Chapter 32 Chapter 9 Physiocratism

Physiocratism refers to the ideological doctrine in political economy that regards land products as the sole source of income and wealth for all countries.I think it is necessary to elaborate on the doctrine of mercantilism, but not so much on physiocratism in political economy.Because as far as I know, no country has actually adopted the idea of ​​Physiocratism.At present, only a few French scholars have studied this theory theoretically.This doctrine has never and never will have any adverse effect on the world.Here, however, I shall sketch the outline of this doctrine a little. Colbert was a famous minister during the period of Louis XIV.He was a man of integrity, industry, knowledge, shrewdness, and experience in the examination of public accounts.In general, he handled the revenue and expenditure of public revenue in an orderly manner.Unfortunately, the minister harbored a serious mercantilist bias.He works hard and is used to setting some supervisory and sanction measures to manage the official affairs between various departments well, so that all departments can operate within an appropriate range.The essence of mercantilism is to establish restrictions and management, so this doctrine is very consistent with his management style.Then he managed the industry and commerce of a great country in the same manner as he managed the public affairs of the various departments.As a result, he restricted the right of individuals to pursue their own interests under conditions of equal liberty; he gave special restrictions to some branches of industry, and special rights to others.Like other European ministers, he encouraged urban industry less than rural industry; and often discouraged rural industry in favor of urban industry.For example, his complete ban on the export of corn was designed to enable the city dwellers to buy food cheaply, thereby promoting manufacturing and foreign trade.But in doing so, it restricts rural residents from transporting grain abroad for trading.The previous restrictions on grain transportation between provinces and the heavy tax burden on farmers in each province, coupled with this grain export restriction, have hindered agriculture from achieving its due development in accordance with natural climate and soil conditions like three mountains.This unfavorable state of agriculture has been somewhat felt throughout the country, and therefore, various reasons have begun to be explored.One of the reasons is that Colbert encouraged more urban industries and less rural industries.

There is an idiom called "overcorrecting", and those French scholars who regard agriculture as the only source of income and wealth for all countries seem to respond to this idiom.Compared with Colbert's overemphasis on urban industries, the theories of these Physiocratists put too much emphasis on the development of rural industries and too little development of urban industries. Certain classes contribute in every way to the annual produce of the land and labor of a country.Physiocratism divides these classes into three classes.The first is the class of landowners; the second is the class of cultivators, peasants and rural wage earners, also called the "production class"; the third is the class of artisans, manufacturers and merchants, who are not considered productive class.

The landed class, by expending their capital in the improvement of the land, buildings, ditches, walls, and other improvements in cultivation, thus contribute something to the increase of the annual produce.It is because of these improvements that the cultivator can produce more with the same capital, and pay more rent.This increased rent may be regarded as the interest or profit due to the landlord's expenditure or investment in improvements.In the Physiocratic theory, this expense of the landlord is called the land fee. The cultivator, or farmer, by the labor and expense expended in cultivating the land, also contributes to the increase of the annual produce.In the Physiocratic doctrine this fee is divided into an initial fee and an annual fee.Initial costs are the costs of maintaining the land during most of the first year of farming, or until the land is harvested.Farm implements, livestock, seeds, and the cost of farmers' dependents, labor and livestock are initial costs.The annual cost is the annual cost of maintaining the seeds, the wear and tear of agricultural tools, and the livelihood of the farmer's hired labor, livestock and family members who are agricultural hired labor.Farmers rely on these two types of capital for their cultivation.After he has paid the rent, the remaining part of the produce of the land must have the following uses.First of all, it should compensate the cultivator for all the initial expenses in a certain period (at least during the cultivation period) and provide profits; secondly, it should be able to compensate the cultivators for all the annual expenses and provide profits.The cultivator or farmer cannot be on an equal footing with other professional men if he does not constantly have these two capitals in his hands, and yield a certain profit.At this time, for his own interest, he will soon give up this occupation to obtain a living in other trades.It can be said that that part of the land's surplus products is equivalent to the funds necessary to maintain the farmers' continued work.If the landlord invades it, he will inevitably reduce the produce of his land.Before long, the peasants could not afford not only heavy rents, but even moderate rents.On this doctrine the cultivator or peasant is called a productive class, because the labor of the cultivator, after paying all the necessary expenses for the whole produce of the land, affords rent to the landlord.The rent of the landlord is the pure produce which remains after all the expenses necessary for the whole produce of the land have been paid in full.The initial and annual expenses of the cultivator or farmer, in addition to compensating for their own value, can produce this pure product, and are therefore called productive expenses in this doctrine.

In Physiocratism, the cost of land, which the landlord spends on improving his land, is also called productive cost.The whole expense, with its profit, will be returned to the landlord in more rent.Before the land rent was paid to the landlord, the church could not collect tithes, and the king could not collect taxes.For that would hinder the improvement of the land, and finally prevent the increase of church tithes and kings' taxes.In normal conditions these land costs, besides producing their entire value, can after a certain time reproduce the pure product of land rent, and are therefore also called productive costs.

The Physiocratist theory only considers the land cost of the landlord, the initial cost of the farmer, and the annual cost as productive costs.All other expenses, even though they are most productive in the eyes of all other classes of people, cannot be regarded as productive. It is generally believed, for example, that the labor of artisans and manufacturers greatly increases the value of the native produce of the land.In Physiocratic doctrine, however, artisans and manufacturers were considered the least productive class.It is said, that this is because of their labor, which can only repay the employed capital and furnish a profit.Employment capital is what employers pay for their subsistence and their raw materials, tools, and wages.And the profits which their labor furnishes, are employed in maintaining the capital of their employers.In general, the employer pays for the capital employed and the maintenance required to maintain itself.These maintenance expenses are generally in proportion to the profits made on the price of his products.If the price of the product does not sufficiently cover these maintenance and employment capitals, it is evident that the employer cannot recover the full cost which he has invested.Hence the profit of a manufacturing capital, unlike the rent of land, has no surplus product after replacement of all expenses.Although peasants, like manufacturers, capital can provide profit for the owner of capital, farmers' capital can also provide an additional ground rent, while manufacturer's capital cannot.The expense employed to employ the peasant or the rural wage-earner is therefore a productive expense, since it produces, besides its own value, a new value—the rent of the landlord; The cost of artisans and manufacturers is not a productive cost at all, because it only produces its own value and does not produce new value.

Commercial capital, like manufacturing capital, only produces its own value and does not produce new value, so it is not productive.The profit of commercial capital only allows the investor to recover the expenses paid during the investment period or before receiving the remuneration, that is, part of the compensation for the investment cost. Artisans and manufacturing workers consume a certain amount of the produce of the land when they work.Therefore, though their labor may increase the value of some particular parts of the native produce of the land, it does not increase the value of the whole year's produce of the land.For their increase of this part of the produce is exactly offset by their consumption of that part.Their labor, therefore, does not at any time add to the total value of the produce of the land.A lacemaker, for instance, sometimes sells flax worth a penny at thirty pounds.Apparently, the manufacturer has increased the value of a part of the original product by about 7,200 times, but in fact he has not increased the value of the annual production of the original product.For the manufacture of this lace probably cost him two years' labor, and the thirty pounds which he sold it only compensated him for the means of subsistence which he had expended during these two years.That is to say, the value of flax added by his labor only compensates for the value of his own consumption during this time.At no time, therefore, does he increase the total value of the annual produce of the native produce of the land.The value which he continues to produce is always equal to that part of the original produce which he continues to consume.In general, only the very poor are employed in this costly and insignificant manufacture.And I believe that, in general, the value of their manufactures is not greater than the value of their means of subsistence.However, the situation is different for farmers and rural wage earners.Their labor can not only compensate for all their own consumption, as well as the entire cost of maintaining workers and employers, but can also continue to produce the value of land rent.

The Physiocratic theory holds that artisans, manufacturing workers, and businessmen can only increase social income and wealth by thrift, or in other words, can only increase social income and wealth by saving part of their own means of living.And it is only this means of subsistence that they reproduce every year.That is to say, if they don't save a part every year, or if they don't refrain from enjoying a part of themselves, their labor will not increase the income and wealth of the society at all.On the contrary, farmers and rural laborers can not only enjoy all their means of subsistence, but also increase the income and wealth of the society.That is to say, their labor can not only provide them with means of subsistence, but also provide the pure product of land rent; and the increase of land rent will inevitably increase the income and wealth of the society.In France and England, where landowners and cultivators constitute the majority of the population, the people there are rich by hard work and active consumption.On the contrary, in Holland and Hamburg, merchants, artisans, and manufacturing workers accounted for the majority of the national population, so people there can only rely on thrift and restraint to enjoy themselves to make themselves rich.Because of this different situation and different interests, the characters of the peoples of different countries are also very different.In the former type of country, the people's character is mostly tolerant, honest and friendly; in the latter type of country, the people's character will be narrow, selfish and mean, and even hate all social entertainment.

In general, the two classes of landowners and cultivators sustain the non-productive classes of merchants, artisans, and manufactures.The first two classes will not only provide the latter class with materials and subsistence for their work, but also provide the grain and livestock they need to consume while working.The landowners and cultivators, so to speak, pay the wages of all the workers of the non-productive classes and the profits of all the employers.Strictly speaking, these workers and employers are actually the "servants" of the landlords and cultivators.The only difference between them and domestic servants is that one works outdoors and one indoors, but they both depend on the same "master" for support.The labor of these non-productive classes is not productive, and the total value of the original products of the land will not increase because of their labor, but will decrease.

However, these non-productive classes are also very useful to the first two classes.For only by the labor of merchants, artisans, and manufactures, can landlords and cultivators exchange the produce of less labour, for the foreign goods and domestic manufactures they require.If they wished to import or manufacture these goods or manufactures themselves, they would expend a great deal of labor, owing to their unskilledness or inflexibility.It is precisely because of the existence of the non-productive class that the cultivator can concentrate on cultivating the land without being distracted by other affairs.As a result, the cultivator is able to produce more.And more products, not only fully recouping their own costs, but also compensating the landlords for the entire cost of maintaining these non-productive classes.From the perspective of merchants, craftsmen and manufacturing workers, although their labor is not productive in itself, it is indirectly beneficial to the increase of land products.It is because of their labor that productive laborers can concentrate on farming the land and promote the development of productive forces.That is, the business of farming has become easier and better with the labor of non-farmers.

Therefore, any action that restricts or hinders the industry of merchants, artisans, and manufacturers is not conducive to the interests of landlords and cultivators.The more free these non-productive classes are, and the more intense is the competition among the various trades, the less will the other two classes be able to purchase the foreign commodities and domestic manufactures which they require.On the other hand, the oppression of the two productive classes is also against the interests of these non-productive classes.This is because the surplus of the produce of the land is used to maintain and employ these non-productive classes after having first maintained the cultivators and landlords.The greater this surplus, the better the living conditions of the non-productive class.From the foregoing it will be seen that the establishment of complete liberty and equality is the simplest and most effectual means of bringing about the common prosperity of these three classes.

In commercial countries such as Holland and Hamburg, as has already been said, these unproductive classes are likewise maintained by the labor of the landowners and cultivators of the land.However, the only difference from other countries is that in Holland and Hamburg most of the landowners and cultivators are far away from the merchants, artisans and manufacturing workers, that is to say, it is actually the peoples of other countries who supply these non-productive classes. working materials and means of living. However, these commercial states are also very useful to the people of other countries.When other nations, through some defect in their own policy, could not find in their own country sufficient merchants, artisans, and manufactures, these commercial nations took care of it for them. Therefore, any behavior that hinders or suppresses the industries of these commercial countries, such as imposing high tariffs on the trade or goods supplied by commercial countries, is not conducive to the interests of those agricultural countries.A high tariff would raise the price of these commodities, and thereby reduce the real value of the surplus produce of the land of an agricultural country.In the end, there is probably but one work of this kind of tariff, that of hindering the increase of the surplus produce of agricultural countries, and thus the improvement and cultivation of the land.On the contrary, the most complete liberty of trade to these commercial nations would not only be the best means of raising the value of, and increasing, the surplus produce, and promoting the improvement and cultivation of the home land, but also, in due time, to compensate the domestic artisans, manufactures, Best solution for shortage of workers and merchants. When, in agricultural countries, the improvement and cultivation of the land are continued after a period of increase in the surplus produce of the land, a part of the capital which it creates fails to obtain an average rate of profit.This part of capital will be turned to employ artisans and manufacturing workers.Then, those artisans and manufacturing workers in the country will be able to obtain materials for work and means of subsistence in the country.Even if their skill and proficiency were not enough, they could produce manufactures at a lower price than similar artisans and manufactures in commercial countries.For in those commercial countries the artisans and manufactures had to bring from great distances the materials and means of subsistence they needed.It is for this reason, too, and their want of skill and dexterity, that though they cannot produce manufactures as cheaply as artisans and manufacturers in commercial countries, they may, in the home market, produce them at the same cheap price. Price to sell your own merchandise.And, as their skills and proficiency improve, they are able to sell their wares more cheaply.Thus the artisans and manufactures of these commercial countries find their competitors in the markets of those agricultural countries, and soon they too can sell their wares at low prices, and are continually driven out of the market.These cheap manufactures of agricultural countries will in due course be introduced to more foreign markets as technology and proficiency continue to improve, and in the same way will slowly bring to the fore many of the manufactures of these commercial countries. products out of the market. In the same way, after a certain period of increase in the produce and manufactures of an agricultural country, a part of the capital in domestic agriculture or manufactures cannot obtain an average rate of profit.This part of the capital will also be turned to invest in foreign trade, sending abroad the superfluous produce and manufactures which are not needed in the home market.As mentioned earlier, compared with craftsmen and manufacturing workers in commercial countries, the status of craftsmen and manufacturing workers in agricultural countries is more advantageous.In the same way, compared with merchants in commercial countries, merchants in agricultural countries also have advantages in foreign trade of their own products.This is because merchants in commercial countries have to go far to seek goods, raw materials, and food, whereas merchants in agricultural countries can find these things at home.Therefore, even if the merchants of agricultural countries are poor in navigation, they can sell their wares in foreign markets as cheaply as merchants of commercial countries.When the navigation technology is the same, merchants in agricultural countries can sell their goods in foreign markets at a lower price.In this way, in foreign trade, the agricultural merchants will soon be able to compete with the commercial merchants; From what has been said above, the most complete liberty of trade, to the artisans, manufactures, and merchants of all other nations, is the best means by which an agricultural country can train its own artisans, manufactures, and merchants.This will have two favorable effects: first, it will increase the value of the produce of the surplus land in the country; , Gradually cultivate all kinds of craftsmen, manufacturing workers and businessmen needed by the country. On the other hand, if an agricultural country restricts foreign commerce by high duties or prohibitions, its own interest must be hindered in two respects: 1. This restriction will raise the price of all foreign goods and manufactures. price, the real value of the produce of the country's surplus land, which is exchanged for foreign commodities, must necessarily fall; 2. This restriction gives the country's merchants, artisans, and manufacturing workers a monopoly in the home market, and thus makes the rate of profit in industry and commerce higher than in agriculture. The rate of profit means that part of the capital that was originally invested in agriculture is attracted to industry and commerce, or that part of the capital that was originally intended to be invested in agriculture is diverted from investment in agriculture.This restrictive policy, therefore, hinders agriculture in two ways: on the one hand, it lowers the real value of the produce of the land, thereby lowering the rate of profit in agriculture; on the other hand, it raises the rate of profit in all other uses of capital, thereby Agriculture becomes a less profitable trade than profitable commerce and manufactures, and every man, from his own interest, endeavors to transfer his capital and labor from the latter to the former as much as he can. Some people say that compared with the time of free trade, this kind of restrictive policy in an agricultural country can cultivate the craftsmen, manufacturing workers and merchants needed by the country at a faster speed.However, this claim has yet to be proven.Even if these artisans, manufactures, and merchants were brought up relatively quickly, they were brought up prematurely when the time was not right.The law of social development tells us that if one industry is cultivated too quickly, it will inevitably inhibit the development of another more valuable industry; if those industries that can only repay capital and provide profits are cultivated too quickly, it will inhibit those industries Not only to replace capital and provide its profit, but also to provide the pure product, the development of industry which is the landlord's rent; too soon to encourage labor that is not productive at all, will inhibit the development of productive labor. Quina was the wisest and most profound founder of the Physiocratic doctrine.He used some mathematical formulas to express clearly how the total annual product of the land is distributed among the above three classes, and why the labor of the non-productive class only compensates for the value it consumes and does not increase the total product of the society. the value of.Of the formulas he described, very important was the first, which he named The Economic Table.He used the first formula to describe how the produce of the land would be distributed under the conditions he conceived: the state of freest and most prosperous, the condition in which the annual produce would provide the greatest surplus, and in all years A situation in which each class receives its fair share of the product.In addition, he used several formulas to describe the distribution of land products in the situation he conceived: the situation of various restrictions and regulations in the country, the landlord class and the non-productive class enjoy more advantages than farming. The situation of the developing class, and the situation of the non-producing class encroaching on the products due to the producing class.According to his theory, if the natural distribution established in the most perfect state of liberty were violated, the sum of the values ​​of the annual produce would be somewhat lower, and the income and wealth of the society would be less.The reduction in the wealth of the society will be progressively more or less rapid in proportion to the degree of encroachment upon the natural distribution.These formulas describe the corresponding reduction in social wealth.Physiocraticism also thinks so. There are thoughtful physicians who hold that the human body can be kept in a state of health only by a correct regimen of food and exercise, or that it suffers from disease in the same degree as it violates this correct regimen.Quina is a very thoughtful doctor, and he seems to have the same idea about the country, believing that the country can only prosper under the correct system of complete freedom and fairness.But in fact, the human body can maintain good condition under different regimens, and even in very unhygienic conditions, the human body can maintain health (it seems so on the surface).This is because the human body itself has a hidden immunity.In many cases, this immunity prevents and counteracts the ill effects of unsanitary methods.Likewise, Quina may not have seen the underlying power of the state, which is the natural and continuous effort of each individual to improve his or her situation.In many cases, this power can prevent and counteract the adverse consequences of unfair political and economic policies.Although this political and economic policy will hinder the prosperity of the country to a certain extent, it will not completely hinder the country's forward development trend, let alone make the country's development go backwards.Just imagine, if a country does not have complete freedom and justice, there is no possibility of prosperity, and no country in the world will be able to develop.Fortunately, the latent forces of nature in the state, like the immunity in the human body, are well prepared for the ill effects of human folly and many injustices, and are able to resist the ill effects of human indolence and intemperance. as a result of. In general, the view that artisans, manufactures, and merchants are entirely unproductive classes is the greatest error of the Physiocratic doctrine.I can prove this view wrong with the following argument. In the first place, artisans, manufactures, and merchants, who annually produce something else than value for their own consumption, at least their labor secures the continuation of the capital which employs and maintains them.This is undeniable even in the Physiocratic doctrine.It would therefore be inappropriate to regard them as a completely unproductive class.Just as it is inappropriate for us to call those marriages that only have one son to continue the incense line but do not increase the population number as barren marriages.Of course, besides replacing the capital which maintains and employs them, the peasants and rural wage-earners annually produce the net product of rent.Indeed, the labor of farmers and rural wage earners is more productive than that of merchants, manufactures, and artisans.Just as a marriage with three children is more productive than a marriage with only two.However, just because one class is highly productive, we cannot deny the productivity of other classes. Second, it is inappropriate from any point of view to regard artisans, manufacturing workers, and merchants as "domestic servants."This is because: first, the labor of domestic servants does not guarantee the continuity of the capital that employs and maintains them; second, the capital for maintaining and employing domestic servants is paid by the master; third, the nature of the work of domestic servants cannot compensate the above capital.Generally, their jobs are temporary, not fixed to any salable commodity, and it is impossible to make a profit from the sale of the commodity to compensate the owner for wages and maintenance.On the contrary, the labor of artisans, manufactures, and merchants is fixed in salable commodities, and yields a profit on the sale of them.Therefore, when I discussed the chapter on productive and unproductive labor, I included artisans, manufacturers, and merchants in the ranks of productive laborers, and domestic servants in the ranks of unproductive laborers. . Again, it would be inappropriate to say that the labor of artisans, manufactures, and merchants does not in any case increase the real income of the community.Even if they produce daily, monthly, and yearly labor equal to the value they consume daily, monthly, and yearly, it does not follow that their labor does not increase the real income of society, or the real annual produce of land and labor. value.For example, if an artisan completes ten pounds worth of work in six months, he actually adds ten pounds worth of the produce of the land, even though he simultaneously consumes ten pounds worth of corn and other necessities.This is because, when he consumes ten pounds of corn and other necessities, he produces an equivalent commodity, thereby enabling himself or others to obtain another ten pounds.It may be said that the value he consumed and produced during these six months was twenty pounds, not ten.But, on the face of it, only the value of ten pounds exists.If, in fact, ten pounds of corn and other necessities were consumed by some soldier or domestic servant, the value of the annual produce remaining after six months would be ten pounds less than in the case of the above-mentioned artisan.The artisan, therefore, appears to produce a value equal at all times to the value he consumes, but the goods actually in the market are of greater value than they would have been without his production. Advocates of the Physiocratic doctrine often say that artisans, manufacturers, and merchants consume as much as they produce.Here they probably mean "their income and capital for their consumption are equal to the value they produce".In fact, put more simply, this sentence means that the value produced by this class is their income.We can immediately think, then, that if this class saves a part of its income, the real wealth of the society will also increase in part.But the Physiocrats always express a critical meaning in the above-mentioned manner.Even if the facts are the same as their assumptions, their above arguments are very inappropriate. Finally, if the peasant and the rural wage-earner do not know how to be thrifty, they are just as incapable of increasing the real income of the community as the artisan, manufacturer, and merchant.In any society, people can only adopt the following two methods to promote the growth of land products: one is to increase the productivity of the useful labor actually employed by the society; the other is to increase the amount of useful labor employed by the society. The productivity of useful labor can be increased in two ways: first, by increasing the ability of the laborer; second, by improving the machinery with which he works.Because, compared with the labor of farmers and rural wage laborers, the division of labor of craftsmen and manufacturing workers is more precise, and the operation performed by each worker is more unitary.Therefore, the above two improvements can greatly increase the productivity of artisans and manufacturing workers.In this case, the class of artisans and manufacturers is in a superior position relative to the cultivators. The increase in the employment capital of useful labor determines the increase in the amount of useful labor actually employed by society; and the saving of income (the income of capital managers or capital lenders) can just promote the increase of employment capital.If merchants, artisans, and manufactures, as supposed by the above doctrines, had more thrifty habits than landowners and cultivators, they would be able to increase a greater quantity of useful labor in society, and thus more land and land in society. Product of the working year. Finally, if the means of subsistence acquired by the labor of men constitute their whole income, as the above doctrine supposes, then, all other things being equal, the income of a country with industry and commerce is much greater than that of a country without industry and commerce.Compared with the present state of cultivation of the land, countries with industry and commerce import more means of subsistence from foreign countries every year.Although urban residents have no land, they can rely on their own labor to obtain the original products of other people's land.In this way, they obtained not only raw materials for work, but also means of subsistence.In a commercial country the city and its neighboring country stand in the same relation as that between two independent nations.Holland is one such country, which obtains most of its means of subsistence from other countries.For example, they brought back live cattle from Holstein and Jylland; grain from almost all European countries.As a small amount of manufactured goods can always be exchanged for a large amount of native produce, industrial and commercial countries generally exchange a small amount of their own manufactures for a large amount of foreign native produce.The produce of the commercial and industrial nations is thus able to support the majority of the people.On the other hand, a country with an underdeveloped industry and commerce is obliged to expend a great deal of its own produce, in exchange for a small quantity of foreign manufactures.And these few manufactured goods can support only a few people.The people of a commercial and industrial country, therefore, always have more means of subsistence than the present state of cultivation of their land can supply; while the people of a country without commerce and industry have much less. Although the above theory has many shortcomings, this theory can be regarded as the most correct among the many theories under the subject of political economy.In general, therefore, this doctrine is of great concern to all who devote themselves to the study of this important subject of political economy.Although some views of this theory are somewhat narrow, for example, it regards the labor invested in the land as the only productive labor, but many views of this theory are still very correct, for example, the theory holds that: national wealth is consists of consumable products, which are annually reproduced by social labour, and not of non-consumable money; furthermore, the only efficient means of promoting the annual reproduction to the greatest extent is to secure complete freedom of trade.People seem to prefer weird theories to show that they can understand things that ordinary people can't understand, so this theory has many followers.What sets it apart is that it does not consider manufacturing labor to be productive labor.This may be an important reason why many people appreciate it.Over the past few years, these followers have formed an important school.In French academia they are called economists.They brought back many previously underappreciated topics and prompted a degree of state sponsorship of agriculture.It can be said that they have indeed made some contributions to their country.It was also because of their teachings that the French government took several measures which eased or relieved many of the oppressions to which the agriculture of the country had been subjected.例如，将任何人——无论是土地购买者还是所有者——都不得予以侵犯的土地租期，从九年延长到了二十七年；废除以前国内各省间谷物运输所受的限制；通过习惯法确认在一般情况下允许谷物的自由出口。这些经济学家，写了很多政治经济学方面的著作，他们不仅论述国民财富的性质和原因，而且对国家行政机关的其他各部门也进行了研究。但是，这些著作基本上都抄袭了奎那的理论，所以大部分著作的内容也基本上和奎那的差不多。曾任马提尼科州长的利维埃，写有《政治社会的自然与基本制度》一书，他对这一学说的描述，可以说是最明白清楚的了。就像古代的哲学学派对其创立者的崇拜那样，这个学派对他们的大师们也非常称颂。该学派的大师们，好像也挺谦虚朴素的呢。例如，有一位勤勉可敬的作者叫弥拉波，他说：“从古到今，世界上有三大发明给政治社会带来了极大的安定。他们分别是文字的发明、货币的发明和《经济表》的发明。文字的发明，能够使人类把法律、契约、历史和发明继续流传给下一代；货币的发明，使各文明社会之间相互联结起来了；《经济表》的发明，则是上述两项发明的结果，它是我们这个时代的大发现，它完善了前两者的目标，使我们的后代可以从中受益。这些发明和其他装饰政治社会的很多发明都没有关系。” 在近代欧洲，各国的政治经济学政策，似乎都是对制造业和国外贸易的城市产业比较有利，而对农村产业比较不利。在其他国家，其政治经济学政策则刚好相反，是对农业比较有利，而对制造业和国外贸易比较不利。例如中国，它的政治经济学政策就非常重视农业。不同于欧洲大部分工匠的处境优于农业劳动者的情况，中国的农业劳动者的处境要优于工匠。中国人似乎都想拥有一定的土地，要么拥有土地的所有权，要么拥有土地的租地权。据说，中国的租借条件很不错，租地人可以得到充分的保障。然而，中国人对国外贸易不是很重视。当年，俄国大使兰杰去北京请求与中国通商，北京的官员用一贯的口吻对他说：“你们所进行的贸易就像是乞丐在乞求施舍！”中国人基本没有用自己的船只来与其他国家进行国外贸易，日本也只有一两个允许外国船只出入的海港。因此，在中国，国外贸易被限制在很窄的范围内。其实，如果本国船只或外国船只可以比较自由地经营国外贸易的话，国外贸易的范围也会变得很大。 与大部分原生产物相比，制造品一般都占地小、价值大，因此其从一国运往他国的费用就相对较低。于是，在所有国家，国外贸易主要针对的都是制造品。中国幅员辽阔，并且国内贸易非常有利。然而欧洲的很多国家，情况不同于中国，它们的制造业就非常需要国外贸易的支持。试想，如果没有广阔的国外市场，制造业在那些幅员不大且国内市场狭小的国家，以及那些国内交通不方便、生产物不能顺畅地运往各地的国家，就不可能得到很好的发展。我们曾经说过，制造业的进一步发展，完全依靠分工的完善，而市场范围的大小又决定着制造业分工程度的高低。中国由于幅员辽阔、气候多样，因此各地都有不同种类的产物，同时各省间大部分的水运交通又极其便利，并且人口数量大、居民的市场需求多。中国的国内市场的面积，几乎相当于全欧洲各国的市场面积。它广大的国内市场，就足够支持国家很大的制造业发展，并且其分工程度很高。如果广阔的国内市场再加上广阔的国外市场的话，这种大范围的国外贸易一定能够极大地促进中国制造品的增加，从而促进制造业生产力的发展。尤其是当中国经营大部分的这种国外贸易时，其结果更为可观。中国人经过多次的航行之后，就一定会掌握使用和制造外国机械的技术，并且能够很快地掌握世界各国的技术和产业改良方式。不过，按照目前中国的状况来看，他们除了模仿邻国日本以外，几乎没有机会模仿其他外国来进一步发展自己。 采取类似于中国的政策的，还有古埃及和印度政府。它们的政策也是对农业比较有利，而对其他行业比较不利。在古埃及和印度，全体人民被分成各个阶级或部族，家庭世袭某一特定或某一种类的职业。例如，僧侣的儿子将来必定是僧侣；士兵的儿子将来必定是士兵；农业劳动者的儿子将来必定是农业劳动者；织工的儿子将来必定是织工；缝工的儿子将来必定是缝工等。并且，在这两个国家中，僧侣阶级都是处于最高的地位，士兵的地位其次。而商人和制造者阶级的地位要低于农民和农业劳动者阶级。 在古埃及和印度，它们的政府对农业的发展都特别重视。例如，古埃及国王为了灌溉各地，在尼罗河上兴建了著名的水利工程，其遗迹现在成了很多旅行者所青睐的旅游观光地点。同样，古代印度各王公为灌溉各地，也在恒河和许多河流上兴建了水利工程。虽然这些工程没有前者那么有名，但也都是非常宏伟的。因此，这两国都以粮食富饶而闻名于世。虽然那里人口稠密，但在一般的丰收年，他们都有大量剩余谷物出口到邻国去。当然，有时它们也有粮食不足的情况。 在古埃及，人们因为迷信而畏惧大海。在印度，教会禁止教徒在水上点火，因而教徒们不得在水上烹调食物。这其实就是变相地禁止教徒进行远海航行。于是，对于埃及人和印度人来说，要出口剩余生产物就只能依靠外国航业。自然地，这种依赖就会限制市场的扩大，从而不利于剩余生产物的增长。并且，由于制造品所需要的市场比土地生产物需要的市场要大得多，因此这种依赖对制造品的不利程度，要比对原生产物的不利程度大得多。例如，一个鞋匠一年可以制造出三百多双鞋，但其家属一年可能连六双都穿不坏。因此，他差不多需要五十家人来购买他的商品，否则他就无法将他的全部劳动产物销售出去。无论哪个大国，就算其工匠的人数很多，但是再多也不会超过全国人口的五十分之一或一百分之一。一些作家计算，在英国和法国，以农业为职业的人数占到了全国居民的二分之一（另一些作家计算的则为三分之一）；但根据我所了解的，没有一个计算的比例是在五分之一以下。英、法两国大部分的农产物都在国内消费。按照上述标准计算，只需要一两家工匠那样的家庭，至多四家来购买农民的生产物，他就可以将他的全部劳动生产物完全出售出去。因此，与制造业相比，农业在市场狭小的不利情况下更容易维持自己。当然，在古埃及和印度，内地航运的便利在一定程度上弥补了外国市场的狭窄，便利的内地航运给本国各地不同种类的生产物提供了全国性的市场。并且，印度幅员辽阔，国内市场大得足以支持多种制造业的发展。就是因为这样，印度出口谷物最多的省——孟加拉，非常引人注目。不过它之所以引人注意，不是因为它出口了很多谷物，而是因为它出口了很多制造品。与此相反，古埃及的国家面积小得甚至不如英国，因此狭窄的国内市场根本不足以维持各种制造业的发展。虽然古埃及也出口了一些制造品，例如精麻布和其他几种货物，但它还是以谷物的大量出口而闻名。在很长一段时期，它甚至被称为罗马帝国的谷仓。 在中国、古埃及和印度，君主的收入几乎全部来自地税或地租。这种地税或地租与欧洲的什一税一样，包含了一定比例的土地生产物（据说是五分之一），由实物或货币缴纳；并且租税的数额随着各年谷物丰收程度的不同而不同。由于农业的兴衰直接决定了这些国家君主的年收入，因此这些国家的君主都非常关注农业的发展。 在古希腊各共和国和古罗马，国家的政策也是重视农业发展，而轻视制造业和国外贸易的发展。然而，与上述三国不一样的是，他们不是直接有意识地鼓励前者的发展，而是积极地阻碍后者的发展。在古代希腊，有的国家对国外贸易进行完全禁止；有的国家则认为，工匠和制造业工人是一种对人的身体和精神都有害的职业，这种职业既不利于人们养成军事训练和体育训练中所要求的习惯，又不利于人们养成忍受战争困难和危险的精神。于是，国家不允许自由市民从事经营这种职业，而认为这种职业只适合奴隶来从事。在罗马和雅典，虽然没有那样的禁令，但人们实际上还是被禁止从事类似的职业，也就是目前底层城市居民所从事的各种职业。在雅典和罗马，这一类职业都由富人的奴隶来经营，而奴隶们又都是站在主人的利益角度来从事这些职业的。由于这些富人既有钱有权，又受到国家的特殊保护，因此贫穷市民的产品几乎不可能在市场上与这些富人奴隶的产品竞争。但是，自由人却比奴隶更有创造性，无论是机械还是工作安排和分配方面，它们总是能发明各种节省和减轻劳动的改良方法。然而，当一个奴隶提出类似的改良方法时，他的主人常常会认为这是奴隶企图牺牲主人的利益、节省自己劳动的懒惰行为。结果就是，奴隶不仅得不到报酬，而且可能因此受到责骂或惩罚。因此，奴隶经营的制造业和自由人经营的制造业相比，在同等的工作任务下常常需要更多的劳动量。也是因为这样，与自由人经营的产品价格相比，奴隶经营的产品的价格更加昂贵。孟德斯鸠举过一个例子，说匈牙利的矿山虽然没有土耳其的矿山那么富饶，但总是因为开采费用小而获得了较大的利润。其实，这是因为土耳其的矿山是由奴隶来负责开采的，对于土耳其人来说，奴隶们的胳膊就是他们使用的机械；而匈牙利矿山是由自由人开采的，他们使用了很多节省和便易劳动的机械。 我们对古希腊和古罗马时期的制造品价格知道得不多，但就我们的知识来看，精制制造品基本上是非常昂贵的。比如，丝和金基本上是等量交换的。那时候的丝是从东印度运来的，并不是欧洲制造品。在一定程度上，远途运输导致了其价格的高昂。那时，有些贵妇人也经常愿意用同样高的价格购买精致的麻布。大部分麻布都是欧洲制造品，最远的是埃及的制造品。因此，产品在这种情况下高价的原因，就是生产麻布所用的机械很笨拙，导致需要花费很多的劳动量。另外，那时的精制呢绒的价格比现在的价格高得多，虽然没有丝那么贵。普林尼曾经说，那时按某种方法染的呢绒，一磅值一百迪纳里，也就是现在的三镑六先令八便士；而按另一种方法染的呢绒，一磅值一千迪纳里，也就是三十三镑六先令八便士。这里要弄清楚的是，罗马时期的一磅仅仅相当于现在的十二盎司。表面上看，呢绒这样的高价好像主要是因为染料贵，但事实上，如果呢绒本身的价格没有现在高的话，也就不会在呢绒上使用这么昂贵的染料了；否则，附属物与主物之间的价值就太不均衡了。普林尼还说，一种放在长椅上的毛织枕垫的价格，有的值三万镑以上，有的值三十万镑以上，真是高得令人难以置信。当时也没说是因为染料导致这么高的价格。亚邦斯诺博士说：“古时候一些时髦的男女服装，没有现在的样式多。因此，古代人的服装一定会比现在便宜。”对于他的观点的前半部分，我们可以从古代雕像中的服装样式极少这一点来证实；至于他的结论，似乎不太恰当。这是因为，服装样式少是由于制作服装花费的劳动很大。其实，只要制造技术和制造业的生产力提高之后，所有服装花费的劳动都不会很大，衣服的样式自然也就多起来了。当富人们不能用一件价格昂贵的衣服来显摆财富时，就只好用各种样式的服装来炫耀自己了。 我在前面说过，城乡之间的贸易，在任何国家的贸易中都是最大且最重要的部分。城市向农村提供一定数量的制成品（可供目前使用），农村又反过来向城市提供土地生产物以满足他们需要的工作材料和生活资料。二者的贸易，总是表现为一定数量的制造品和一定数量的土地生产物相交换。在任何国家，土地生产物越贵，制造品就相应地越便宜；反过来，制造品的价格越高，土地生产物的价格就会越低，最后就会妨害农业的发展。这是因为，如果一定数量的土地生产物能够交换的制造品数量越少，就说明它的交换价值越小，那么地主改良土地、农民耕作土地以促进产量增长的积极性就越小。另外，任何国家采取的减少工匠和制造业工人的措施，都会导致国内市场的缩小，从而也就缩小了土地生产物最重要的市场，最后阻碍了农业的进一步发展。 重农主义学说就是想通过抑制制造业和国外贸易的方式，达到促进农业发展的目的。然而，它所采取的方式是无法实现其目的的，甚至还会阻碍其目的的实现，也就是反而会阻碍农业的发展。因此，与重商主义相比，该学说存在的内在矛盾似乎更大。重商主义重视制造业和国外贸易的发展，但不重视农业的发展。在重商主义学说下，虽然社会上一部分资本会从利益较大的产业流向利益较小的产业，但无论怎么样，其结果还是促进了它想要促进的产业的发展，也就是实现了自己的目的。然而，重农主义的学说，最后却阻碍了它想要促进的产业的发展。 综上所述，无论哪种学说，只要它采取的措施是特别重视某产业，违反规律地将社会上大部分资本投入这种产业，或者特别限制某产业而违反规律地强迫本来要投入该产业的那部分资本流出，那么它的结果都是违背其目的的，也就是说无法促进其想要促进的目的。这种情况，与其说会促进社会的发展，还不如说会阻碍社会的发展；与其说会增加土地和劳动的生产物价值，还不如说只会减少其价值。 如果上述特别的奖励或限制制度全都被废除了，就可以建立起最简单明了的自由主义制度。人们只要不违反正义的法律，就可以完全按照自己的方法追求自己的利益，用自己的劳动和资本与任何其他人自由竞争。以前，君主负有监督、指导私人产业使之最有利于社会的义务。这时，君主们的义务也完全解除了。可以说，要很好地履行上述义务，恐怕不是人类的智慧所能做到的，因此，君主们在履行这种义务时经常容易犯错误。然而，在完全自由的制度下，君主则只要履行三个应尽的、非常重要的、人们能够理解的义务。它们分别是：保护国家免遭其他独立国家的侵犯；设立公正严明的司法机构，尽可能地保护社会上每个人，使其免遭任何其他人的侵害；建设并维持某些公共事业和公共设施。当然，这些公共设施的建设和维持绝对不是为了任何个人或少数人。这是因为，当由社会全体来经营这种公共事业和设施时，所得的利润一般能够补偿费用还有剩余；但是，如果是由个人或少数人来经营这种事业时，获得的利润甚至无法补偿费用。 君主要适当履行上述三项义务，必然需要花费一定的收入来支付其中的必要费用。因此，我在下一篇将会竭力说明以下几点：什么是君主或国家的必要费用，其中哪部分应由全社会的一般纳税来负担，哪部分应由社会内特殊部分或特殊成员的纳税来负担；应当由全社会负担的费用应当用怎样的方式向全社会征收，各种方式有什么样的利弊；近代各国政府都用一部分收入来抵押借债的理由和原因是什么，这种债务会对土地和劳动的年生产物造成什么影响。因为以上三点，下一篇自然也就分为三章来叙述。