Chapter 25 Chapter II restricts the import of foreign goods that can also be produced in the country

For some foreign goods that can also be produced in the country, the government has taken measures to increase tariffs or absolutely prohibit their importation.In this way, the domestic market is more or less monopolized by the domestic industries producing these goods.For example, if the UK banned the import of foreign live livestock and preserved food, domestic livestock farmers could monopolize the domestic meat market.If Great Britain imposes high duties on imported corn, the corn producers can almost monopolize the domestic corn market.The imposition of high duties on imported corn in the ordinary year amounts to a practical prohibition of the importation of corn.The same is true of the prohibition of the importation of foreign woolen goods, which is very advantageous to the domestic woolen manufactures.In the silk manufacturing industry in the UK, the materials used in the past were all produced abroad, but in recent years they have also begun to use domestic materials, so they have also achieved the same benefits.The linen manufacturing industry is also making great strides towards this goal.Many other kinds of manufactures in England have likewise acquired monopolies of the home market.There are many foreign goods that are absolutely prohibited by the UK, or prohibited under certain conditions.If one is not acquainted with the customs laws, it is by no means easy for him to guess what kinds of goods are subject to import restrictions from Great Britain.

This policy of restricting imports favors and greatly encourages the industries which enjoy monopolies.Thus, no doubt, a greater portion of labor and stock would be diverted from other employments to such industries.The effect of this policy on the industry as a whole is less obvious.Does its effect on the entire industry promote and guide its development in the most favorable direction?We don't know. The whole industry of society is absolutely in keeping with the limits to which the capital of the society can maintain.As any honest tradesman can only determine how many workers he will employ according to the amount of his capital, so the number of workers that all members of the society can employ must also be determined by the total capital of the society.No regulation of commerce, whatever may be adopted, can cause a society to produce more industry than can be sustained by the total capital of the society.The regulation of commerce merely serves to divert a part of industry from one direction to another, without being able to determine whether such a conversion is more beneficial to society.

Everyone who owns capital is constantly looking for the most beneficial use for capital.His original intention, of course, is to obtain his own interests, not to create interests for the society.But, as he pursues his own interest, he is bound to choose, both subjectively and objectively, the use that is most beneficial to society. First, a man will invest as much as he can if he can obtain a return roughly equal to the ordinary profit by investing it as near as possible to his home.His capital will thus be employed as far as possible in the maintenance of domestic industry.If, therefore, the margin of profit was not great, the merchants would naturally choose the domestic trade first, the foreign trade in consumer goods second, and the transport trade last.

A merchant in foreign trade in consumer goods is often unable to keep a personal watch over his capital.But a businessman engaged in domestic trade is different. Not only can he personally monitor his own capital movements, but he can also learn more about the character and identity of his agents; even if he is cheated occasionally, he can easily obtain compensation because he knows exactly relevant laws of the country.As for the capital of transportation and trade, almost all of them are scattered in foreign countries, and there is no need to bring them back to the home country, and merchants cannot personally monitor and control them.Take an Amsterdam merchant as an example. He first transported grain from Königsberg to Lisbon, and then shipped fruit and wine from Lisbon to Königsberg. At this time, his capital was divided into two parts, and one part was invested in Königsberg. , another part in Lisbon, without having to drop a penny in Amsterdam.As for his residence, it should naturally be in Königsberg or Lisbon. Unless some special circumstances happen, he generally will not live in Amsterdam for a long time.However, since he could not personally monitor his own capital for a long time, he often shipped some goods that were originally to be circulated between Lisbon and Königsberg to Amsterdam because of anxiety.Even if it cost him double the cost of loading and unloading, and paying taxes and duties, he would have given it all to be able to monitor and control these capitals himself.It is for this reason that those countries which carry on the transport trade on a large scale have gradually developed into central markets, and even general markets, for foreign goods.

The second loading and unloading also requires a fee.In order to reduce this expense, merchants will always try to sell the goods of various countries directly in their own countries, so as possible to convert the transportation trade into the foreign trade of consumer goods.In the same way the merchant in the foreign trade of consumer goods, so long as his profit is not much affected, will often sell a part of his goods at home before sending them abroad, and thus save himself from the burden of consumer goods. The risks and troubles that may arise from foreign trade.If I can, I can even say this: the circulation center of a country's individual capital is often its own country, even though these capitals are sometimes far away from their circulation center for some special reasons.As I said before, compared with the capital invested in foreign trade of consumer goods, the same amount of capital invested in domestic trade can promote the development of domestic industries and is more capable of providing more employment opportunities for residents, so that Helps increase the income of the inhabitants; and the same advantages are given to an equal amount of capital invested in the foreign trade of consumer goods, as compared with that invested in the transporting trade.Every one, therefore, when the difference of profits is not great, is more inclined to invest his stock in domestic industry, in order to render the greatest aid to it, and to provide as much employment as possible to the inhabitants of his country, and to assist them in increasing their income.

Secondly, Once a merchant has invested his capital in a domestic industry, he will certainly do his utmost to carry on that industry, that he may be able to obtain the greatest profit from it.Labor can increase the value of labor objects or labor raw materials, and the amount of profit that laborers get from it is determined by the value of the products produced.However, since the businessman's purpose is only to make a profit, he will naturally try to maximize the value of the product.That is to say, he maximizes the quantity of money or other goods for which the produce can be exchanged.

The annual income of the society is always equal to the exchange value of the whole annual product, and it may even be said that they are really the same thing.The annual revenue of the community, therefore, would naturally increase, while the merchants endeavored to invest their capital in domestic industry, and by careful management to obtain the highest exchangeable value of the produce.The original intention of the businessmen is indeed not to increase the public interest.Therefore, he does not even know that he himself has objectively increased the public interest.All he considers is his own safety, so he would rather invest his capital in domestic industries than support foreign ones.Still out of self-interest, he adopts such management as is likely to give his produce the highest exchangeable value.Under the guidance of the invisible hand of self-interest, he works hard to achieve a goal that he did not intend to achieve regardless of the occasion.However, although the businessman's behavior was not intended, it cannot be said that this behavior is harmful to society.Although the original intention of a businessman is to pursue his own interests, he has brought more benefits to the society in the process of pursuing his own interests.There are men who are said to be in business for the public good, but I have never heard of them doing any good.Fortunately, such posturing businessmen are rare, so we don't have to pay attention to them.

In what kind of domestic industry should investment be made to maximize the value of the produce?Every investor can make a good judgment on this question.Not even politicians or legislators can do that.The flow of these capitals is beyond the control of policy guidance, so the government does not have to distract attention at all.Any politician who tries to control the flow of capital is asking for trouble.Moreover, he did so ultra vires, which shows that he does not trust anyone, not even the committee or the Senate, but only absurdly believes that he has the ability to restrict the flow of capital.This kind of person is actually the most dangerous.

A country monopolizes the domestic market for the products of its own craft or manufacture by restricting the importation of foreign goods.This approach is actually a restriction on how private individuals can use their own capital.However, such restrictions are largely useless and may cause some harm.For such restraints are of little use when the domestic produce is as cheap as the foreign produce in the home market; and are generally injurious when the domestic produce is more expensive than the foreign produce. Every shrewd parent knows that if the cost of buying a good is less than the cost of his own production, then he will not produce it himself.To use another analogy, a tailor would not normally think of making his own shoes, he would rather buy them from a shoemaker.The reverse is also true, the shoemaker would rather hire a tailor to make the clothes than do it himself.As for the farmer, he may hire a tailor to make his clothes, and a shoemaker to make his shoes.Each will feel, on the basis of his own interest, that he ought to devote all his energies to his own occupation, in which he will be in a more favorable position than his neighbor, and will buy with the produce of his labour. Any other items you need.

Since this kind of thing is beneficial to individuals, it will naturally not do any harm to a country.If a certain foreign commodity is cheaper than the same kind of commodity in our country, we can exchange some of our superior commodities with them.Since the total labor of a country always remains in a definite proportion to the industrial capital which sustains it, the total labor can never be diminished when the industrial capital is employed in the circulation of commodities.It is the same as the labor of the artisan, who, though he does not work for himself, does not reduce his labor, but expends it to a more profitable use.If a certain product produced by others is cheaper than that produced by oneself, then there is no need for people to produce it themselves, but it is more beneficial to buy it from others.If the laborer himself were obliged to produce what he wanted, instead of producing more valuable commodities, the value of his annual produce would necessarily be somewhat diminished.Now, assuming that the cost of buying this commodity from abroad is cheaper than domestic production, at this time, if the government does not impose restrictions on imports, but allows the domestic industry to develop freely, then the merchants will give a part of the domestic commodity to exchange. this commodity.And when the government restricts the importation, it puts a part of the domestic labor into unfavorable employment, and reduces the exchange value of its annual produce, just against the will of the legislator.

Certainly some particular manufactures are more rapidly established under a restriction of imports than they would be without such restriction, and are able, after a time, to manufacture particular commodities at home at a very low cost.Under the effect of this limitation, social labor can flow into more favorable uses more quickly, but it will not increase the total amount of labor and income.The factor that determines the increase of social labor is only the increase of social capital; and the increase of social capital is determined by the amount of social income that is gradually saved.However, restricting input will directly lead to the reduction of social income, so social capital must not be able to increase rapidly.On the contrary, if capital and labor are allowed to flow freely to the most advantageous use, the capital of society will naturally increase rapidly. Certain manufacturing industries cannot be established quickly without restricting imports.However, this does not result in a lack of social resources.No matter what stage of development a society is in, all its capital and labor may still flow to the most beneficial use at that time, but the objects used in each stage of development are different, and its income may be the maximum income that capital can provide; and capital and The growth rate of income was also the maximum speed possible at that time. Sometimes a country has such a natural advantage in the production of certain commodities that other countries consider it futile to act against this natural advantage.For example, although Scotland, which grows vines by means of glazing and greenhouses, can grow excellent grapes and eventually make excellent wines, it costs them at least as much as it can buy directly from abroad. Thirty times that of wine of the same quality.It is true that Scotland is capable of producing red wines of the same quality as Bordeaux red wines, but it is obviously extremely unreasonable to ban all foreign wines just to encourage the production of red wines in Scotland.It would be equally unreasonable for Scotland to add only one-thirtieth, or even one-thirtieth, of capital and labor to make her own wine.It does not matter whether the superiority of one nation over another is inherent or acquired.In this regard, as long as country A has an advantage over country B, country B is worth buying from country A without having to spend a lot of capital to manufacture it yourself.For another example, the skills of craftsmen are all acquired, but if they all exchange their products for each other's products, it will be more beneficial than if they make them themselves. If a country restricts imports, so that the domestic market is monopolized by the domestic manufacturers and merchants, it is the merchants and manufacturers who derive the greatest advantage from it.For example, restricting or prohibiting the importation of foreign livestock and preserved foods is beneficial to domestic livestock farmers, and imposing high tariffs on imported grains is beneficial to domestic farmers.But this advantage is small in comparison with that which the merchant and manufacturer derive from similar restraints.Manufactures are better suited to foreign trade in consumer goods than corn and livestock, especially fine manufactures.The sale of manufactures, therefore, is usually the chief business of foreign trade.The slightest advantage which can be gained by manufactures, can make the foreign commodity sell in the home market below that of the domestic produce.However, if the original product of the land is to go this far, it must be of great benefit.If the government were to allow the free importation of foreign manufactures, it might impair or destroy several domestic manufactures, and drive a great part of their capital and labor to seek other and more profitable employments. But even if the government had permitted the free importation of the native produce of the land, no similar great change would have occurred in the agriculture of this country.For example, livestock, even if the free importation of livestock is allowed, the British livestock industry will not be affected much.Because the supply of livestock is very scarce, its input is naturally less, not to mention, the cost of sea transportation of live livestock is higher than that of land transportation.Live livestock is the only commodity that costs more to ship by sea than by land.Because, when transported by land, the livestock can walk by themselves; but when transported by sea, the livestock must not only be transported, but also consume food and drink, which is not only troublesome but also costs a lot of money.In contrast, transporting livestock from Ireland to Britain was relatively easy because of the short sea distance between the two places.Britain has recently introduced import period restrictions on the importation of cattle from Ireland, but the British herdsmen will not suffer much if the government never imposes restrictions.A portion of Ireland's livestock lies on the border between Britain and the Irish Sea.Importing cattle from Ireland involves a great distance, considerable expense, and trouble.Because it is inconvenient for fat livestock to travel far, only thin ones can be imported.The value of lean animals is lowered by the need for a freight charge, and this effect on the breeders of the importing country is not injurious, but beneficial.But those places where the livestock industry is prosperous will suffer losses for it.Great Britain has not imported much Irish cattle since the government allowed them to be imported, and lean cattle still sell at high prices.It appears, therefore, that those parts of Britain where the cattle-breeding prospered would suffer little loss from the free importation of Irish cattle.It is said that the Irish people once strongly opposed the export of livestock.But if the livestock exporters felt that the interests of exporting livestock were very strong, and the law supported them, they could easily break down the opposition of the Irish populace. Those places where livestock are raised must have undergone large-scale land improvement; while those places where animal husbandry flourishes must be backward areas with uncultivated land.As an increase in the price of lean cattle would increase the value of uncultivated land, it would undoubtedly oppose land improvement in cattle-exporting countries, and would only encourage them to continue using uncultivated land for cattle.In those countries which have undergone a great improvement of the land, it is more convenient to import lean cattle than to breed them yourself.It is said that the Netherlands now believes in this view.There are many areas incapable of great land improvement, such as Scotland, Wales, and the hills of Northumberland, which seem destined to be the stockyards of Britain.The free importation of foreign cattle by the government has only had the effect that the districts which have made the cattle-breeding flourish, such as Scotland, have been unable to increase their populations and improve their lands on such a scale as in the rest of the United Kingdom.In other words, since the government cannot substantially raise the price of livestock, and does not actually tax those parts of the country that have improved land, it puts such livestock-bossing regions at a competitive disadvantage. Pickled food, like live cattle, would not have seriously affected the interests of the British herdsmen, even if the greatest freedom had been given to their importation.Because pickled food is not only cumbersome, but also not as good as fresh meat, and requires more labor and expense.Therefore, even if this kind of preserved food is sold well in China, it is absolutely unable to compete with domestic fresh meat.Its main consumption places are places such as ocean-going ships where fresh meat is not easy to store, and its share in the food of ordinary people is not large.Although the government allowed merchants to import Irish pickled food freely, the amount imported was still small.It can be seen that this kind of free importation will not have the slightest impact on the British livestock farmers.Also, livestock prices don't seem to have suffered much from it. In the same way, the interests of British farmers would not be seriously affected by the free importation of foreign corn.Because grain is far bulkier than livestock meat.A pound of wheat sold for one penny, compared with fourpence for a pound of butcher's meat.Even in times of great famine, the importation of foreign corn is limited.It can be seen from this that British farmers need not worry at all that the free importation of foreign grains will have adverse effects on their own country.Among the corn trade researchers there are many well-informed and ambitious people.From their treatises it appears that the average annual import of every kind of corn amounted to 23,728 quarts, or 1/571th of the total annual consumption of the country.However, the bonus policy implemented by the government encourages the export of a large amount of grain, and even makes the grain output in good years exceed the actual harvest. Therefore, in a poor harvest year, the amount of grain imported will inevitably exceed what the actual farming conditions allow. quantity.The net result is that the crops in good years cannot be used to compensate for poor crops in the following year.It can be seen from this that the implementation of the bounty system will inevitably make the average output and average input both larger than the actual allowable level.If the government had not instituted a bounty policy, the export of corn would have been less, and the average import would probably have been less.Thus the merchants who sold corn between England and other countries lost much business, and suffered greatly by it.However, squires and farmers are different. Even if they suffer losses, the losses are very limited.Of all corn merchants, squires, and farmers, therefore, it was the corn merchant who most desired to continue the bounty policy. The squire and the farmer are the least despicable of all peoples.For them, the spirit of non-exclusiveness is very noble.The entrepreneur of a large manufacturing plant, on the other hand, may immediately become alarmed if a new plant of the same kind appears within twenty miles of him.Moreover, while the Dutch were engaged in woolen manufactures in Abbeville, they did not even permit others to build similar factories within sixty miles of Abbeville.Squires and farmers, on the other hand, do not react in this way to the clearing and improvement of neighboring lands, and need not keep as much secrecy as most manufactures; Both are willing to share with their neighbors and spread this new discovery as much as possible.In Cato's eyes, agriculture is the most respected profession, because practitioners can live the most stable life without being envied by others, and practitioners themselves are very satisfied with this kind of life.Most of the country gentry and farmers are scattered in various places, and it is not easy to combine; while most of the merchants and manufacturers live in the cities, and most of them have joined the same business associations prevailing in the cities, so it is easier to combine.Moreover, the merchants and manufacturers were not content to acquire privileges merely against the interests of the inhabitants of the city, but wished to acquire them against the interests of all.In order to achieve this goal, they try their best to monopolize the domestic market.The policy of restricting the import of foreign goods seems to be proposed by them.At this time, the gentry and farmers, who should have been magnanimous, were also influenced by the merchants and manufacturers, and began to demand a monopoly in the market for corn and livestock meat.Moreover, the country gentry and farmers are not satisfied with their current status and want to be on the same level as merchants and manufacturers, so they have no time to consider the fundamental problem that free trade will not bring them much benefit. The laws, which forever prohibit the importation of corn and cattle, in fact prescribe that the population and industry of any country shall not exceed what the native produce of the land can sustain in that country. Burdens imposed on foreign industry for the purpose of rewarding domestic industry generally have an advantageous use in two cases. In the first case, the foreign industry is a specific industry necessary for national defense.The national defense of Britain, for example, was largely determined by the number of seamen and ships.Therefore, in order to protect its own interests, Britain will naturally impose high tariffs on foreign ships, or prohibit foreign ships from navigating in the country, so as to ensure that its seamen and ships can monopolize the domestic shipping industry.The following are the general regulations of the British Navigation Law. Article 1 The owner, captain and three-quarters of the crew of any ship trading with Britain and its colonies, or doing business along the coast of Britain, must be British.If there is a violation, the government has the right to confiscate the ship and all the goods on it. Article 2 When importing very large foreign commodities, only ships of the type specified in Article 1, or ships from the country of origin of the commodities, may be used.In addition, the owner, captain and three-quarters of the crew of the ship in the country where the commodity is produced must also be nationals of the country where the commodity is produced.Moreover, when the goods are transported by ships from the country of origin, the tax must be doubled.If other ships dare to violate this regulation, the government has the right to confiscate the ship and all its cargo.The Dutch were still the great transporters of Europe when this regulation was promulgated; they will remain the great transporters of Europe even after this regulation; It is no longer possible to freely transport goods from other European countries to the UK. Article 3 Many foreign commodities of very large size can only be imported by ships from the country from which they originate.For ships that violate this regulation, the government has the right to confiscate the ship and all its cargo.It seems that this regulation seems to be specially formulated for the Dutch.The Netherlands was then, and still is, a large trading market for all kinds of goods in Europe.If this regulation is strictly enforced, British ships will not be able to transport goods from other European countries from the Netherlands. Article 4 Duties are to be doubled on the importation of pickled fish and cetaceans not caught and prepared by British ships.In Europe at that time, only the Dutch made a living by exporting fish products.The Dutch still make up the majority of those who now make their living from fishing.After the promulgation of this regulation, the Dutch had to pay high tariffs before they could import fish to the UK. When the British enacted this navigation law, Britain and the Netherlands did not go to war, but the hatred between the two countries reached a fever pitch.This navigation law was enacted by the Parliament that ruled the United Kingdom for a long time.And this hatred began as early as the beginning of this reign.When the Anglo-Dutch war broke out during the Cromwell dynasty and the Charles II dynasty, this hatred also broke out.Therefore, it can almost be said that several items in this famous navigation law are actually formulated based on national hatred.But these regulations are wise, and bring no less advantage than regulations drawn up with much forethought.At that time, the Dutch navy was the only force that could threaten the security of England.The national hatred at that time was aimed at destroying the Dutch navy, which coincided with the well-thought-out national defense policy. The laws of navigation are not conducive to the increase of wealth derived from foreign trade.When a country trades with foreign countries, it has to make a profit by buying cheap and selling dear, just like the transactions between individual merchants.When the freedom of trade is unrestricted, the chances of buying cheap and selling dear are the greatest.Because, when the freedom of trade is unrestricted, it will encourage a country to import what it needs from abroad at low prices. At this time, there may also be a situation where buyers gather in the same market, which will cause everyone to compete. Prices of purchased goods are driven up. There is no duty imposed by England on foreign ships which export British products from England.In the past, foreign ships were usually required to pay alien taxes when exporting and importing goods. Later, many laws were promulgated to exempt most of the exported goods from alien taxes.However, the harm of the navigation law to foreign trade cannot be alleviated by exempting some tariffs.As we prevent free trade either by absolute prohibition or by imposing high duties, foreign merchants cannot come to England to sell and buy.If a foreign businessman happens to come to England with an empty ship to load goods at this time, then he has to bear the cost of the ship himself.Therefore, while the number of sellers decreases, the number of buyers also decreases.In this way, we will buy foreign goods at a high price and sell our own goods at a low price.But defense is so much more important than national wealth, and the Act of Navigation is perhaps the wisest regulation of commerce in England. These are the first advantageous uses of the burdens of government upon foreign industry.The second beneficial use arises when taxes are imposed on domestic produce. It is also reasonable to levy the same tax on the same produce in a foreign country.Such measures will not allow the domestic industry to monopolize the domestic market, nor will it change the flow of capital and labor.Even with this measure, the inflow of stock and labor to any particular use will not be much greater than that which flows naturally into it.This effect, on the contrary, would give the best possible natural circulation of stock and labour; and would enable domestic and foreign industries to have a roughly equal condition of competition, before and after taxes.In Great Britain, when such a tax is imposed upon the domestic produce, it is at the same time imposed upon the domestic like foreign goods a far higher duty than the domestic goods.Only in this way will the domestic merchants and manufacturers not worry about selling this commodity cheaply, and naturally stop complaining constantly. The second restraint of free trade, it has been thought by some, should not sometimes be confined to those foreign commodities which compete with the taxed goods of this country, but should include many other commodities as well.These people believe that if a tax is imposed on the necessities of life at home, then the same kind of goods imported from abroad and all other foreign goods should be taxed at the same time, which will inevitably raise the price of the necessities of life, so that the price of labor will rise accordingly .Thus, though the other commodities of the country are not directly taxed, yet as the price of the labor in producing them has risen, their prices will also rise by this taxation.Therefore, they believe that although only the necessities of life have paid this tax, it is actually equivalent to paying taxes on all domestic commodities; to make the status of domestic and foreign industries equal, all foreign commodities imported into the country must be taxed , the amount of the tax is equal to the increase in the price of the domestic commodity. Would a tax on the necessaries of life, such as alkali, salt, hides, candles, etc., raise the price of labor in England, and ultimately of all other commodities with it?This issue will be discussed later when I examine taxation.Now, we can certainly assume that the above outcome is possible.It is a normal situation that the general rise of commodity prices is caused by the rise of labor prices.In both cases, however, the rise in the price of particular commodities by particular taxes differs from the rise in the price of general commodities. In the first place, one can always judge exactly how far particular taxes may raise the price of particular commodities; but how much the prices of the produce of labor of all kinds are affected when the price of labor rises at a general rate, People can't judge accurately.Therefore, even if the price of domestic commodities has risen, no one can exact a proportionate tax on foreign commodities of the same kind. In the second place, taxes on the necessaries of life have as bad an effect on the condition of the people as poor soil and bad climate.Both poor soil and unfavorable climate necessarily increase the labor and expense of producing food.The same is true of taxes on the necessaries of life, which necessarily raise the price of food.It is inappropriate for the government to direct the capital and labor of the people, even though they are in a bad state because of bad soil and climate; likewise, it is not good for the government to direct the people how to use their capital when the necessaries of life are scarce due to taxation. and labor.In both cases, it is naturally in the best interest of the people to adapt themselves as well as possible, to find more profitable employments for their capital and labor, so that they can be employed in the market even when circumstances are unfavorable. in a slightly favorable position.The people are already heavily taxed, and if new taxes were imposed on them, and they were required to pay high prices for most of the things other than the necessaries of life, they would certainly not be able to bear it.If this kind of tax is high enough, it will bring great disasters to the people like poor soil and dangerous weather.This kind of tax can only be collected by rich and thrifty countries, and no other country can afford such a toss.To use an analogy, when the diet is unhygienic, only the able-bodied can continue to survive in good health.Such taxes, therefore, cannot affect the prosperity of a country, so long as the various industries of the country are of the greatest advantage.The European country with the most taxes of this kind is the Netherlands.It was not because of this tax that Holland continued to prosper, but because of other special reasons.These special reasons can overcome the disadvantages of this taxation, so that it cannot prevent the continued prosperity of Holland. In both cases, it is generally advantageous to impose a burden on foreign industry in order to reward domestic industry.Whether, however, it is in the interest of the domestic industry to impose a burden on the foreign industry, depends on the circumstances of the two cases.The first is to what extent it is appropriate to continue to allow the free importation of certain foreign goods to be controlled; the second is to what method and to what extent it is more appropriate to restore free importation after it has been interrupted for a long time. The first of these cases is taken into account when certain manufactures of Great Britain are imported into a foreign country, and are restrained by that country by high duties or absolute prohibitions.In such a case we would be driven by vengeance to retaliate, by imposing likewise high duties on some, if not all, manufactures which they import into Great Britain, or by absolutely prohibiting their importation.This kind of revenge method is usually adopted by all countries, and the French especially like it.The French, in order to protect their domestic industry, have frequently applied it to all foreign commodities which are capable of competing with their own.This method of restricting imports seems to have constituted a large part of Coleport's policy.For all his talent, Cole Porter was not immune to being duped by sophistry merchants and manufacturers.These merchants and manufacturers have always claimed the monopoly of the domestic market, even if such monopoly would be harmful to the interests of their fellow countrymen.Now, even the most intelligent people in France believe that Cole Porter's policy is not conducive to the development of France at all. In 1667, Coleport published the Tariff Act, declaring high tariffs on most foreign manufactures.In response to this tariff law, the Dutch made a request for a reduction in tariffs, but they did not receive a satisfactory answer.于是，1671年，荷兰对法国的葡萄酒、白兰地和制造品采取了输入限制的措施。 1672年，法、荷两国交战，其中有一部分原因，就是这次商业争论未达成一致。 1678年，法、荷两国签订《尼迈哥合约》，规定法国按照荷兰的要求减轻各种关税，荷兰人废止限制输入的禁令。英、法两国为了压迫对方的产业，也相互采取了征收高额关税和禁止输入的政策，而且好像是法国首先采取行动的。从那时起，两国就相互敌视，双方都不肯降低关税。 1697年，英国对弗兰德的呢绒采取了禁止输入的措施。当时的弗兰德还是西班牙的殖民地。弗兰德政府为了报复英国，采取了禁止输入英国毛织品的措施予以回击。 1700年，英国废止了对输入弗兰德呢绒的限制，条件就是弗兰德同时废止对英国毛织品的输入限制。 高额关税或禁止输入，受到了普遍的斥责。而采取报复政策的目的，就是废止高额关税和禁止输入。如果它能达到目的，就可以说它是好政策。有时候，某些物品暂时的价格抬升，可能会给多方面带来一些暂时的困难。这时，如果大的外国市场恢复了，这种困难一般都可以解除。这种报复能否解除上述困难呢？这需要一定的条件。相比之下，政治家或所谓政客的技巧，比立法者的知识更能满足这一条件。因为，影响立法者思路的，一般是一些不变的理论；而政治家或政客，则像狡猾的动物一样，他们的想法一般只由事情的暂时变动所左右。即使输入限制不可能撤销，我们也不能不顾自身利益地去赔偿国内某些阶级的损失。因为，这样不仅不能挽回那些阶级的损失，反而可能伤害到其他阶级的利益。 当邻国禁止输入英国的某种制造品时，通常情况下，我们都会禁止输入他们的同种制造品和其他几种制造品。因为，只有禁止输入他们的多种制造品，才能对他们产生明显的影响。这种做法，无疑鼓励了英国某些部门的工人，缓和了他们的竞争，抬高了他们的产品在国内市场的售价。反过来，那些因邻国禁令而蒙受损失的英国工人，却不能从英国的报复政策中得到丝毫利益，他们和英国其他阶级的人民一样，都不得不以比从前高昂的价格来购买某些货物。所以，从对全国都实际征税的法律中受益的，并不是受邻国禁令之害的那一阶级。 当所有能和本国的某些制造业竞争的外国商品，都被高额关税或禁止输入拒之国门之外，从而使得本国的某些制造业扩大到能雇用大量工人时，会考虑到上述的第二种情况，即在自由输入已经中断了很长时间之后，用什么方法将其恢复、恢复到什么程度比较合适。 在这种情况之下，如果按照人道主义的要求来恢复自由贸易，也许只能小心翼翼地一步一步进行恢复。因为，如果高额关税和禁止输入突然被废止，那么外国一些低廉的同类商品就会迅速流入国内，夺走英国人民的大量生活资料，并使国内很多人失业，引起极大的社会混乱。不过，由突然废止禁令带来的这种混乱，或许并没有我们想象的那么严重，其中的理由有两个。 第一，有些制造品，即使没有奖励金的鼓励，也可以向欧洲其他各国输出，它们受外国商品自由输入的影响非常小。这种制造品在外国的售价，必定会和外国同品质、同种类的商品一样低廉。而其在国内的售价，必定更加低廉，足以控制国内市场。当然，有时难免会遇到一些特别爱好外国货的时髦人，在他们眼里，外国货比本国制造的同类价廉物美的商品重要，所以他们会选择购买外国货。不过，这种愚蠢的行为并不多见，因而不会显著地影响到一般行业。英国有很大一部分的毛织品、皮制品、铁器，每年都可以在不依赖奖励金的情况下向欧洲其他国家输出。也正是这几种制造品所在的行业，雇用的工人数目最多。在从自由贸易中受到损害的行业中，好像丝制造业的损失最大，麻布制造业次之。不过，后者所受的损失，远远少于前者。 第二，虽然快速恢复贸易自由，会使许多人突然失掉他们以往赖以生存的职业，却不会使他们失业或生计无着。例如，上次战争结束后裁减的海陆军官兵有十万多人，而大制造业刚好需要雇用这么多的工人。虽然他们平素赖以生存的职业不存在了，困难随之而来，但他们并没有因此而失业，更没有生计无着。而很大一部分水兵，也都逐渐流向了商船。所有被遣散的海陆军官兵，都找到了工作，成了广大民众的一员。这十万多的官兵，都是使惯了武器的人，其中有许多人还惯于劫掠；但是，当他们的社会地位发生那么大的变化时，社会却没有因此而发生大动乱，甚至没有发生显著的混乱，各地的流氓人数也没有明显增加。此外，据说只有商船海员的劳动工资因此而减少了。 官兵和所有制造业工人相比，后者转业的可能性更大。因为，官兵一向都以军饷为生，因而往往流于怠惰、游荡；而制造业工人就不同了，他们得靠自身劳动谋生，往往非常勤劳、刻苦。如果是官兵转业到一个靠劳动谋生的行业，他就得一改往日怠惰与游荡的生活方式，变成勤劳的劳动者。这对他来说，自然比较困难。而制造业工人要转到另一种靠辛勤劳动谋生的行业就容易多了。我在前面说过，大部分制造业都有与其性质相似的旁系制造业，所以工人要从这种制造业转到另一种制造业，无疑非常容易。此外，这类工人有一大部分有时还会去从事农村劳动。这类工人原来从事的制造业的资财，也继续留在国内，只是被用来以另外一种方式雇用相同数量的工人了。这时，无论是国家资本，还是劳动需求，都基本和从前相同，只是使用地区和使用的职业发生了变化。当然，被遣散的海陆军官兵，都有选择职业的自由，他们可以在不列颠或爱尔兰的任何地方选择任何职业。 海陆军官兵所享受的那种自由，就是天赋自由。而无论是同业组合的专营特权，还是学徒法令，都侵害了这种自由。还有居住法，它使在此地失业的贫穷工人，无法在彼地彼业顺利地就业；即使贫穷工人在某地居住、就业了，他们也会担心被迫迁移。如果人们的天赋自由被恢复，即同业组合被摧毁、学徒法令被废止，那么当某种特定制造业的工人偶然被遣散时，他们就能像海陆军官兵一样顺利转业，也不会蒙受太大损失；社会也不会蒙受什么损失。制造业工人对国家的贡献无疑非常大，但却远远比不上以血肉之躯保家卫国的那些人。所以，好像用不着让他们享受更好的待遇。 理想国或乌托邦，是不可能在不列颠设立的；不列颠的自由贸易也一样，完全没有恢复的期望。因为，完全恢复自由贸易有一些不可抗拒的阻力，比如公众的偏见，以及许多更难克服的个人私利等。增加国内市场竞争人数的法律，引起了制造业者的激烈反对，他们鼓动工人以暴力攻击这种法律的提出者。如果军队的将校和制造业者一样，不但激烈地反对缩小兵力，还鼓动士兵以暴力攻击缩减兵力的提出者，那么精简军队就非常危险，其危险程度，与想在任何方面削弱国内制造业者既得独占权的危险程度一样。这种危害同胞的独占权，已经大规模地增加了某些制造业的人数。这些制造业者联合起来时，就像一支过于庞大的常备军，可以胁迫政府甚至是立法机关。这时，如果哪个国会议员赞成加强这种独占权，那他不但会因为“理解”国内贸易而获得赞誉，还能受到那个以人数众多和财富庞大而占重要地位的阶级的欢迎和拥戴。反之，如果他反对加强独占权，或是有权力阻止这类提案，那么无论他为人多么正直、社会地位多么高、功绩多么大，恐怕也难免会受到极度的侮辱与诽谤，甚至遭到人身攻击并可能遇上实际危险。因为，他的行为使独占者陷入了愤怒和失望的境地，只好用暴行来伤害他。 如果国内市场上突然多了外国竞争者，以致大制造业的经营者不得不放弃原业，那么大制造业者的损失肯定是巨大的。这时，他的一部分用来购买材料和支付工资的资本，也许可以轻易地另觅它途；但是，工厂和生产用具等固定资本，处置起来却非常困难，往往会造成极大的损失。他们出于自身利益的考虑，自然会要求立法机关不要急于进行这种变革，而是要在发出警告很久之后再逐渐地实行。这时，如果立法机关不为这种只为追求片面利益的吵嚷所左右，而是考虑到多数民众的幸福，并在这种追求普遍幸福的见地的指导下开始立法，那么它在立法时，就会小心地避免新法律再产生其他的独占权。 并不是所有对外国商品征税的行为，都是以限制输入为目的的，有些征税行为的目的是筹集政府资金。至于以什么程度对外国商品征税才能有效地筹集资金，是我在考察赋税时所要论述的问题，详见后文。那些为防止或减少输入而征收的税，显然把贸易自由和关税收入都给破坏了。