Chapter 26 Chapter III restricts the importation of foreign goods that cause the country to run into a trade deficit

Mercantilism advocated two methods of increasing the quantity of gold and silver. The second method was to impose extraordinary restrictions on the importation of almost all goods from countries that ran into deficits in their trade.For example, muslin from Silesia can be imported into the British consumer market as long as a certain tax is paid; but muslin and muslin from France are treated differently, and the British only allow them to use the port of London as a transit point , it is not allowed to be sold in the UK at all.Also, the UK charges more import duties on French wine than Portugal or any other country.For example, in 1692, Britain promulgated the so-called import tax, stipulating that all French goods must pay an import tax of up to 25% of the value of the goods when they are imported into the UK.

But the import duties which Great Britain levies on the goods of other countries seldom exceed five per cent. of their value.French wine, brandy, salt, and vinegar, of course, are excluded from this list, but are subject to more onerous import duties according to other laws or special provisions of this import law. In 1696, in order to strengthen the prevention of the import of French goods, the British imposed an additional 25% import tax on French goods except brandy, and levied a per cent tax on French wine and French vinegar. Twenty-five pounds for the barrel, and fifteen pounds for each barrel.As for the general subsidy tax, or the five percent tax, which is listed in the tariff code, most goods must be paid. Britain has never reduced or exempted French goods, but instead imposed high import duties.If one-third of the subsidy tax and two-thirds of the subsidy tax are included in the subsidy tax, then there are as many as five types of subsidy taxes to be paid by France.Therefore, before this Anglo-French war, most of the agricultural products and manufactures of France were imported into England. The duty paid by France was at least 75% of the total value of the goods.In the actual transaction process, most goods cannot afford such heavy taxes.Therefore, this heavy tax is actually no different from prohibiting imports.Though I do not know how much the French import duties were imposed on English goods, I believe they must have been enormous.The two countries thus restrained each other, and almost cut off all fair trade between the two countries, so that the merchants of the two countries had to rely mainly on smuggling to conduct mutual transactions.In the last chapter I considered the principle of monopoly, arising from private interest; Reasonable, even from a mercantile point of view.There are three reasons for this:

First, even if the result of free trade between Britain and France is beneficial to France, we cannot conclude that the interests of Britain will suffer losses, let alone that the overall trade balance of Britain caused by it will bring losses to Britain.If French wine was cheaper and better than Portuguese wine, and French linen was cheaper and better than German linen, it would certainly be more costly for England to buy both wine and linen from France than from Portugal and Germany respectively. favorable.In this way, the value of the goods which England imports from France every year must be greatly increased.But as French goods are cheaper than those of the same kind and quality in Portugal and Germany, the value of all her imports must necessarily be reduced in proportion to their cheapness.

Secondly, It is probable that the greater part of the goods imported from France into England will be re-exported from England to other countries for more favorable transactions, and may bring back goods from third countries equal to the original cost-value of all French imports.What has been said of the East India trade applies equally to the French trade.In other words, although most of the goods in the East India were purchased with gold and silver, some of the goods re-exported could bring back more gold and silver than the original cost of the whole goods.Now, transporting French goods to other European countries is one of the most important trades in the Netherlands; even part of the French wine drunk by the British is smuggled from the Netherlands and Zealand.If there were no import restrictions between Britain and France, or if Britain imposed the same import duties on French goods as other European countries, then Britain might enjoy the benefits of free trade like the Netherlands.

Third, we do not have a clear criterion for judging which country is in favor of the trade balance between the two countries.We judge the matter by the prejudices and hostility of the nation, which is often swayed by the self-interest of individual merchants, by the standards of the customs books and the exchange rate.Both standards, however, were not thought to be reliable at all, as the customs books and exchange conditions were not very accurate in estimating most commodities. When the exchange rates of London and Paris are equal, it means that the mutual debts of the two places cancel each other out.Conversely, if London had to pay remittances in order to purchase the bill of exchange in Paris, it meant that London still owed Paris part of the debt, and London had to pay the difference to Paris.Water transfers emerged to avoid the disadvantages of directly exporting money.The remitter requires the remitter to pay the remittance, and the remitter must pay in accordance with the request of the remitter, so that the danger and trouble that may be caused by direct export of currency can be avoided.

The general state of the claims and debts of these two towns is said to be necessarily governed by the commercial intercourse between the two towns.If the mutual import and export amounts of the two cities are equal, then the mutual debts and claims of the two cities can offset each other.However, if City A imports more value from City B than it exports to City B, then City A must be in a state of trade deficit.At this time, the claims and debts cannot be offset, and the debtor country must pay the difference in currency to the creditor country.Since the exchange rate reflects the debts and claims between the two cities, it must also reflect the export and import of the two cities.Because the creditor's rights and debts of the two cities are bound to be subject to the export and import conditions of the two cities.

Even if the exchange rate can fully reflect the debt and creditor's rights of the two cities, it cannot be concluded that the trade balance must be beneficial to one party.The debts and creditor's rights of the two places are not necessarily completely dominated by the business relations between the two places, but are often subject to the business relations between any one of the two places and other places.For example, if England uses Dutch bills of exchange to purchase goods at Hamburg, Danzig, Riga, etc., then the factors governing the debts and claims of England and Holland are not the business relations between England and Holland, but the relationship between England and the Netherlands. Business dealings in other regions.At this time, even if England's annual export to Holland is much greater than the value it imports from Holland, and the balance of trade is very favorable to her, she must also send a part of money to Holland every year.

Even if it is analyzed according to the method of calculating par exchange rate, the exchange rate situation does not fully indicate that a country can be in a favorable position in terms of exchange rate, debt and claim position at the same time.That said, actual exchange rates can and often will be very different from estimates.Therefore, we often cannot assert the status of debts and claims based solely on the exchange rate. Suppose you pay a certain ounces of standard silver in England, and you get a money order payable in France for French standard currency containing an equivalent amount of pure silver.At this time, the exchange between Britain and France is what people call parity exchange.If you pay more currency than you exchange, it's tantamount to saying you pay remittances, and the remittance is not in favor of the UK.Conversely, if you pay less currency than you redeem, you get remittances, and the remittance is against France.However, the plausibility of this claim is open to scrutiny for three reasons.

First, the standards of mints in various countries cannot always be used as a basis for judging the value of currencies in various countries.For the currencies of various countries tend to wear and tear, and therefore fall more or less below their standard value.It is not the quantity of pure silver that each should contain, but the quantity of pure silver that actually contains, that determines the relative value of the common coin of one country to that of another.During the reign of King William, silver coins were reformed.Prior to this, if the exchange rate between Britain and the Netherlands was calculated by the common calculation method according to the standards of their respective mints, the UK would have to pay a discount of 25%.However, according to Landis's investigation, the value of the British common coin at that time was 25% lower than its standard value.Therefore, if the exchange rate between the two countries at that time is calculated according to the usual calculation method, then on the surface, the situation is greatly unfavorable to Britain, but in fact it is beneficial to Britain.In actual transaction activities, the money order purchased by paying less pure silver in the UK can be cashed in the Netherlands for more pure silver, that is, the person who apparently should pay the remittance actually got the remittance.The French coinage was much less worn than the English coinage before the British conversion to gold coins.The French coinage is much closer to its standard than the British coinage, by about two to three percent.Calculate the exchange between England and France, and if it is not against England by more than two or three per cent, the real exchange is in favor of England.In fact, the exchange situation has been in England's favor since the gold coin was reformed.

Second, the cost of coinage is not always paid by the government. In some countries, the cost of coinage is paid by private individuals.In countries where the cost of coinage is paid privately, the owner of the bullion pays the mint for the mint, and sometimes some amount to the government.The cost of minting British coins was paid by the state, and a pound of standard silver could be exchanged for sixty-two shillings.France was required to deduct seigniorage of up to eight percent, sufficient to cover the cost of coinage and government revenue.England charges no charge for its coinage, so that the real value of its coinage can never be much greater than the value of an equal quantity of silver bullion.France has instituted a wages policy which increases the value of both coinage and proof gold and silver.A French coin containing a given amount of pure silver, therefore, must be of greater value than an English coin containing an equal amount of pure silver, and will, of course, yield more bullion or commodities in exchange for it.Therefore, although the mints of the two countries are close to the standards of their respective mints, the British currency containing a certain amount of pure silver may not be able to be exchanged for the equivalent amount of French currency containing the same amount of pure silver, so it may not be possible to purchase and pay in France. bill of exchange in equal amounts.The exchange between the two countries is equal if England pays excess currency for a bill of exchange that exactly compensates the French mint.At this time, the debts and claims of the two countries can offset each other.However, according to actual calculations, the exchange rate between the two countries is very favorable to France.On the other hand, if England paid less money than said amount for the bill, the exchange between the two countries would be in favor of England.

Thirdly, when paying foreign bills of exchange, some places use what they call bank money, while others use the local common currency.Places where foreign exchange is paid in the former way include Amsterdam, Hamburg, Venice and other places; places where foreign exchange is paid in the latter way include London, Lisbon, Antwerp, Ligochen and other places.The so-called bank money is always worth more than its nominal equivalent in common money.In Amsterdam, for example, a thousand guilders of local bank money are worth more than a thousand guilders of common currency, and the difference is called the bank's discount.The bank discount in Amsterdam is about five percent. When paying the same foreign bill of exchange, if one country uses the local common currency and the other uses the bank currency, then even if the common currency of both countries is close to the standard of their respective mints, the exchange between the two countries is de facto Favorable for countries that use a common currency for payment.However, on the face of it, the country that pays in bank currency benefits.In other words, when a foreign bill of exchange is paid, one country uses a currency of inferior quality, while the other uses a currency of good quality. At this time, although the exchange between the two countries is actually beneficial to the former country, it appears The calculation is in favor of the latter country.Before the recent reformation of the gold coin, the exchange of London against Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Venice was on the face of it calculated against London.However, we cannot conclude from this that London suffered a loss in exchange.Since the reform of the gold coin, London has been able to make a profit even if it communicates with these places.The remittances of London to Lisbon, Antwerp, Rigochen, and most other parts of Europe, except France, which pay bills of exchange in common currencies, were largely calculated in favor of London, and seemed to be so. Here, in passing, I will say a few words about bullion banks, taking the one in Amsterdam as a special case. The currency used by such great powers as France and Great Britain is almost exclusively its own coin; and even if the value of this currency, through wear and tear, etc., has fallen below the standard value, it can be re-coined by the state. recover.However, the situation of some small countries is different, and the currency used by them is basically not their own coinage.For example, most of the currencies used by small countries such as Genoa and Hamburg were brought over by their residents from neighboring countries; even if the method of recasting can improve the coinage, it may not be able to improve their currency.Because the nature of this currency is so unstable that it is difficult for people to determine its value, its value in foreign countries is naturally lower than its actual value, and its use in cashing foreign bills of exchange will of course suffer adverse effects. The merchants must also suffer losses from this unfavorable exchange.After paying attention to the benefits of trade, in order to prevent merchants from losing money, small countries stipulate that foreign exchange cannot be redeemed with common currency; the only way to redeem foreign exchange is to pay a certain bank's bank note or transfer through a certain bank's account book.These banks have to be established with the credit and protection of the country, so they must pay bills of exchange in standard currency in full accordance with the country's standards.There are many banks established for this purpose, such as the banks in Venice, Genoa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Nuremberg, etc., all of which belong to this type of bank, but some banks were forced to change their purpose later. The quality of the currency of this kind of bank built on the credit and protection of the country is naturally better than that of the local common currency, so there will inevitably be a discount, and the size of the discount depends on the degree to which the currency is lower than the national standard.The premium of the Bank of Hamburg is said to be generally fourteen per cent, which is the difference between the national standard currency and the clipped and worn coins that flow in from neighboring countries. Amsterdam before 1609 was rich in clipped and worn-out foreign currency brought back by extensive trade from all over Europe, which was worth about nine per cent less than the standard coin of the country, so that the standard coin, once minted, was be remelted or exported directly.As a result, merchants with a large amount of currency will often not be able to find enough standard currency to pay bills of exchange.The value of such bills then becomes so uncertain that even several statutes can hardly prevent this uncertainty. Amsterdam solved this problem by setting up a bank in 1609, which accepted foreign coins as well as slightly worn coins of the country.As for the intrinsic value of these coins, it was calculated as the value of the standard coin after deducting the necessary minting and management fees, which were then entered as credits in the books of the banks.This credit is called bank money.The reason is that the money it represents happens to be minted to mint standards, and its real value tends to be the same as its nominal value and greater than the intrinsic value of the common currency.At the same time, the government also made the following regulations: once the amount of money orders cashed or sold in Amsterdam exceeds 600 guilders, they can only be cashed in bank currency.Once this regulation is promulgated and implemented, it immediately eliminates the uncertainty of the value of all bills of exchange.Because, in order to pay their foreign bills of exchange, merchants have to do business with banks, and the value of bills of exchange is naturally determined. Not only is bank money superior to common money, it can increase its value as needed, and has several other advantages.For example, it is basically impossible for it to encounter fire, robbery or other unexpected situations, and it is solely responsible for it by the city of Amsterdam; the cashier only needs to complete the cashing activity through a simple transfer, neither calculation nor risky transportation.These advantages of it make it seem to have produced a premium from the very beginning.Because at this time, everyone is willing to let the currency that is already in the bank remain in the bank, even if such deposits can get a discount when they circulate in the market.It is thought that the owner of the bank credit would lose this premium if he withdrew his deposits from the bank. Since the newly minted shillings buy as much goods as the worn shillings, the bank money flowing out of the banks will be confused with the common money, and finally will no longer be worth more than the common money.If, therefore, it is deposited in a bank, its superiority is recognized; but when it passes into private hands, its superiority is more difficult to ascertain, and requires a cost greater than the difference between the two currencies.Moreover, once the bank currency flows out of the bank, its other advantages, such as security, convenience, transferability, and the function of paying foreign exchange, all disappear.Moreover, the currency can only be withdrawn from the bank if the storage fee is paid in advance. The first banks generally used coins to pay cash.So these mint deposits were the initial capital of the bank, which represented the total value of everything the bank money represented at the time.It now accounts for a tiny fraction of the bank's capital.For many years, banks have resorted to paying credit to holders of bullion to facilitate trade in bullion.The price of this credit is about five per cent. less than that of standard bullion.In addition, the bank will also give the bullion bullion holder a certificate of acceptance in the nature of a receipt.The person who holds this certificate has to get back his gold and silver within six months, and at the same time repay the bank currency equivalent to the credit that he previously borrowed, and pay a certain amount of gold and silver bullion storage fees.Storage fees are charged in proportion to the value of the bullion.If the deposit is silver, the custody fee is 25 per thousand; if the deposit is gold, the custody fee is 50 per thousand.However, if the certificate holder does not pay the above-mentioned fees after the expiration, the bank will convert these gold and silver bars into currency at the price at the time of receipt to offset the above-mentioned fees. The gold storage fee paid in this way is equivalent to the warehouse rent, and the warehouse rent of gold is much higher than that of silver.There are several reasons why gold warehouse rents are much higher than silver.One of the reasons is that it is more difficult to determine the purity of gold than silver.Because precious metals are easier to counterfeit, and the losses caused by counterfeiting are also greater.The second reason is that silver is the standard metal, so the state encourages silver storage in the form of low rents. When the price of gold and silver bullion is lower than its ordinary price, it is generally hoarded; when the price of bullion is higher than its ordinary price, the circulation of bullion increases.The market value of Dutch bullion bullion is generally higher than its mint price.A similar situation also happened in England before the reform of gold coins.These two prices in Holland, it is said, generally differ from six to sixteen stofords to the mark, or eight ounces of silver, comprising eleven parts of silver and one part of gold.The fineness of coins made of this kind of silver is recognized by everyone.For example, Mexican silver dollars are minted from this type of silver.The price (i.e., credit) given by the banks for this kind of silver is twenty-two guilders per mark, the price at the Mint is about twenty-three guilders, and the market price is between twenty-three guilders and six staffords to twenty-three guilders and ten guilders. Six Stafford.These three prices maintain almost the same ratio.In general, certificate holders can earn the difference between the mint price and the market price of bullion bars by selling their certificates, since the certificates also cost a lot.Therefore, in practice, it is rare for certificate holders to fail to pay relevant fees as required by the bank.However, although this situation does not happen often, it still exists, and it is common in gold and rarely in silver.The reason is that gold is much more valuable than silver, and its warehouse rents are very high. Holders of gold and silver bullion can exchange credit and acceptance certificates from banks, and then use bank credits to pay when bills of exchange are due.In the meantime, whether he sells or retains the certificate of acceptance will be determined by his judgment as to the rise or fall of the price of the bullion.However, people generally do not keep such bank credit and acceptance certificates for a long time, and in fact there is no need for this.The price of bank credit or bank money is often the ordinary price when the bullion is withdrawn by the holder of the certificate.Likewise, when a holder of bank money withdraws bullion, the price of the receipt of the certificate is often the ordinary price. Holders of bank credit and acceptance certificates are creditors of the bank.The holder of the receipt certificate can only receive the gold and silver bars recorded on the receipt certificate if he pays the bank currency in an amount equal to the price of the received gold and silver bullion; if he does not have enough bank currency, he has to think about Ways to buy from people who have money in the bank.Conversely, the bank currency holder can only get the gold and silver bullion he needs by showing his own certificate of receipt; if he does not have a certificate of receipt, he must try to buy it from someone who has a certificate of receipt. Holders of accepted certificates can use their certificates to purchase bank currency.Bank money has the ability to withdraw a certain amount of gold and silver bullion.At this time the mint price of bullion was five per cent above its bank price.Therefore, the holder of the certificate of acceptance usually has to pay a real five percent discount when purchasing bank currency. Acceptance certificates also have the ability to extract a certain amount of gold and silver bullion.It is this capability that holders of bank money buy when they buy certificates of acceptance.At this time, the market value of gold and silver bullion was higher than its mint price, roughly two to three percent higher.Therefore, if he wants to purchase a certificate of acceptance, he also needs to pay a real fee.The value of the bullion consists of the certificate of receipt and the total price of the bank's money. When a bank receives minted coins circulating in the country, it pays bank credit and issues a receipt certificate.However, this kind of acceptance certificate is generally worthless, and naturally no one will buy it.For example, Di Ketong, which is worth three shields and three strafes, can often only be exchanged for three shields of credit.Compared with its circulation value, it is also reduced by 5%.In addition, the bank also issued almost worthless certificates of acceptance to the holders of Dixon, and required them to pay a storage fee of 25 per thousand within six months.The general market value of the three shields bank currency is three shields and three strafes, and if it is raised, the full value of the decoton can be obtained.However, since a storage fee of 25 per thousand was required to be paid before, the gains and losses just offset each other.If the bank's discount is lowered to 3%, then the acceptance certificate will have a value of 1.75%, and naturally it can be sold in the market.But if the bank's discount is mostly five per cent, people will often let this certificate of acceptance expire, that is, let the bullion go to the bank.As for Jindiq, whose storage warehouse rent is as high as 50 per cent, people will let it expire and ignore it.At this time, the bank can own a larger amount of coin or bullion, and often has a profit of five per cent. In case of expiration of the receipt certificate, the amount of bank currency is very large, which contains the entire initial capital of the bank.We can assume this: after people deposit capital in the bank, they have not changed the certificate of acceptance or withdrawn the capital.The reasons are the various reasons we listed above. At this time, no matter whether it is to exchange the certificate or withdraw the capital, it will bring losses.However, no matter how large the amount of this bank money is, its proportion in the total amount of bank money is also very small.In the past few years, the Bank of Amsterdam has been the largest warehouse of gold and silver bars in Europe, but its certificates of acceptance are rarely expired.Compared with this bank money, there is much more credit in bank money or bank books, which are accumulated by bullion merchants through continuous storage and withdrawal during the past few years. The bank will not process any request without receiving the certificate.The bank currency with expired acceptance certificates only accounts for a small part of the total bank currency, while the bank currency with valid acceptance certificates accounts for a large part, and the amount is huge.When the two bank currencies are mixed, it is definitely limited by the bank, even if the sheer amount of bank currency without a certificate is considerable.Because, for the same debt, the bank will not be obliged to two people at the same time.Therefore, if the bank currency holder does not have a certificate of acceptance, he cannot demand payment from the bank until he has purchased a certificate of acceptance.Under normal circumstances, he can easily purchase a certificate of acceptance at a reasonable market price. However, once there is a national crisis, the situation is completely different.For example, the war between Britain and France in 1672 caused panic among bank currency holders, making them all want to withdraw their deposits in the bank for their own safekeeping.At this time, since everyone needs to receive the certificate, the price of the certificate has been greatly increased.Those with certificates of acceptance even demanded as much as fifty percent from the purchaser.In fact, the fee indicated on the acceptance certificate is only 2% or 3% of the bank currency.Some people who know the banking organization even buy out all acceptance certificates to prevent people from withdrawing deposits from the bank.In this extraordinary period, banks generally break the rules and handle related business for those who have not received the certificate. Holders of receipts but no bank money have been able to receive only two or three per cent of the value of the deposit stated on the receipts.In this case the bank will pay him at most two or three per cent in currency or bullion.And to those who have bank money on their books, but have not received certificates, the bank must promptly pay him the value he demands, either in money or in bullion, as they demand. In peacetime, the bank lowers the discount, which can reduce the price of bank currency, so that the holder of the certificate of acceptance can buy bank currency at a low price, or sell the certificate of acceptance at a high price to someone who has bank currency and is ready to withdraw gold and silver bars people.In this way, the recipient certificate holder can benefit from it.The market price of bank money is generally not equal to the market price of coin or bullion, and the difference is generally the price of receipt certificates.Conversely, when banks raise their premiums, bank money owners benefit from it.Because, at this time, they can sell their bank currency at a high price, or buy acceptance certificates at a low price, thereby making a profit. It can be seen that the interests of the recipient certificate holder and the bank currency owner are opposite.At this time, people will speculate in their own interests.In recent years, in order to prevent this kind of fraudulent behavior, banks have stipulated that anyone who sells bank currency in exchange for currency must pay a 5% discount; if they want to buy bank currency again, they have to pay another 4% discount. water.In this way, the discount is limited to between 4% and 5%.Under this regulation, the ratio between the market value of bank money and currency in circulation is always very close to the ratio between their intrinsic value.However, the market price of bank money fluctuated in the absence of such regulations.Under the influence of two opposing interests, the agio now rises to nine per cent, and now falls to the level of the common money. When the Bank of Amsterdam lends money, it is determined not to lend any gold reserves. The amount of currency or gold and silver bars in the vaults is always consistent with the amount of loans and loans on the gold reserve books.Certificate holders can withdraw their deposit at any time before the receipt certificate expires.In fact, although a part of the money and bullion was constantly flowing out and in, it was undoubtedly kept in the vault at last. In peacetime, expired acceptance certificates cannot be requested to be withdrawn.At this time, is it true that as long as the federal state still exists, the capital corresponding to the certificate can only remain in the bank forever?This seems to be in doubt.However, in Amsterdam, where the creed of "resolutely not lending any savings" has been pursued with all its strength.This creed also has a guarantor, the city of Amsterdam.Banking is overseen by the incumbent mayor, who serves four one-year terms.These four new mayors are fully responsible for bank reconciliation, investigation of vaults, and sworn takeover of banking operations.When they leave office, the treasury will be handed over to the successor mayor with the same solemn ceremony.This oath system still exists in this pious religious country. The one-year mayoral term seems to deter all impropriety.In the political history of Amsterdam, partisanship has led to many revolutions.But none of the dominant parties has launched a bank-management attack on its predecessor.And of all the attacks on the reputation and credibility of the losing party, the attack on its banking management has had the most profound impact.If this kind of attack is well-founded, then the person who launched the attack will definitely bring it up.The payment speed of the Bank of Amsterdam was so fast that no one could doubt its loyalty to fulfill the contract, and even the King of France had business dealings with it.It was 1672, and the French king was still far away in Utrecht.In addition, some of the currency withdrawn from the vaults by the Bank of Amsterdam at that time was destroyed by the fire at the town hall.These currencies must have been kept in the treasury long ago. A long time ago, some good-natured people began to speculate on the total amount of gold and silver in the Bank of Amsterdam, but in the end it was only speculation.It is generally believed that about 2,000 people had accounts with the bank.Assuming that each of them saves an average of fifteen hundred pounds, the total amount of money or gold and silver bullion in the bank is about three million pounds, which is converted into a guilder at eleven guilders per pound, which is about thirty-three million Shield, this large amount of funds is enough to satisfy a very wide currency circulation.However, this amount is much smaller than the guesswork made by some exaggerators. The Bank of Amsterdam provides a very large income to the city.Those who have accounts with the bank for the first time not only have to pay the so-called warehouse rent, but also pay an additional fee of ten guilders.The fee to open a new account is three shields and three strafes.As for the fee for a one-time transfer, if the transfer amount is more than 300 dong, it will charge 2 steff, and if the transfer amount is less than 300 dong, it will charge 6 steff, in order to prevent small transfers.If the transfer amount is greater than the deposit amount, the excess transfer fee shall be paid at 3% of the excess amount, and the request form shall be temporarily put on hold.In addition, account holders must settle their accounts at least twice a year, otherwise they will be fined twenty-five guilders. It is generally supposed that the bank would make a great deal of profit by selling, at the time of its advantage, the foreign coin and bullion which accrued to it.In addition, the bank can also make a differential profit from the bank currency sold at a discount of 5 percent and bought at a discount of 4 percent.The sum of these different gains is not only enough to pay staff salaries and management expenses, but also has a surplus.It is said that in the bank's annual net income, the custody fee alone amounts to as much as 150,000 to 200,000 dong.However, the purpose of the state's establishment of banks is not originally to obtain income, but for the public interest, that is, to prevent merchants from suffering losses due to unfavorable exchange rates.When the government set up the bank, it did not anticipate that it would bring in such a large amount of revenue.So, these incomes are simply a pleasant surprise. I originally wanted to explain why it is more beneficial for a country to use bank currency to pay for foreign exchange than to use common currency, but I unconsciously pulled out so many digressions, and now it’s time to get back to business.Silver coin currency has a fixed value and conforms to the standards of the national mint, and is suitable for foreign exchange payment; general currency has a constantly changing value, and generally does not meet the standards of the national mint, and is not suitable for foreign exchange payment business . In the last section I have endeavored to illustrate this point: even from the point of view of mercantilism, it is not necessary to adopt extraordinary restrictions on the importation of all goods from those countries which put the country in a deficit of trade. Both this restriction of importation, and many other regulations of commerce, rest upon the doctrine of the balance of trade.In fact, this balance of trade theory is the most unreasonable.This theory holds that if the trade volume between the two places is balanced, then both places will neither gain nor lose; if the trade volume is slightly biased, then both sides will gain and lose, and the size of the gain or loss depends on the degree of bias.I think this perception is wrong.While bounties and monopolies are instituted by governments in their own interest, the commerce they foster is neither theoretical nor practical.相反的，两地间不受限制地进行的自然贸易，却不同程度地给两地带来了利益。 在我看来，真正的得利，并不是金银量的增加，而是一国土地和劳动年产物的交换价值的增加，即一国居民的年收入的增加。 当两地进行的全是国产商品的交换贸易，而且贸易额平衡，那么两地一般都会得利，而且所得利益也必然近于相等。在这种情况下，两地互为对方的一部分剩余生产物的消费市场。这时，甲方投在生产和制造这部分供居民消费的剩余生产物上的资本，可以从乙方那里得到补偿；乙方投入的同类资本，也可以从甲方那里得到补偿。所以，两国居民的收入和生活资料，都有一部分是间接从对方那里取得的。如果两国所交换的商品具有相等的价值，那么两国在这种贸易上的投资，一般也近乎相等。由于这些资本都是用来生产本国商品的，所以它们为两国居民提供的收入和生活资料也必然近乎相等。这种从对方那里取得的收入和生活资料，其量的多少由商务往来的大小决定。如果两国每年投入的资本都是十万镑，那么他们为对方居民提供的年收入就是十万镑；如果两国每年投入的资本都是一百万镑，那么对方居民得到的年收入就是一百万镑。 如果甲国输入乙国的货物都是其国产商品，而乙国输往甲国的回程货物却不是乙国的国产商品，那么仍然可以假设两国的贸易额是平衡的。两国的偿付手段，都是商品。这种贸易，一样可以为两国提供利益，只是两国的利得有些不同而已，获利较大的是输出国产商品的那一国。例如，英国从法国输入的货物，都是法国的国产商品；而法国所需的商品，英国却没有，所以英国不得不用大量的烟草或东印度的货物来偿付法国货物的价格。这种贸易，就在不同程度上给两国居民提供了收入，并且给法国居民提供的收入更多。法国每年投入贸易中的资本，全部分配给了法国人民。而英国每年投入的资本，却只有用在生产外贸商品上的那一部分，才是分配给英国人民的。另外的较大一部分资本，都偿还给了弗吉尼亚、印度和中国，成了这些遥远国家的居民的收入和生活资料。即使英、法两国所投的资本几近相等，法国资本为本国人增加的收入，也远远大于英国资本为本国人增加的收入。因为，法国经营的是直接的消费品的国外贸易，而英国经营的却是迂回的消费品的国外贸易。前面我们已经充分说明过这两种国外贸易的不同结果，这里不再赘述。 两国贸易，除了双方交换的都是国产商品，以及一方全以国产商品交换、另一方全以外国商品交换的这两种方式之外，还有另外的方式。实际上，各国之间交换的商品，都各自包括了国产商品和外国商品。而且，当一国的外贸商品大部分都是国产商品时，其所得的利益，比交换品大部分都是外国货物的国家所得的利益大。 英国偿付法国输入品的物品，一般都是烟草和东印度货物。如果英国改用金银来偿付，那么贸易额就不平衡了。因为，偿付法国商品的，就不再是烟草之类的商品，而是金银了。其实，即使是用金银来偿还商品的贸易，也同样可以同时为两国人民带来若干收入，只是为法国人民带来的收入更多而已。英国投资生产国产商品，目的是换取金银。这笔资本被分配在一部分英国人手上，并给他们提供收入，所以其本金必然可以收回，然后继续被用在其他用途上。即使输出一定价值的金银，其结果也和输出等价值的其他任何货物一样，不会减少英国的资本总量，反而经常会增加英国的资本总量。 当某种物品的国外需求量比国内需求量还大，而且该物品的回程货在国内的价值比该物品在国内的价值大时，该物品才会被输出。以英国烟草为例，如果其国内售价仅为十万镑，但是其从法国换回的葡萄酒在英国市场上却值十一万镑，那么英国资本就在这种交换中增加了一万镑。再以英国金为例，如果十万镑的英国金所购得的法国葡萄酒，在英国市场上也可以换取十一万镑的价格，那么英国资本也同样会因此而增加一万镑。 拥有十一万镑葡萄酒的商人，比拥有十万镑烟草，或是十万镑金银的商人都更加富有。十一万镑所能推动的劳动量，以及能为人民提供的收入、生产资料和就业机会，都比十万镑要大。一国的资本是由全体人民的个人资本组成的，它决定了一国每年所能维持的劳动量。所以，当上述交换增加了一国的资本时，一国每年所能维持的劳动量也会相应增加。如果只是出于本国利益的考虑，那么英国在购买法国葡萄酒时，用国产的铁器或宽厚呢绒，比用弗吉尼亚的烟草或巴西、秘鲁的金银更合适。因为，跟迂回的消费品的国外贸易相比，直接的消费品的国外贸易对一国更有利。在进行迂回的消费品的国外贸易时，无论是用金银，还是其他货物，其结果都是一样的。即使无矿产的国家每年都输出金银，我们也不能由此就推断其金银储备更容易枯竭。因为，只要它有资财购买金银，它就绝对不会长时间地缺乏金银。同样地，即使一国不生产烟草，它也可以每年都有大量烟草输出，只要它拥有从国外购买烟草的资财。 在有些人看来，工人和麦酒商人进行交易时会吃亏；而制造业国在和葡萄酒产国进行交易时，也会吃亏。在我看来，工人和麦酒商人进行交易时，并不一定会吃亏。因为，这种贸易的性质和其他任何贸易的性质是相同的，所以二者的利益也一样，只是这种贸易往往会被人滥用而已。酿酒行业和贩酒行业，和其他行业一样，也是由分工带来的必要社会部门。工人与其亲自酿造自己所需的麦酒，还不如从酿酒人那里购买。而且，如果他比较贫穷，那么他就只适合从小酒贩手上购买少量麦酒，而无须从酿酒人那里大量购买。如果他比较贪食，那么他购买的麦酒可能会超过一般人的需求。如果他比较注意衣着打扮，那么他可能会大量购买呢绒。这些可能的结果，就是贸易自由被滥用带来的结果。而且，的确有几种自由贸易容易产生这种结果。但是，自由贸易总的来说还是会给工人带来利益。有时候，的确会出现一些人因嗜酒过度而倾家荡产的情况，但一国国民却不可能完全都是嗜酒过度的人，所以似乎不用担心一国因嗜酒过度而消亡。诚然，的确有许多嗜酒过度的人，他们在酒上所花费的资财，比他实际占有的资财还多。但是，更多人在酒上的花费，都小于其实际资财所允许的限度。 由经验可知，葡萄酒的低廉有利于人们节酒，而不会导致沉醉。欧洲对酒最为节制的人民，是盛产葡萄酒的国家的人民，这类人有西班牙人、葡萄牙人、法国南部各省人民，他们一般都节酒。因为，人们很少过度食用普通饮食。在当地，温和啤酒非常廉价，即使主人大肆用它们来招待宾客，也不能说明他是好客的。相反的，沉醉的恶习却普遍见于那些葡萄酒售价异常昂贵的国家。在过于寒冷的北方，以及过于炎热的热带地区，葡萄酒的售价会因为当地不能栽种葡萄树而异常昂贵，这时人们反而会养成沉醉的恶习，几内亚湾的黑人就是一个特例。法国军队当初是驻扎在葡萄酒昂贵的法国北部各省的，后来又迁到了葡萄酒低廉的南部各省。据说，迁移之初，军队首长还担心廉价的优质葡萄酒会导致官兵们酗酒呢，但是数月之后，大部分官兵反而像当地居民一样节酒了。 同样地，如果取消外国的葡萄酒税、麦酒税、啤酒税等一切酒税，可能会引起英国中下层阶级人民暂时的沉醉。但是，这种沉醉只是暂时的，人们不久就会普遍养成节酒的习俗。就拿现在的上流社会来说吧，虽然他们有消费最贵饮料的能力，但他们却没有沉醉的恶习，因喝麦酒而沉醉的绅士是非常少见的。此外，英国限制葡萄酒贸易的目的，实际上并不是防止人民进入酒店消费，而是防止人民购买价廉物美的饮料。这对葡萄牙的葡萄酒贸易有利，对法国的葡萄酒贸易却不利。据说，在与英国进行制造品贸易的顾客当中，葡萄牙人比较好，法国人则比较不好。因此，我们应该优待葡萄牙人，对其进行奖励，并相互照顾。 这种“相互照顾”的策略，原本是小商人的卑鄙策略，后来居然被大帝国采用，成了其政治手段。其实，这种策略，只有在小商人眼里才是对待顾客的规则。而大商人就不同了，他们认为这些都是无须过问的小节；他们在购买货物时，总是会去那些最价廉物美的地方。各国在这种仇视邻居的原则的影响之下，都认为只有使所有邻国都变得贫穷，他们才能得到利益。各国对于与其通商的国家的繁荣，都抱着一种妒嫉心理，并认为自己的利益会因为这些国家的利得而有所损失。国际通商，原本应该和个人通商一样团结互助的，现在却导致了通商各国的不和与仇恨。在本世纪和上世纪，欧洲和平都因商人和制造业者的嫉妒心而遭受了极大的危害，其程度不亚于由王公贵族们反复无常的野心所带来的危害。自古以来，统治者的暴政都是一种祸害，而且这种祸害从人事的性质上来说是无法消除的。至于商人和制造业者，他们既不是也不应该是统治者，虽然改变不了他们的卑鄙贪欲和独占精神，却很容易阻止他们扰乱别人的安宁。 这种仇视邻居的原则，无疑是由独占精神发明并传播开来的。不过，最先倡导它的人，比后来信奉它的人要精明一些。一国民众的利益，必然在于以最低的价格购买他们所需的各种物品。这个说法明显是有道理的，无需费心去证明它的正确性。如果人们没有被自私自利的商人和制造业者的诡辩混淆视听，他们也会明白地知道这个事实。商人和制造业者的利益，与民众是刚好相反的。同业组合内的自由人，是通过阻止其他人受雇而得到工作机会并获得利益的。商人和制造业者与同业组合内的自由人一样，通过保有自己在国内市场的独占权来获得利益。因此，大多数的欧洲国家，都对输入本国的一切外国商品征收异常高昂的税款，或是绝对禁止输入。特别是那些使本国处于贸易逆差地位的国家，或者说是与本国有异常激烈的民族仇恨的国家，其输入本国的一切货物，几乎都会受到异常的输入限制。 邻国的富有，从战争或政治角度上的确有可能给英国造成危险；但是，从贸易角度上讲，则有利于英国。因为，在战争时期，邻国可以用其财富来维持比英国强大的海陆军；而在和平时期，邻国的财富则会带动其与英国进行更大价值的商品交换，从而为英国的生产物提供一个更大的市场。勤劳的富人邻居，比穷邻居更适合做顾客。这种情况也适用于一国，即富裕的邻国是较好的顾客。经营制造业的富人，虽然会危及附近同行的利益，但他的花费却可以为邻近的其他人提供利益，他是绝大多数邻人的好邻居。此外，较贫的同业经营者，也会因为要与他竞争而降低售价，这对其他人也是有利的。制造业发达的富国也一样，它虽然是经营同种制造业的邻国的危险竞争者，但其竞争却会给民众带来利益。而且，富国的花费必能为民众提供其他方面的良好市场，最终给民众带来利益。 一个人在穷乡僻壤里是很难发财的，只有大城市才是他实现目标的好地方。因为，当财富的流通量非常少时，一个人能够从中取得的财富量也很少。这个道理，任何一个想发财的人都明白。只有在财富很多时，他才可能得到其中一些财富。这种常识，不但可以指导一个、十个、二十个人的商业行为，也应该能够帮助一百万、一千万、两千万的庞大群体作出商业判断。邻国的富有，为本国提供了一个获得财富的机会。这一点，全民都应该有所认识。 如果一国四周都是富裕勤勉的商业大国，那么该国就能很容易地通过国外贸易来致富。相反的，如果一国周围都是未开化的游牧民族，或是贫困的野蛮人，该国就绝对不能指望通过国外贸易来致富。当然，它无疑可以通过耕作本国土地、进行国内贸易来致富，这类国家有古代的埃及和近代的中国等。据说，国外贸易在古代埃及是非常不受重视的。至于近代的中国，则极其轻视国外贸易，所以没有以法律的形式给国外贸易以正当的保护。这一事实，大家也都知道。如果近代国外贸易的原则和目的，是以使一切邻国陷入贫困的境地，而且这一目的也达到了，那么国外贸易就一定不会被人注意，更不用说被人重视了。 正是这一仇视邻居的原则，才使法、英两国的贸易受到那么多的阻碍和限制。如果两国在考虑其实际利害时，能够抛弃商业嫉妒和国民仇恨，那么法国的贸易给英国带来的利益将是欧洲最大的，反过来也一样。法国是英国的近邻，其北部及西北沿海各地，可以方便地和英国南部沿海各地进行贸易，每年可以往返四至六次，就像进行国内贸易一样。跟投在其他国外贸易上的资本相比，投在这两国的这种贸易上的等量资本，能够推动四至六倍的劳动量，维持四至六倍的工人。即使是两国相距最远的两地，每年也可以进行至少一次的往返贸易，并提供超过英国对欧洲其他大部分地方的国外贸易所能带来的利益。这一利益，至少是英国与北美殖民地的贸易所能带来的利益的三倍。英国与北美殖民地的贸易，往返一次一般要三年时间，有时甚至会超过五年；而且，北美殖民地只有三百万居民，和法国的两千三百万居民根本没有可比性。另外，虽然法国的贫民、乞丐因为财富分配不均而在绝对数量上远远多于北美，但是法国的财富却比北美洲多得多。所以，法国能够提供的市场，至少是英国北美殖民地的八倍。再加上英、法之间的贸易往来非常频繁，法国所能提供的利益，将是英国北美殖民地所能提供的利益的二十四倍。反过来，英法贸易也同样对法国有利。按照两国的财富、人口与邻近程度来比较，英法贸易比法国与其殖民地的贸易，更能为法国带来利益。 然而，英、法两国的这么有利的环境，却没有使两国之间进行开放的自由贸易，反而阻碍了这种自由贸易的产生。因为，他们都把邻国看成了敌国。这么一来，一国的富强就会使另一国恐慌。富裕这一原本可以增进国民友谊的有利因素，现在却助长了民族仇恨。这两国都是勤勉的富裕国家，每一国的商人和制造者，都担心对方会给自己带来技术和商业活动上的不利竞争。这么一来，由激烈的民族仇恨激起的商业嫉妒，现在又反过来强化民族仇恨，二者相互助长彼此的气焰。 两国贸易者都出于自身利益的考虑，确信并宣称自由的国外贸易会给本国带来贸易逆差，最终导致国家的灭亡。这种观点，被商人们自命为一种学说。在欧洲各商业国内，有些支持这种学说的学者，也经常预言贸易逆差将导致国家灭亡。这时，各个商业国不免为此而忧虑起来，几乎都试图扭转贸易逆差，使贸易差额对邻国不利。但是，这一切的忧虑和扭转贸易逆差的尝试，并没有达到预期的目的，另外，好像也没有哪个国家变得像上述学说所说的那样贫困。那些进行自由贸易的地方，并没有变得像重商主义者所预料的那样贫穷甚至灭亡，反而因为自由贸易变得更加富裕。今日的欧洲，有几个可以称为自由港的城市，却没有一个配称为自由港的国家。荷兰的自由度虽然距离标准还很远，但它也许是所有欧洲国家中，最接近于自由港的国家了。荷兰的全部国民财富，以及大部分生活必需品，都来自对外贸易。这一点，是大家不得不承认的事实。 我已经说过，有另一种与贸易差额极不相同的差额，即年生产与年消费的差额，它决定了一国的盛衰。如果年生产超过了年消费，那么社会资本就会按照超过额成比例地增加。这时，个人在维持生存的基础上节省下来的一部分收入，自然会加到社会资本上，从而继续增加社会年产物的量。相反的，如果年生产小于年消费，即社会支出超过了社会收入，那么社会资本必然会受到侵蚀，社会年产物也必然会因此而减少。 生产与消费的差额，完全不同于所谓的贸易差额，它在没有对外贸易的国家，甚至是财富、人口和改良都在逐渐变化的整个地球，都普遍存在。即使一国处于贸易逆差，它也可以从生产与消费的差额中获利。此外，即使一国半个世纪以来，都存在输入大于输出、流入的金银立即全部输出、各种纸币逐渐代替铸币的情况，甚至它的外债也在逐渐增加，但是它的土地和劳动年产物的交换价值，也仍然可以同时大幅增加。这种现象，并不仅仅是一个假设。英国北美殖民地在近期的扰乱事件发生前后的状况，就是它的实例。