After the apprehension you are under,Sir,that the productions of society should outstep in quantity what it can and will consume,it is natural you should behold these capitals increased by parsimony,with terror,for the capitals which seek employment,occasion an increase of production and fresh means of accumulation,from whence arise productions:in fact you seem to me to be afraid that we shall be stifled under a mass of wealth,which fear I confess to you by no means troubles me.
Was it for you,Sir,to stir up popular prejudices against those who do not spend their income in articles of luxury?You admit (page 351)that no permanent increase of wealth can take place without a previous augmentation of capital !you admit (page 352)that those who work are consumers as well as those who are idle,and still you fear that if we are always accumulating we cannot consume the quantity (continually increasing)of commodities produced by these new laborers .(page 353.)Your vain fears must be destroyed,but first of all allow me to make a reflexion on the object of modern Political Economy,of a nature to direct us in our course.
What is it that distinguishes us from the Economists of the school of Quesnay?It is the pains we take to observe the connexion of the facts which regard wealth,the rigorous exactitude we impose upon ourselves in the description of them.Now to comprehend well,and describe well,we must as much as possible remain passive spectators.Not that we cannot nor ought sometimes to sigh at those gross operations,of the unhappy consequences of which we are often the sorrowful and helpless witnesses.Is the philanthropic historian interdicted from those sorrowful reflexions which the iniquities of policy sometimes draw from him?But a reproach,a thought,an advice are not history,and I am bold to say,are not Political Economy.What we owe to the public is to tell them how and why such a fact is the consequence of such other fact;whether they court or dread the consequence,that is sufficient for them,they know what they have to do,but no exhortations.
It consequently appears to me that I ought no more to preach,saving after the example of Adam Smith,than you ought to cry up dissipation after that of my Lord Lauderdale.Let us therefore confine ourselves to the observing how things follow and are linked together in the accumulation of capital.
In the first place I remark the major part of accumulations are necessarily slow.All the world,whatever income they may have,must live before they accumulate,and what I here call life is in general more expensive in proportion as we are rich.In most trades and professions,the maintenance and establishment of a family require the whole of the income and oftentimes the capital,and although something yearly may be saved,it is generally very disproportionate to the capital actually employed.An enterpriser who has a hundred thousand francs and industry,gains in ordinary eases and in a moderate time from twelve to fifteen thousand francs.Now with such a capital,and industry which is worth as much,that is to say a fortune of two hundred thousand francs,he is economical if he spends only ten thousand,in which ease he would only save yearly five thousand francs or the twentieth part of his capital.
If you divide this fortune as is often the ease between persons,one of whom furnishes the industry,the other the capital,the saving is then much less,because in that ease two families instead of one have to be maintained from the united profits of the capital and industry.(17)At all events it is only very great fortunes that can make great savings,and very large fortunes are rare in all countries.Capitals cannot therefore increase with a rapidity capable of producing the overthrow of industry.
I cannot subscribe to the fears which make you express,in page 357,"That a country is always more exposed to the rapid increase of the funds destined for the support of the laboring class than of the laboring class itself."Nor mn I frightened at the enormous increase of production which may result from an augmenration (so slow in its nature)of capital.I see on the contrary these new capitals and the incomes they produce distribute themselves in the most favorable manner amongst producers.In the first place the capitalist in augnnenting his capital sees his income increase,which induces greater enjoyments.A capital increased one year buys the following year a little more industrious service.These services being more in demand are paid a little better.A greater number of industrious persons find employ and the reward of their facultics.They work and unproductively consume the produce of their labor,so that if there are more productions created in consequence of this increase of capital there arc also more productions consumed.Now what is this but an increase of prosperity?
You say (pages 352and 360)that if the savings have no other object than the increase of capital,"if the capitalists do not increase their enjoyments with their income,they have not a sufficient motive for saving:
for men do not save for a philanthropy sake,and merely to make industry prosper."That is true.But what conclusion will you draw from it?If they save,I say they encourage industry and production,and this increase of production distributes itself in a manner very advantageous to the public.
