.The ordinary land in France is generally similar to this ordinary vineyard, and obviously cannot be compared with those vineyards of special quality. Grape vines are the most susceptible of all fruit trees to soil differences.It is said that a special delicacy from a special soil cannot be cultivated on another soil by artificial means.Sometimes, only a few vineyards produce this delicacy; other times, several vineyards can produce this delicacy; and sometimes, most of the vineyards in a small area can produce it out of this delicious.This wine, even if sold in its entirety, cannot meet the effective demand of the market.In other words, even if someone were willing to pay all the rents, wages, and profits that would have to be paid to produce and transport the wine, the demand would not be fully satisfied.Therefore, only those who are willing to pay a higher price can buy this wine.As a result, the price of this wine will inevitably be raised above the price of ordinary wine.What determines the difference between the two prices is the degree of competition among buyers which the popularity and rarity of the wine arouse.But whatever the difference was, most of it went to the landowners. In terms of cultivation, this kind of vineyards are generally more meticulous and cautious than other vineyards in order to pursue higher prices.Therefore, the higher price is actually the cause of careful cultivation, not the result of careful cultivation.In the process of producing this high-priced product, any neglect will cause great loss.So even the most careless person must pay attention when giving birth.The wages of labour, and the profits of stock, which must be paid for the production of this high price, need only cost a small part of this high price. Comparable to this high price of vineyards are the vast sugar-cane fields that European countries have opened up in the West Indies.Even if all the sugar cane in Europe were supplied to the market, it would not be able to meet the effective demand for it.So if people want to buy it, they have to pay more than the rent, wages and profit margins necessary to produce and transport it. From Pouvre, who is familiar with the farming affairs of Cochin China, we learned the price of the finest refined white sugar in Cochin China.The usual price of this refined white sugar was three piastres (thirteen shillings and sixpence) per kuntal.The "Quinter" mentioned here is equivalent to 150 to 200 pounds in Paris, and we take an average of 175 pounds.A hundred pounds of refined white sugar is worth about eight shillings, in the English measure.This price is not one-fourth of the price of brown or coarse sugar commonly imported from our colonies, nor one-sixth of that of the best refined white sugar. Most of the agricultural land in Cochin China is used to produce rice and wheat for the consumption of most of the people.There the prices of rice, wheat, and sugar have, perhaps, such proportions as are naturally formed among the various crops of the greater part of farmland.This natural proportion renders the remuneration of each landowner and farmer as calculated, as far as possible, according to the usual cost of original improvements, and the annual cost of cultivation.But no such proportion occurs between the price of sugar in the English colonies and that of the produce of the rice and wheat fields of Europe and America.It is said that under normal circumstances, sugarcane growers hope to pay all the cultivation expenses with rum and molasses, and use all sucrose as pure profit.I dare not venture to be sure that this statement is true.Because, if this is the case, it is equivalent to saying that "the grain cultivator hopes to pay his cultivation expenses with chaff and artemisia, and use the whole grain as pure profit", and this situation is generally impossible. In London and other cities, merchants collectively bought the wasteland of the British colonies for profit, and entrusted agents or agents to improve and cultivate them.This phenomenon is quite common.Although these wastelands are very far apart, and there is no sound judicial administration in the local area to ensure that they can obtain a certain income, they still refuse to look back.On the contrary, in Scotland, Ireland, or the corn-countries of North America, although there are the most fertile lands, and a perfect administration of justice, which secure a more stable income, no one wants to improve and cultivate them in this way. Because Virginia and Maryland in North America are more suitable for growing tobacco, the locals prefer to grow tobacco rather than grain.In Europe, most regions can benefit from growing tobacco, and almost all of Europe's main tax objects are tobacco.However, if tobacco is grown at home, the tax will be higher than the duty on imported tobacco.As a result, an unreasonable order was issued in most places to prohibit private cultivation of tobacco.As a result, the tobacco industry was monopolized where tobacco was allowed to be grown.Because Virginia and Maryland produced the most tobacco, they enjoyed most of the benefits of monopoly even with fierce competition.However, the cultivation of tobacco does not seem to be as beneficial as the cultivation of sugar cane.I have never heard of a merchant in Great Britain who would invest his capital in improving and cultivating tobacco; nor did the riches from the cultivation of tobacco in the colonies come so often as from the production of sugar in the Cane Isles. The inhabitants of the colonies were more willing to grow tobacco than to grow corn.Judging from this fact, it appears that the effective demand for tobacco in Europe is not fully met.However, the supply of tobacco may be closer to the effective demand than the supply of sugar. The present price of tobacco may exceed all the rents, wages and profits that must be paid for its production and market.But its excess must be much smaller than the present excess of the price of sugar.So tobacco growers in the British colonies were as afraid of overproduction as were the owners of old vineyards in France.Therefore, the Parliament issued a decree restricting black slaves between the ages of 16 and 60 to cultivate 6,000 tobacco plants per person.Because, they think, six thousand tobacco plants can grow a thousand pounds of tobacco.In addition to cultivating these 6,000 tobacco plants, each black slave can also cultivate four acres of corn land.Dr. Douglas says that, in times of abundance, Parliament sometimes burns some of the tobacco produced by the slaves, as the Dutch burn their own spices, to prevent an oversupply of tobacco.I think these words of the doctor may not be credible.If such drastic measures are required to maintain the present price of tobacco, the advantage of growing tobacco over corn, if it exists now, will disappear in the near future. It can be seen from the above situation that the land rent of cultivated land for food production determines the land rent of most other cultivated land.If any piece of land affords a lower rent than that of the greater part of cultivated land, from the production of some particular produce, this low price will never last long, for that piece of land will soon be put to another use.当一种特殊产物提供的地租高于大部分耕地地租时，一定是因为适合生产这种产物的土地少得供不应求。 五谷是欧洲可以直接作为人类粮食的土地生产物。因此，欧洲田地的地租决定了其他耕地的地租，只有一些占据特殊位置的生产物能例外。所以，无论是法国的葡萄还是意大利的橄榄，如果它们没有占据特殊的位置，其价值就都得由谷物的价值确定。由于英国有适合谷物生长的肥沃土地，所以也不必为葡萄和橄榄而羡慕这两国。 如果所有国家的国民普遍爱吃的植物性粮食都不是谷物，而是另外一种植物，而且这种植物能够在普通土地上来用和田地耕作几乎相同的耕作来生产，并且其产量远远多于最肥沃的田地所能生产的量，那么支付给地主的地租也必然要大得多。换言之，必然有更多的剩余食物能够补偿劳动工资及普通资本利润。无论该国的普通工资水平如何，这些剩余食物都能维持较大的劳动量。这么一来，地主就能购买或支配更多的劳动量，而地租的真实价值，即他支配由别人劳动提供的生活必需品和便利品的权利，也必然要大得多。 跟麦田相比，稻田能够产出更多的食物量。一般情况下，稻田一年可以收获两次，每亩每次收获三十到六十蒲式耳。耕种稻田，虽然一般都需要更多劳动力，但其产量在支付劳动工资之后，剩余的也更多。所以，在耕作者主要用米维持生活、人民的普通食物也是米的产米国家，地主就可以从中得到比产麦国地主所得还多的报酬。在卡洛林纳和其他英属殖民地，大多数耕作者都兼有农业家和地主双重身份，所以他们的地租与利润也会混淆。虽然当地的稻田是一年一收的，而且当地人也由于欧洲的普通习惯而不把米作为普通食物，但人们还是认为耕种稻田比耕种麦田有利。 一年四季都是沼泽地且有一季充满水的土地，才是良好的稻田。这种土地，既不适宜种麦和牧草，也不适宜种葡萄，仅适宜栽种的一种对人类有用的植物性食物就是水稻。反之，那些适宜栽种麦或牧草、葡萄的土地，也不适宜栽种水稻，即使把它们转为稻田也不合适。因此，在产米国中，稻田的地租不能规定其他耕地的地租。 马铃薯地的产量，跟稻田的产量差不多，而又远远大于麦田的产量。马铃薯的亩产即使达到了一万两千磅，也算不上优异；而小麦的亩产即便只有两千磅，也算是优异的了。当然，由于马铃薯含有大量水分，所以不能按照重量比例来计算从这两种植物中得到的固体滋养物的分量。但是，即使把马铃薯这一块根食物重量的一半作为水分扣除，一亩地的马铃薯所能得到的固体滋养物也仍然有六千磅，是一亩小麦所得的三倍。而且，一亩马铃薯地的耕作费用也要少于一亩麦田。单就耕种麦田来说，在播种前，通常需要用犁耙把土地理平整，光是这笔费用，就超过了栽种马铃薯的锄草费用和其他各种特殊费用。 所以，这种块根食物，如果将来能够像米成为产米国的普通食物一样，也成为欧洲某地人民的普通食物，那么同一面积的耕地必然能够养活更多人。因为，一旦马铃薯成为普通食物，那么在全部耕地中，马铃薯地的相对面积，就会等于现在栽种小麦及其他人类食用谷物的土地的相对面积。此外，如果大部分劳动者都靠马铃薯生活，那么其扣除耕作资本及维持劳动之后的剩余也会更多。诚然，这些剩余，大部分还是要归地主所有的。如果真是这样的话，人口就会增加，地租也会增至大大超过现在地租的程度。 所有适宜栽种马铃薯的土地，都可以用来栽种其他类似的有用植物。如果马铃薯地占全部耕地的比例等于现在的栽种谷物的土地所占的比例，那么马铃薯地的地租就会像现在的栽种谷物的土地地租一样，也能决定其他耕地的地租。 据说，在兰开夏的某些地方，有人认为劳动者吃燕麦面包，会比吃小麦面包更容易饱。同样的话，我在苏格兰也听到过。不过，我总觉得这种传闻有点儿可疑。比如说，苏格兰的普通人民吃的都是燕麦面包，英格兰的普通人民吃的则是小麦面包。跟苏格兰的普通人民相比，英格兰的普通人民更强壮、清秀、健康，工作也更起劲儿。不过，这种差异并没有出现在这两地的上等人中间。所以，由经验可知，苏格兰普通人民的食物，似乎并不像英格兰普通人民的食物那样适合人的体质。 可是，马铃薯的情形却完全不同。在伦敦，无论是轿夫、脚夫和煤炭挑夫，还是那些靠卖淫为生的不幸妇女，一般都只以马铃薯为食。这些人，大部分都来自爱尔兰的最下层，他们也许是英国最强壮的男子和最美丽的女子。根据最明确的证据证明，马铃薯含有的营养素特别适合人的体质需要。 不过，马铃薯不像谷物那样能贮藏两三年，它一般都很少能保存一年。因此，人们都害怕它在被卖出之前就腐烂，所以不敢大面积栽种。也许是因为同一个原因，才使马铃薯即使是在那些大国里，也不能像面包一样成为人们的主要植物性粮食。 在各种土地生产物中，好像只有人类食物才必须提供地租，其他生产物则是在一定条件下才提供地租。除了食物，人类最需要的东西就是衣服和住宅了。 在原始社会，土地可以向人们提供充足的衣服和住宅材料，却无法满足人们对食物的需要。相反，在进步社会，土地能够满足衣服和住宅材料的人数，要少于满足食物的人数。这种情况，至少会在人们需要衣服和住宅材料，并愿意为它们支付代价时出现。因此，在原始社会，衣服和住宅材料由于过剩，所以其价值极小甚至完全没有；而在进步社会，它却会因为供不应求而具有极大的价值。 当衣服和住宅材料供过于求时，其中有大部分都会因为无用而被丢弃，所以其使用价值基本上只相当于加工这些材料所花的劳动和费用，因而也不能向地主提供地租。当这些材料供不应求时，即使把它们全部用上，也往往不够用，于是就会有人愿意以高价购买它的任何部分，哪怕要花费超过其产制和上市所需的费用。这时，这种材料就可以向地主提供许多地租。 在原始社会，衣服的材料一般都是较大动物的皮。当时，狩猎和牧畜民族是以那些大动物为生的，他们在获取食料时，可以一并获得他们自己穿不了的衣服。这些多余的动物皮，在没有对外贸易的情况下是根本没有价值的，只有被丢弃。这种情况，一般出现在北美狩猎民族中间，当时这个民族还未被欧洲人发现。 现在，北美的狩猎民族一旦有了过剩的毛皮，就会用它们去交换欧洲人的毛毡、火器和白兰地酒。这样，这些过剩的毛皮就有了许多价值。现在，在全球通商的状态下，我相信只要是确立了土地所有制的民族（不管它有多么不开化），都会有这种对外贸易。那些在国内生产却不能在国内加工或消费的衣服材料，都可以在较富裕的邻国中找到销路，这么一来，这些材料的售价就会被抬高得超过其运输费用的价格，从而足够为地主提供许多地租。 在苏格兰高地，当大部分牲畜都在内部的丘陵地带被消费时，其最主要的输出商品就是兽皮了。用这些兽皮来换其他物品，就能稍微增加高地的土地地租。当时，英格兰国内不能加工或消费的羊毛，也外销到了更富裕、更勤劳的弗兰德，其售价足够补偿羊毛产地的许多地租。而在那些没有对外贸易的国家，即使其耕作技术和当时的英格兰和现在的苏格兰高地差不多，它们的衣服材料也会明显过剩。这些多余的材料，大部分都会因为无用而被丢弃，这样也就无法向地主缴纳地租了。 跟衣服材料相比，住宅材料更不容易被运输到遥远的地方。所以，即便在今日这种商业状况下，它也不能像衣服材料那样容易外销出去。当一国的住宅材料过剩时，地主们就不能从这些材料中获得地租了。比如说，在伦敦附近，地主们从一些良好的石矿中得到了相当大的地租；而在苏格兰和威尔士的许多地方，大部分的石矿都无法向地主提供地租。在人口稠密、农耕进步的国家里，用于建筑的无果树木的价值都非常高，为其产地提供了非常大的地租；而在北美的许多树木产地，树木的所有者不但得不到地租，反而会为有那么多树木而发愁，并希望有人愿意无偿采伐并运走他的大部分大树。在苏格兰高地，有些地方由于缺少公路和水运，只好剥下树皮运往市场，而把木材随地丢弃。 当住宅材料相当过剩时，其使用价值也不过和加工它时所花的劳动和费用相等，所以无法向地主提供地租。不过，当邻近的富裕国民需要这种住宅材料时，情况就截然不同了。比如，铺设伦敦街道的需求，使得苏格兰海岸一向不提供地租的一部分岩石，也向地主提供了地租。再比如说，挪威及波罗的海沿岸的树木，都在大不列颠找到了市场，并为所有者提供了许多地租。 与一国人口成比例的，不是该国供应衣服和住宅材料的水平，而是该国供应食物的水平。在食物得到充足供应的情况下，必要的衣服和住宅也不难得到；但是，在有了衣服和住宅的情况下，食物却往往不易得到。在大不列颠的许多地方，一个人花费一天的劳动建成的简单建筑物，就算是住宅了；如果用兽皮来做衣服，只需要花费一天多的劳动，就能制出最简单的衣服。在野蛮或未开化的民族，人们花费在获得这种衣服及住宅上的劳动量，仅仅占全年总劳动量的百分之一；而花费在获取食物上的劳动，却占了全年劳动的百分之九十九。即使这样，还是不能获得充足的食物。 在土地改良之后，一家可以生产出供两家食用的食物。于是，只要一半人口，就可以生产出满足全社会需要的食物；剩下的一半人口（至少是其中的大部分劳动），就可以去生产满足人类其他欲望和嗜好的物品，比如衣服、住宅、家具，以及所谓的成套应用物品等。 富人和穷人消费的粮食几乎是一样的。富人消费的粮食，也许在质的方面与穷人消费的粮食大不相同。比如说，在选择和烹调富人的粮食时，可能要花费更大的劳动和技术。可是，富人所消费的粮食的量，却几乎和穷人所消费的量相同。我们再比较一下富人和穷人的衣服和住宅的情况。富人拥有巨大的衣橱、富丽堂皇的宅邸，而贫民却穿敝衣、住陋屋。二者无论在质和量上，都有极大的差异，根本没有可比性。 每个人的食欲，都会因为胃的狭小容量所限而有满足的时候；可是，人们对住宅、衣服、家具及应用物品的欲求，却似乎没有止境。这时，有权支配自己消费不了的剩余食物的人，也一定愿意拿出这些剩余食物，用它们去交换能够满足他的其他欲望的东西。这样，这些物品不但满足了他的有限欲望，其剩余部分还能换取到其他满足他无限欲望的东西。相反，穷人则要为了取得食物而拼命劳作，并满足富人的这些无限欲望。 穷人为了能够让自己的食物在市场上站稳脚跟，往往会以提高食物质量、降低食物价格的方式相互竞争。由于土地改良和耕作的进步，食物量增大，劳动者的人数就随着食物量的增大而增加了。不过，由于增加食物的工作可以实现细致的分工，所以食物的增加量比劳动者人数的增加量多得多。正因为如此，在建筑物、衣服、应用物品，或作为装饰品使用的各种原料，以及化石、矿产、贵金属和宝石的应用领域，才有了人类发明才能的用武之地。 由此可见，需要提供地租的，除了一向都要提供地租的食物之外，还有其他一些后来才要求提供地租的生产物。这些生产物的价值中的地租部分，也来自生产食物的劳动力的增进。这种劳动生产力的增进，起因于土地的改良和耕作的进步。不过，并不是所有后来才要求提供地租的生产物都能提供地租。即使是那些已经被改良而且耕作精细的土地，国内对其生产物的需求也未必都能达到这种程度，因而其价格也不可能在支付工资、偿还资本并提供普通的资本利润之后还有剩余。所以，这类生产物能否提供地租，要视具体情况而定。比如说煤矿，决定它能否提供地租的因素，一是它的产出力，二是它的位置。 如果使用一定数量的劳动从某一矿山取出的矿物量，多于使用等量劳动从其他大部分同类矿山中取出的矿物量，那么这一矿山的产出力就大；反之，这一矿山的产出力就小。有些位置一般的煤矿之所以不能开采，就是因为其产出力小得不能支付开采费用，更别说提供利润和地租了。 有些煤矿，其产出物只够支付劳动工资、开矿资本和普通利润，因而它只能给企业家带来获得若干利润的期望，却不能给地主提供地租。因此，像这类煤矿，只有地主自己投下资本来开采才能获得普通利润，其他任何人也别想从中获利。在苏格兰，就有许多由地主亲自经营的煤矿。这些煤矿，由于无法提供地租而不能由其他人经营，所以地主不允许其他人采掘。就算地主允许其他人采掘这些煤矿，这些人也不能向地主提供地租。 在苏格兰，还有些产出力很大的煤矿，却因为位置不好而无法采掘。在一些人烟稀少的内地，就算有些矿山有时能用一般或少于一般的劳动量采掘出足够支付开矿费用的产量，这些矿产也会因为缺少公路或水运而无法卖出。 煤炭与木柴比较，煤炭是一种不适合且不卫生的燃料。在有些地方，消费煤炭的费用一般要少于消费木柴的费用。另外，木柴价格和牲畜价格几乎一样，也会随着农业状况的不同而变动。而且，其变动的原因也跟牲畜价格的变动原因完全相同。 在农业发展初期，各国的大部分地区都是树木。这些树木在当时的地主眼里，全都是毫无价值的障碍物。如果它们被人采伐，那就再好不过了。后来，随着农业的进步，一部分树木由于妨碍耕作被砍去，另一部分树木因为牲畜增加而被毁掉。 牲畜头数增加的比例，不同于由人类的勤劳而获得的谷物增加的比例。但是，由于有人类的保护，牲畜也逐渐繁殖起来。在物产丰饶的季节，人类会预先贮藏牲畜的食料，以备它们在缺少食料的季节食用。人类为牲畜提供的种种食物的量，都比大自然提供的要多。此外，人类还为牲畜们铲除了敌害。这么一来，牲畜们就能安然而又自由地享受自然所给予的一切了。许多畜群都被人们随意地放养在森林里，这些畜群虽然不会损害到老树，却摧残了幼树。结果，整个森林就在两个世纪左右的时间里被毁灭了。 这么一来，木柴就会供不应求，其售价也会因此抬高到足够为地主提供很好地租的程度。有时候，地主会觉得即使是用最好的土地来栽植无果树木也更有利，因为其利润大得往往足够补偿其收入的迟缓。这种情况，似乎在今日大不列颠的许多地方都很常见。在这些地方，树木的利润等于田地或牧场的利润。 但是，无论在任何地方，地主从树木中得到的利益都不能超过田地或牧场的地租。这种情况，至少会持续相当长的一段时间。而且，在耕作进步的内地，地主从树木中得到的利益，往往要远远少于他从田地或牧场中得到的地租。 在一些海岸，如果当地的进步状况非常好，而且容易得到煤炭，那么从耕作事业较为落后的外国输入建筑木材，往往要比本国自己生产这些木材更为划算。最近数年，爱丁堡用于建筑新城市的木材，也许没有一根是产自苏格兰的。 如果无论某地木柴的价格是多少，烧煤炭的费用都几乎等于烧木柴的费用，那么我们就可以由此确信煤炭价格在该地达到了最高水平。这种情况，在英格兰内地的某些地方（尤其是牛津郡）可见。在牛津郡，普通人民通常都混用木柴与煤炭。由此可见，这两种燃料的费用差异不可能太大。这种最高价格，比产煤国家任何地方的煤炭价格都要高得多。如果煤炭价格不够高，就不足以担负由陆路或水路送往远地的运输费用，也就不能卖出更多分量的煤炭。煤矿采掘者及所有者出于自身利益的考虑，都情愿以比最低价格略高的价格卖出更多煤炭，而不愿以最高价格卖出少量煤炭。 另外，一切煤矿的煤炭价格都受附近产出力最大的煤矿支配。那些产出力最大的煤矿只要以略低于附近煤矿的价格出售煤炭，就能从中得到更大的地租和利润。不久之后，附近的煤矿也会被迫以同样的价格出售煤炭，即使这样会削减甚至剥夺它们的地租与利润。结果，有一部分煤矿停止经营，另一部分煤矿因无法提供地租而由所有者收回并独自经营。 煤炭和其他商品一样，它能长时间持续的最低售价，就是仅够补偿它上市所需的资本及普通资本利润的价格。在一般情况下，那些因无法提供地租而只好由所有者自己经营的煤矿，其煤炭价格必然大致等于这一最低售价。 有些地方的煤矿能够提供地租。不过，这种地租跟其他大多数土地原生产物价格中的地租相比，一般较小。土地地面的地租通常占生产总额的三分之一。而且，这一份额一般不受收获上的意外事故的影响，因而比较确定。而煤矿地租则不同，占生产总额的五分之一的地租，就算是非常高的地租了；普通地租只要占生产总额的十分之一就够了。而且，煤矿地租很不确定，它会随生产额的变动而变动，有时甚至会变动得出人意料。例如，购买田产的普通价格可能会达到三十倍年租，而购买煤矿的高价才要十倍年租。 对煤矿所有者来说，决定煤矿价值的因素有两个，一是煤矿的产出力，二是煤矿的位置。金属矿山的价值则多数取决于产出力。那些从矿石中分离出来的金属（尤其是贵金属），其价值一般都足够提供长时间陆运和长距离水运的费用。这些金属的市场，从邻近国家一直扩展到全世界。例如，日本铜远销欧洲，西班牙铁被运往智利和秘鲁，秘鲁银被卖到欧洲和中国。 纽卡斯尔的煤炭价格，几乎不受西莫兰和什洛普郡的煤炭价格的影响，也丝毫不受利奥诺尔的煤炭价格的影响。所以，这些煤炭之间绝对不会产生相互竞争。相反的，那些相距极远的金属矿产却经常有可能产生相互竞争，而事实也的确如此。所以，世界各地矿山的金属价格，必然都会或多或少地受金属产量最多的地方的金属（尤其是贵金属）价格的影响。例如，日本铜的价格必然会影响欧洲铜的价格；而秘鲁银的价格（即秘鲁银在当地所能购买的劳动量或货物量），不但会影响欧洲银价，还会影响中国银价。欧洲的大部分银矿，都在秘鲁银矿发现之后被废弃。银价大幅下跌之后，那些银矿产物甚至不足以偿还开采费用；即使它们能够偿还开采时消耗的衣食住行用，也无法提供利润。自从波托西银矿被发现之后，古巴、圣多明各乃至秘鲁的旧矿山都出现了这种情况。 如此看来，由世界各个矿山产出的各种金属的价格，都在一定程度上受到了由当时产量最高的矿山出产的矿产价格的支配。所以，在世界范围内，大部分金属价格在支付完采掘费用后的剩余部分，基本上都无法提供很高的地租。在大多数矿山所产的金属中，贱金属的价格中似乎有一小部分地租，贵金属的价格中的地租部分还更小。贵、贱金属价格的大部分，都由劳动和利润构成。 康沃尔锡矿以产量丰富而闻名于世。据该矿区的副监督波勒斯说，该矿区的平均地租高达矿产总额的六分之一，有些矿山的地租可能会超过或低于这一比率。苏格兰有许多产量极其丰富的铝矿，其地租也占矿产总额的六分之一。 据弗勒奇和乌罗阿说，秘鲁银矿的所有者会设立一个方便经营者磨碎矿石的磨场，代价就是经营者给予他一部分碎矿石。在西班牙，直到1736年，国王对这类银矿征收的矿税都是标准银总产量的五分之一。当时，秘鲁银矿是世界上产银量最大的矿山。所以，这种地租似乎就是当时秘鲁大部分银矿的真实地租。如果这些矿山不用额外缴纳矿税，那么这五分之一的地租自然就归矿山所有者，这样也就不会有那么多矿山因负担不了矿税而未被开采了。 据说，康沃尔公爵向各锡矿征收的矿税，占矿产总值的百分之五（即二十分之一）以上。如果不用缴纳矿税，那么无论这笔矿税有多少，自然都属于矿山所有者。假如拿这百分之五去加上述的六分之一，那么康沃尔锡矿和秘鲁银矿平均地租的比例，才十三比十二。可现在，秘鲁银矿连这么低微的地租都负担不起，其银税也在1736年由五分之一减到了十分之一。 即使银税低微到这种地步，它也比二十分之一的锡税更能引诱人们走私。而走私贵重物品，必定比走私大容积的物品要容易得多。所以，西班牙国王没有收到多少赋税，可康沃尔公爵的税收收入却很高。因此，锡矿真实价格中的地租，可能大于银矿真实价格中的地租。除去偿还开采这些矿物所需的资本及其普通利润之后，贱金属留给矿山所有者的剩余部分，似乎要大于贵金属所留的剩余部分。 秘鲁银矿开采者的利润一般都不怎么高。弗勒奇和乌罗阿这两位受人敬佩的作家，是最熟悉当地情形的人。听他们说，在秘鲁，如果有哪个人要着手开采新银矿，那么大家肯定就会避开他，因为人们都认为他会倾家荡产。由此可见，在秘鲁，采矿业也被看成了很难中奖的彩票。即使有几个大彩，也会诱使许多人冒着失去财产的危险去尝试。 不过，由于银税是秘鲁国王的大部分税收来源，所以秘鲁颁布了尽可能奖励发现及开采新矿的法律。这一法律规定，无论是谁发现了新矿，都可以得到一块按他看准的矿脉方向划出的矿区。矿区长二百四十六尺，宽一百二十三尺。新矿的发现者，可以在这块归他所有的矿区里自行开采，而不用向地主支付任何报酬。 康沃尔公爵出于自身利益的考虑，也在他们的古公国里制定了类似的法律。例如，只要有人在荒野或未被圈定的土地里发现了锡矿，他就可以在一定范围内为锡矿定界，并占有界限之内的土地。如果他想自行或与他人合作开采这一矿区，不需要经过原地主的允许，只需要向地主提供微薄的报酬就可以了。以上两种法律的颁布，维护了国库税收的想象权利，却侵犯了私有财产的神圣权利。 在秘鲁，新金矿的发现与开采也同样受奖励。而且，国王收取的金税，只占了标准金总产量的二十分之一。金税原本和银税一样，也是五分之一，后来又减成了十分之一。不过，根据开采的情况来分析，即使是十分之一的金税也非常重，所以又减到了二十分之一。据弗勒奇和乌罗阿说，很少有人能靠经营银矿发财的，靠金矿发财的就更少了。在智利和秘鲁，大部分金矿所支付的全部地租，似乎都是二十分之一。 走私金比走私银要容易得多。究其原因，一是金的价值高于同一体积的银，二是金有特殊的固有状态。银被发现时是和其他大多数金属一样的，很少是纯质的，一般都掺有其他矿物。把银从这些矿化物中分离出来的操作，是极其困难而烦琐的。此外，这种操作还得在特设的厂房里进行。这样的话，国王、官吏就容易参与监督了。相反的，金被发现时几乎都是纯质的。有时，还会发现一些相当大的纯金块。就算其中掺有几乎看不出来的砂土或其他外附物，也能用简单的操作把它们从这些杂物中分离出来。比如，只要有少量水银，任何人都可以在自己家里把它分离出来。因此，国王从金税中得到的收入，可能要远远少于他从银税中得到的收入；而且，金价中的地租部分，一定比银价中的地租部分小得多。 贵金属在市场上的最低售价（即贵金属所能交换的最小其他货物量），受制于决定其他货物价格的最低价格。这种最低价格，是由开采和运输这些贵金属到市场所需的普通资本（如衣食住行用的花费）决定的，它不但要能足够偿还所花费的资本，还要为这些资本提供普通利润。 不过，贵金属的最高售价，似乎只受制于它的实际供给量是否充足，而不受其他任何货物的影响。贵金属不像煤炭，它的最高售价不受其他任何货物的最高价格限制。煤炭就不同了，它的售价由木柴价格确定。一旦木柴缺乏，煤炭的价格就会上涨。在金非常稀缺的情况下，一块极小的金都可能比金刚钻还昂贵，更不用说用它来换取更多其他的货物了。 人们需求贵金属的原因，一是其效用，二是其美质。贵金属的效用，也许比除了铁之外的其他任何金属都高。比如说，贵金属不易生锈，也很容易保持清洁。所以，用金银制造的食桌等厨房用具，一定会大受欢迎。金制的煮器比银制的煮器清洁，而银制的煮器又比铝制、铜制或锡制的煮器清洁。 不过，美质才是贵金属的主要价值。这一美质，使得贵金属特别适宜用来装饰衣物和家具。镀金的光亮色彩，是任何颜料或染料都无法提供的。由于这些贵金属比较稀少，所以它们的这种美质也相对地大大增加了。大部分富人的愉悦，都是炫耀他们的富裕。对他们来说，最大的炫