Chapter 16 CHAPTER III THE RELATIONSHIP OF CAPITAL ACCUMULATION TO PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE LABOR

The labor that can be added to an object to increase its value is called productive labor; the labor that is added to an object but cannot increase its value is called unproductive labor. For example, the value added to raw materials by the labor of manufacturing workers usually needs to maintain the workers' living needs and provide profits for the employer; while the labor of servants cannot produce value.Though the employer in manufactures is obliged to advance the wages of his labourers, he expends in fact no capital at all, for the value which the laborers invest in the goods is sufficient to increase their value to such a level as to repay the wages and furnish a profit.But the maintenance fee paid by the employer to the servant is different, and the employer cannot recover it at all.One can get rich by employing many workers, but one can be poor by maintaining many servants.But the labor of a domestic servant is valuable in itself, so it should be paid like that of a labourer.The value of the labor of manufacturing workers can be reflected in the goods, and it will not disappear for a period of time. It seems to be equivalent to storing a part of the labor, and this part of the labor can be used when necessary. The price attached to the commodity , can also be used to hire labor equal to the amount of labor consumed in producing it when necessary in the future; but the labor value of domestic servants cannot be reflected by objects, and its form cannot be fixed. It is difficult to preserve its value for later employment of the same amount of labor.

Except the labor of servants produces no value, the labor of some upper classes produces no value, their form cannot be fixed, their value cannot be embodied in objects, and so they cannot be preserved for the future employment of an equivalent amount of labor. for.For example, neither the prince nor the magistrates, nor the labor of the navy or army, produce value.These unproductive laborers are the servants of the people, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of their labour.However noble, useful, and necessary their office may be, it will die with birth, and cannot be preserved for later acquisition of an equivalent office.Although they have made great contributions to governing state affairs and defending the country, their activities of governing the country need to be carried out continuously every year. This year's governance performance and safety cannot buy next year's governance performance and safety.This kind of labor is contained in various occupations, some in such noble and important occupations as clergyman, lawyer, physician, and literati;This kind of labor, even when contained in the lowest occupations, has some value, and the same principles govern its value as that of all other labour.At the same time, such labor, even if it is included in the most honorable occupations, cannot be preserved for the later purchase of an equivalent amount of labor, but will simply perish as it arises.For example, the dialogue of an actor, the speech of an orator, the singing of a musician, all belong to this kind of labor.

Whether it is a productive laborer, an unproductive laborer, or a non-laborer, they must live off the land and the annual product of labor.However, even if the quantity of these products is large, it is definitely limited.Therefore, when more of them are used to maintain the life of unproductive laborers, the part consumed by productive laborers must be reduced, resulting in a decrease in the quantity of products produced in the next year.Conversely, if only a small part of them is used to maintain the unproductive laborers, the productive laborers must consume a greater part, and so the next year's produce will also be greater.The annual produce of the land, excluding its natural produce, is the result of productive labour.

The annual produce of the land and labor of a country are those which provide income to and consumption of the domestic inhabitants.However, whether these annual products are the natural products of the land or the results of productive labor, they will be divided into two parts when they are first produced.A part, often the largest, is used to replace capital embodied in food, materials, and manufactures.The other part is income, of which the income of the owner of capital is profit, and that of the landlord is rent.Part of the produce of the land pays the farmer's capital, another part the profit of the owner of the capital and the rent of the landlord.A part of the produce of a great factory goes out to pay the capital of the manufacturer, and another part goes out to the profit of the owner of the capital, and of these the former usually takes the greatest part.

That part of the annual produce which pays for capital is never immediately consumed by unproductive labourers, but by productive ones.And those who consume that part of the annual produce which is used to pay profit and rent may be productive laborers or unproductive laborers. No one who has a portion of his wealth wants his investment to recover his capital and make a profit, so he will only employ productive laborers who can produce value.This part of the capital is used to maintain productive laborers. It not only plays the role of capital, but also generates income for productive laborers in the follow-up process.The other part of the stock he possesses is used to maintain unproductive labour, and it is withdrawn from his capital for his immediate consumption.

Both the unproductive laborer and the nonlaborer live on income.This revenue consists of two kinds: the first, that which is at the outset designated as profit and rent; the second, which pays capital and wages.However, the first type of annual products are often divided into two parts after being distributed to those who deserve them, and are used not only to maintain the laborers themselves, but also to maintain other productive laborers and unproductive laborers.For example, even ordinary workers with good wages often hired a servant or two, or went to a puppet show, let alone big landowners and wealthy merchants.A part of the annual produce of the land and labour, is then employed in the maintenance of unproductive labourers.In addition, they may have to pay some taxes to maintain those who are much more noble but equally unproductive.However, if the part of the annual product originally intended to compensate capital and wages fails to employ enough productive laborers, or fails to promote work smoothly, then it will never be diverted to maintain non-productive labor according to common sense. For sex workers.It is absolutely impossible to spend part of the wages to maintain unproductive laborers before the laborers are working, moreover, this part of wages is only saved by the owner of capital from his income, which is often not much.Productive laborers do not save much money, however much they save, but they save some money after all.Due to the large number of their class, even though the tax paid by each person is very limited, the total tax paid by the whole class is quite considerable.Rent and profit are everywhere the principal sources of the subsistence of the unproductive laborer, and they are the easiest to save.They can be used by owners to employ producers as well as non-producers.On the whole, owners seem to be particularly fond of using them to employ unproducers.Those great lords, generally spend their expenses on the idlers, but seldom support the industrious people; and even though the rich merchants employ the industrious people, they at the same time, like the great lords, spend most of their capital on to feed those who do not produce.

We mentioned earlier that whether it is the natural product of the land or the labor product of the land, it will be divided into two parts when it is first produced, one part is used to compensate capital, and the other part is income in the form of land rent or profit.Now, we also need to know that the proportion of these two parts determines in a large measure the proportion of producers and non-producers in a country, and will vary according to the richness and poverty of the country. At present, the vast majority of the land products in the rich countries of Europe are used to compensate the capital of independent rich peasants, and the remaining small part is used to pay profits and land rents.However, in the feudal society of the past, as long as a very small part of the annual product can compensate the capital needed for farming.Because, at that time, the farming capital needed was only a few old cows and horses.Moreover, these cows and horses all feed on the natural products on the wasteland, so they are also part of the natural products, but they belong to the landlord and are then lent to the land cultivators by the landlord.Except for the produce of the land which sustains the cultivator, all other produce of the land belong to the landlord in the form of rent or profit.Most of the land cultivators are servants of the landlord, so their property belongs to the landlord; there are also some tenants who can withdraw the rent at will. Although the rent they pay is often the so-called exempt rent, but It still practically amounts to the total produce of the land.Moreover, they may be employed by landlords at any time in peacetime, and they must serve in the military in wartime.Although they lived far away from the landlord, they belonged to the landlord just like the servants in the landlord's house.Since even their labor is at the disposal of the landlord, the products of their labor must also be completely owned by the landlord.Things are very different now.As far as the present rent is concerned, its proportion to the total produce of the land generally does not exceed one-third, and sometimes even less than one-fourth; It is three or four times that of before; the current annual output of the land is much greater than before, as if only one-third or one-fourth of the annual output is three to four times the previous annual output.During the period of increasing agricultural progress, the rent of land, though increasing in quantity, was decreasing in proportion to the produce of the land.

In Europe today, the rich countries invest enormous capital in commerce and manufactures.In ancient times, due to the minimal trade, the manufacturing industry was also very simple, and only a small amount of capital was enough to operate, and huge profits could be obtained.The interest rate at that time was basically above 10%.They can pay such a high interest, which shows how rich their profits are.The rate of interest now seldom exceeds six per cent; and, even in the most advanced countries, it is sometimes as low as four per cent, or even three or two per cent.Since rich countries have far more capital than poor countries, the capital profits earned by the residents of rich countries are also far greater than those of poor countries.However, the current ratio of profit to capital is often much smaller than before.

A much greater portion of the annual produce of land and labour, in a rich country, is used to replace capital than in a poor country, and a much greater proportion of this annual produce than is directly attributable to rent and profit.Moreover, rich countries spend much more capital than poor countries on employing productive labour.However, this situation is not absolute.We mentioned earlier that a part of a country’s annual products will be fixedly used to employ productive labor, and the other part may be used to employ productive labor or non-productive labor, and employers often particularly like to use It is used for the latter purpose.The proportion of the capital employed in productive labour, to the whole annual produce, is often also much greater in rich countries than in poor ones.

The proportion of these two capitals determines whether the people of a country are industrious or idle.The reason why we are more industrious than our ancestors is that the proportion of funds we spend on maintaining industrious and idle people is much greater than it was two or three hundred years ago.Our ancestors became lazy because they were not adequately rewarded for their hard work.There is a saying that goes well: "It is better to play without benefit than to work without merit." If the capital of an industrial and commercial city can support low-level residents, then most of the city's residents are industrious, serious and prosperous. Big cities like the UK and the Netherlands fall into this category.If a certain place mainly depends on the irregular residence of the monarch to maintain the people's livelihood, then most of the local people will be poor and depraved idlers, such as Rome, Versailles, Compiègne, Fontainebleau, etc. class city.

As regards French industry and commerce, only those of Rouen and Bordeaux are worth mentioning; the lower classes of the other parliamentary towns, largely dependent on the fees of court officials and litigators, are largely poor. idlers.In contrast, the geographically advantageous cities of Rouen and Bordeaux have much more developed commerce.The goods needed by Paris, whether imported from abroad or transported from all over the coast, must be collected and distributed at Rouen;Since these wines are very popular with foreigners, the output is quite large.Such a good location will naturally attract more capital to invest. As a result, the industry and commerce of these two cities will naturally flourish. On the contrary, most of the investment in other council cities is only to maintain the city's consumption, that is, it does not exceed the city's use limit at all.This is the case in Paris, Madrid and Vienna, for example.Paris is the most industrious of these three cities, but the chief market for its manufactures is itself;In Europe, there are only three cities, London, Lisbon and Copenhagen, which are not only the residences of princes and princes, but also places where business and industry converge, and they have local residents, foreigners and foreigners as their business targets.Their superior geographical location makes them the distribution center for most exported items. A city that spends more than it earns is not like those industrial and commercial cities where even the lowest classes of people can be maintained by capital. It has no other way of using capital beneficially than to supply it for local consumption.As a result, most people can only live on meager income, and naturally they gradually get used to laziness, and even assimilate some people who should have worked diligently.Therefore, even investing in these areas is disadvantageous.Edinburgh's industry and commerce were very underdeveloped before the merger of England and Scotland; it was gradually revitalized when the Scottish Parliament moved out and the number of local princes and nobles was greatly reduced.However, Edinburgh's industry and commerce are still far behind Glasgow's industry and commerce because the Supreme Court and tax authorities have not yet moved out and they spend a lot of income.Residents of Glasgow mostly rely on capital to maintain their livelihoods.Moreover, even in some large villages with relatively developed manufacturing industries, if there are princes and nobles living in them, the local residents are often lazy and poor. Therefore, the ratio of the industrious to the idle in a country seems to be determined by the ratio of capital to income.If the capital in a certain place is dominant, then the local people are generally more industrious; if the income in a certain place is dominant, then the local idlers will be in the majority.An increase or decrease in capital increases or decreases the real quantity of labour, and thus increases or decreases the exchange value of the annual produce of land and labour; Therefore, national wealth and income will naturally increase or decrease accordingly. Thrift increases capital; extravagance and extravagance diminish it.So much as a man saves his income, so much does his capital increase.This increased capital can either be used to employ more productive laborers, or it can be lent to others.If he lends this part of his capital to others, others can employ more productive laborers, and he himself can receive interest.Since the only way to increase personal capital is to save annual income or profits, the only way to increase social capital is to use the same method, because social capital is composed of personal capital. It is, however, not industry, but thrift, which directly causes the increase of capital.Of course, anything saved by thrift is earned by hard work, so hard work comes first and then thrift.If you are just hardworking but not frugal, no matter how much labor you have, you will not be able to save it, so capital will not increase.Thrift can increase the capital that maintains productive labor, thereby attracting more laborers to invest in productive labor, and ultimately increase the value of the work object, that is, increase the exchange value of a country's land and annual labor products.Thrift, therefore, enables a greater quantity of labor to be brought into production, and ultimately increases the value of the annual produce. The money saved every year is often consumed at the same time as the annual expenses, but the people who consume are different.The rich man spends the greater part of his yearly income on idle guests and domestic servants, without receiving any remuneration.Even the income which is saved for profit, and directly converted into capital, is consumed almost simultaneously by labourer, manufacturer, and artificer.Although these workers consume part of the value, they will reproduce the part they consume and provide profits.Now, let us assume that a man's income is money, and if he spends it all in food, clothing, and shelter, the consumers of this capital are idle guests and servants; A part of it is saved, and turned directly into capital for his own use, or lent to others, and this part of his income, which he employs in purchasing food, clothing, and shelter, is consumed by the labourer.This income is eventually consumed, but the consumers are different. The income saved by the frugal person not only can maintain the life of more productive laborers this year and next two years, but also enables the frugal person to have an inexhaustible fund like the founder of the factory, and can maintain the corresponding amount at any time the lives of productive workers.Although the distribution of this fund is not guaranteed by law, and there is no contract or business certificate to regulate it, the owner's own interest is enough to protect its safety.Anyone who misuses any part of this fund in maintaining unproductive labourers must suffer. The extravagant does not live within his means, but spends the capital saved by his father and brother for business, and misuses it by feeding a large number of idlers, thereby eating away the capital.Thus, the capital which employs productive labourers, the quantity of labor which increases the value of goods, the value of the land and the annual produce of labour, the national wealth and income, successively decrease; the bread of the industrious is robbed and fed by the luxurious. idlers.If the frugality of the industrious man is not sufficient to counteract the luxury of the extravagant, the extravagant will, by his actions, reduce himself and the nation to want of resources. Even if all the goods consumed by the luxury were domestically produced, the social production fund would be affected accordingly.For a portion of the food and clothing produced each year that should have been consumed by productive laborers is now consumed by unproductive laborers, which inevitably makes the total value of the annual produce less than it should have been. There is value. It has been held by some that, as these expenses, being not expended in foreign goods, did not bring gold and silver into foreign countries, they did not diminish the quantity of money at home.However, if the food and clothing consumed by non-producers can be distributed to producers, then producers will reproduce the entire value of their consumption and provide a part of the profit.While these currencies remain at home, they again produce an equivalent consumer good, thereby doubling the original value.If a country possesses the same amount of money as before, but the value of its annual produce decreases, it must also have a decreasing amount of money. Money has only one use, and that is to circulate consumer goods.Only with money can food, materials, and manufactured goods be bought and sold, and ultimately distributed to real consumers.The annual currency circulation of a country is determined by the value of consumer goods in domestic circulation.There are generally two kinds of consumer goods in domestic circulation, one is the direct product of the land and labor of the country, and the other is the goods purchased with the products of the country.Its value will decrease as the value of domestic products decreases, which will eventually lead to a decrease in the domestic currency circulation.The money which, by diminished produce, is drawn out of the domestic sphere, and circulated abroad, will certainly not be thrown out of use.Because the owner of the currency will definitely try his best to make his currency work out of his own interests; if his currency cannot be circulated in the country, then he will disregard the legal prohibition and transport it to foreign countries. It is used to purchase all kinds of useful consumer goods, which are shipped back to their own country. In a certain period of time, the annual export of money is continuous, so that the consumption of the residents exceeds the value of the annual production of the country.In times of prosperity the accumulated annual produce may be used to purchase gold and silver.In this way, when they encounter adversity, they can use this gold and silver to support them for a period of time.At this time, it was the decline of people's livelihood that caused the export of gold and silver, not the export of gold and silver that caused the decline of people's livelihood.In fact, this kind of gold and silver export can even temporarily alleviate the suffering of the people's livelihood. Conversely, if the value of the annual produce of land and labor in a country increases, the total amount of money must also increase.For, as the value of domestic consumer goods increases, the quantity of money in circulation also naturally increases.A part of the increased produce, then, would naturally go out, and buy some necessary gold and silver.At this time, it is social prosperity that increases the quantity of gold and silver in the country, not the increase in the quantity of gold and silver in the country that promotes social prosperity.The conditions for buying gold and silver are the same everywhere, that is, it takes a certain amount of labor or capital to extract gold and silver from the mines and transport them to the market.This enterprise required the investor to have sufficient capital and income to pay for food, clothing, and shelter, which constituted the price of gold and silver.This is the case with the purchase of gold and silver, both in England and in Peru.Any country that needs gold and silver, as long as it can afford the price, does not have to worry about the lack of gold and silver for a long time; those gold and silver that cannot be circulated in the country will not stay in the country for a long time. It is plainly and reasonably said that the real wealth and income of a country consist of the annual produce of its land and labour; The amount of precious metals in circulation in the country.No matter which point of view it is, it is in favor of frugality and against extravagance and extravagance.The result of presumption is the same as luxury.Whether an investment is made in agriculture, mining, fishing, commerce, or industry, it requires careful and promising planning, or the means for employing productive labor will be diminished.Although the people who consume the funds are productive laborers, if the funds are not used properly, they may not be able to reproduce the value they consume, which will naturally reduce the production funds in society. Happily, in a great country, the extravagance of individuals does not produce very serious consequences, for what is caused by their extravagance is always compensated by those who are frugal and prudent. The cause of a person's waste is naturally his desire for pleasure.This desire, though generally only temporary and accidental, can sometimes be overwhelmingly intense.As for the reason why a person is thrifty, of course, he hopes that his situation can be improved by thrift.Although people are generally calm and composed when they think about this desire to deliver the situation, they never give up their pursuit of it from beginning to end.People will never be completely satisfied with their status in their whole life, so they always want to improve their situation.However, how to improve it?In the eyes of ordinary people, the most popular and obvious way is to increase property, that is, to save expenses and save a part of normal or special income.Therefore, although people sometimes have the desire to waste, and even some people have the desire to waste all the time, generally speaking, the frugal psychology still has an advantage in the process of human life, and it is a big advantage. There are far more successful careers achieved by prudence than lost by carelessness, anywhere.Frustrated bankrupts are relatively common, but since there are so many people in business, the number of these losers is relatively small, perhaps only one in a thousand.Bankruptcy is undoubtedly a great and embarrassing calamity to a well-behaved businessman.Therefore, the vast majority of people are careful to avoid bankruptcy, and only a very small number of people do not know how to avoid bankruptcy, just as some people do not know how to avoid the gallows. The extravagance of individuals will certainly not impoverish a vast country, but the extravagance of the government will.In many countries, almost all public income is spent on princes, ministers, priests and priests who do not produce, as well as the navy and army that do not produce in peacetime and gain nothing in wartime.As they are not productive, their subsistence is sustained by the produce of other people's labor.If their numbers had increased so much that they had consumed so much of the produce of their labour, that the surplus was not sufficient to sustain the reproducing laborers of the next year, the reproduction in the second year must have been less than in the preceding year; The continuation of this disorder will produce even less regeneration in the third year than in the second.These unproductive people, who live on a part of the income of the people, may consume such a large part of the gross national income that the people are obliged to erode their own funds for the maintenance of productive labour, which even prudent thrift cannot expend Such a big waste makes up for it. Experience, however, shows that personal prudence often seems to compensate for personal extravagance, and even for government extravagance.If every individual constantly strives to improve his condition, national wealth and private wealth must be greatly increased.The efforts of men are generally strong enough to make up for the waste caused by the extravagance of government, and even to improve things by saving administrative blunders.For example, even if quack doctors cannot cure some diseases, there always seems to be an inexplicable power in the patient to help him recover. There are two ways of increasing the value of the annual produce of the land and labor of a country: by increasing the number of productive labourers, or by increasing the productivity of the labourers.To increase the number of productive laborers, it is necessary to first increase the funds for maintaining productive laborers; and to increase the productivity of laborers, it is necessary to increase some convenient machinery and tools that can reduce labor, or to improve the original machinery and tools. Or to make the distribution of work more appropriate.However, it is necessary to increase the capital in any case.This is because capital is indispensable for improving machinery; capital is also needed for redistribution of work; and a large amount of capital is needed for distributing the work originally performed by one person to multiple people.Therefore, when we compare the situation of the people of a country in the two periods before and after, and find that the annual output of land and labor in the later period is more, the cultivation of the land is more advanced, and the industry and commerce are more prosperous and expanded in scale, then we can conclude that the capital of the country is A lot has increased in these two periods.From this it follows that prudent thrift by some must increase capital more than it is eroded by government and others.Let me declare here that even if a country's government is not prudent and frugal, as long as the country is safe and the people are safe, the country can still achieve such progress.However, since progress is a gradual accumulation process, we cannot judge whether such progress has occurred if the two eras are too close to each other.Sometimes, even when a country has improved, we tend to suspect it of going backwards, because of the withering of some of its industries, or the decline of certain districts. The annual produce of the land and labor of England is now far greater than it was a hundred years ago under the Restoration of Charles II.Few, therefore, can cast doubt on the increase of the annual produce in Great Britain to-day.However, in the one hundred years before that, several books or pamphlets were published almost every five years, which plausibly stated that England's national wealth and population were decreasing, and agriculture, industry and commerce were also declining.Books of this kind are not mere partisan propaganda, nor are they mere profiteering frauds, but many of them are written by honest and intelligent writers, whose content they believe of. Moreover, the annual produce of land and labor in England under the Restoration of Charles II must have been much greater than that of Elizabeth two hundred years ago; Kester wins the era.Going back further is the era of the Norman Conquest, when the annual produce was less, but it was more than that of the Saxon Seven Kingdoms.Although Britain in the era of the Saxon Seven Kingdoms was not progressive, it was much more advanced than the era of Julia Caesar's invasion.During the time of Julia Caesar's invasion, the lives of the inhabitants of England were much like those of the barbarians of North America. At all times there has been much private and governmental waste, and many needless wars, at such great expense that much of the annual produce, intended to maintain the producers, has been employed in unproductive on the person.Periods of civil strife have cost so much capital, and have done so much damage, that it is felt that this practice hinders the natural accumulation of wealth, and impoverishes the country.In fact, the natural accumulation of wealth is indeed hindered.The life of the English people was the happiest and richest after the Restoration of Charles II.But there have been many disturbances and misfortunes since, and if we lived in those days we must have feared for England's future, its impoverishment, and even its ruin.Recall the situation at that time: since the Great Fire of London, there have been great plagues, two revolutionary harassments after the Anglo-Dutch War, the War of Resistance against Ireland, and four outbreaks in 1688, 1702, 1742 and 1756 respectively. The costly war against France and two rebellions broke out in 1715 and 1745.The four wars between Britain and France alone caused Britain to owe a debt of more than 145 million pounds. Coupled with various other special war expenses, the total funds spent by Britain should be no less than 200 million pounds.Ever since the outbreak of the Revolution a great part of the annual produce of England has frequently been spent on many who do not produce.If these wars had not occurred, a large part of the huge sums spent at that time must have been used to employ productive laborers.Thus, as the productive labourers, not only reproduce the value they consume, but furnish a profit, the value of the annual produce of the land and labour, of England, must every year increase.Therefore, if these wars had not occurred, people could have built more houses, improved more land, improved the cultivation of more good fields, added more kinds of manufacturing industries, and expanded the existing manufacturing industries, and finally made the national Real wealth and income have increased beyond our imagination. The natural course of wealth and improvement in England, though checked by the profligacy of government, was not stopped.The annual produce of land and labor in England is now far greater than it was in the days of Restoration and Revolution;While the government spends its funds, there are countless persons, constantly striving to improve their situation, who, by prudent economization, have quietly accumulated capital.If such endeavors had been allowed to develop freely under the protection of the law, England would have been richer by it in almost all previous ages, and might even have been richer ever since.However, as successive governments in England have not been very frugal, the inhabitants have not been very frugal either.It can be seen from this that the behavior of the princes and ministers of England is too presumptuous and too arbitrary.Because not only do they not think about thrift, but they also do not prohibit the import of foreign luxury goods, let alone supervise the private economy and restrain extravagance and waste.They are the most wasteful class in society, and they don't know it.As long as they can save their own expenses, they don't need to worry about the people's funds at all, because the people's funds can be managed by the people themselves.If their extravagance cannot bring about the ruin of the nation, the extravagance of the people is much less likely to do so. Social capital increases with frugality and decreases with extravagance.If a person's expenses are equal to his income, the amount of his capital will remain the same.But we need to know that some methods of spending can promote the growth of national wealth more than others. A part of an individual's income is spent on immediate goods, which, once consumed, cannot be used again; It is the effect of enhancing future consumption.比如，同样是富翁，有的把资金大肆地花费在雇用奴婢和购买犬马上；有的又宁愿节衣缩食、尽量减少奴婢数量，用大笔资金整饬庄园或别墅、大兴建筑、广置实用家具或装饰字画等；有的则一屋子都闪烁着明珰璎珞的光芒；另外一些则像数年前逝世的某个宠臣一样衣服满箱、锦绣满床。现在，假设有两个财产相等的富人，如果甲将自己的大部分收入都用在了购买耐久商品上，而乙则将自己的大部分收入都用来购买米这类立时享用的物品上了，那么甲的境况必然会日渐改进，而乙的境况则会越来越坏，最终是甲比乙富裕。因为，甲所拥有的耐久商品的价值虽然会日渐减少，却多少能够增进以后消费的效用；而乙所拥有的立时享用商品，却没有留下任何痕迹，更别说是增进以后的消费效用了。 如果一种消费方法有益于积累个人财富，那么它也有益于积累国民财富。无论是富人的房屋、家具还是衣服，都可以在转瞬之间变成有益于中下阶层人民的用品，特别是当上等阶层玩厌了这些物品时，中下阶层人民就可以把它们买回去，从而改善一下生活。如果这种情况经常出现，就代表着国民的总体生活水平有了改善。如果一国长期繁荣，那么该国的下层人民，即使无力自己建造大厦，也往往能拥有大厦里的一套房子；即使不自己制作上等家具，也经常能使用上等家具。例如，巴斯道上有一间客寓，就是往日的西穆尔宅邸；而早在几年以前，敦福林的酒店就已经买下了詹姆士一世的婚床。这张婚床，原本是皇后从丹麦带来的嫁奁。有时候，我们在一些几乎没什么变化，或是稍微有些没落的古城里见到的房屋，几乎没有一间是当前的占有者能够盖得起的；里面陈设的，也都是一些适用且相当讲究的老式家具，也绝非当前的使用者花钱订制的。无论是对富人还是对国家而言，别墅、书籍、图画，以及各种珍奇物品，经常都是光荣的装饰品。法兰西的光荣装饰品是凡尔赛宫；英格兰的光荣装饰品是斯洛威和威尔登；意大利的光荣装饰品是名胜古迹。虽然创造这些名胜古迹的财富逐渐减少，创造它们的大天才也大概因为无用武之地而湮没了，但它们至今却仍被世人赞赏着。 在耐久物品上花费收入，对储蓄和养成俭朴的生活风尚都非常有利。如果一个人原本就把他的大部分收入都花在了这方面，那么就算他突然开始节省，人们也不会讥评他；相反的，如果一个人原本婢仆成群、居室陈设华丽、经常广设盛筵，那么当他突然节省开支时，邻居就会觉得他好像是在承认自己以往的错误。所以，这些大花大用的人，一般都很少有勇气去改变他们的生活习惯，除非他们破产了。而那些原本就习惯把钱用于添置房屋、家具、书籍或图画等方面的人，则不会有被人怀疑的顾虑，只要他们自觉财力不足，就可以突然节省开支。因为，既然他已经购置了这类物品，就不用再源源不断地购置了，所以当他突然改变习性时，人们也会认为是因为他意兴阑珊，而不是财力不济。 另外，如果把收入花在耐用物品上，所养也会非常多；可如果把收入花在款待宾客上，所养就会很少。一个耗费了二三百斤粮食的筵席，浪费的粮食就达到了一半。如果把这笔费用花在雇用泥木工、技匠等方面，所养的人数就会更多，因为工人们在用这笔费用来购买这些粮食时，会节省每一便士每一镑。所以，如果把这笔费用花在生产者身上，就可以增加一国土地和劳动年产物的交换价值；而如果把这笔花销用来维持不生产者，一国土地和劳动年产物的交换价值则丝毫也不会增加。 不过，读者不要受上述理论的误导，误以为在耐久物品上费财就是善行，而在款待宾客上费财则是恶行。如果富人用于款待宾客的资金占了他收入的大部分，那他的亲友就分享了他的大部分收入；而如果他把自己的收入用于购买耐久物品了，那么这些耐久物品就是他独享的，别人要想和他分享，就得付出代价。所以，当他把自己的收入用于购买耐久物品，特别是购买大量的珠宝、衣饰等琐细物品时，就表示他轻浮而且自私自利。我说这些话的意思是，在耐久物品上花费资财，有利于积蓄有价商品，从而有助于私人养成节俭的习惯，最终可以增进社会资本和国民财富。