The Crown of Wild Olive

by John Ruskin

  CHAPTER II.

  STORE-KEEPING.

  31. The first chapter having consisted of little more than definition ofterms, I purpose, in this, to expand and illustrate the givendefinitions.

  The view which has here been taken of the nature of wealth, namely, thatit consists in an intrinsic value developed by a vital power, isdirectly opposed to two nearly universal conceptions of wealth. In theassertion that value is primarily intrinsic, it opposes the idea thatanything which is an object of desire to numbers, and is limited inquantity, so as to have rated worth in exchange, may be called, orvirtually become, wealth. And in the assertion that value is,secondarily, dependent upon power in the possessor, it opposes the ideathat the worth of things depends on the demand for them, instead of onthe use of them. Before going farther, we will make these two positionsclearer.

  32. I. First. All wealth is intrinsic, and is not constituted by thejudgment of men. This is easily seen in the case of things affecting thebody; we know, that no force of fantasy will make stones nourishing, orpoison innocent; but it is less apparent in things affecting the mind.We are easily--perhaps willingly--misled by the appearance of beneficialresults obtained by industries addressed wholly to the gratification offanciful desire; and apt to suppose that whatever is widely coveted,dearly bought, and pleasurable in possession, must be included in ourdefinition of wealth. It is the more difficult to quit ourselves of thiserror because many things which are true wealth in moderate use, becomefalse wealth in immoderate; and many things are mixed of good andevil,--as mostly, books, and works of art,--out of which one person Willget the good, and another the evil; so that it seems as if there wereno fixed good or evil in the things themselves, but only in the viewtaken, and use made of them.

  But that is not so. The evil and good are fixed; in essence, and inproportion. And in things in which evil depends upon excess, the pointof excess, though indefinable, is fixed; and the power of the thing ison the hither side for good, and on the farther side for evil. And inall cases this power is inherent, not dependent on opinion or choice.Our thoughts of things neither make, nor mar their eternal force;nor--which is the most serious point for future consideration--can theyprevent the effect of it (within certain limits) upon ourselves.

  33. Therefore, the object of any special analysis of wealth will be notso much to enumerate what is serviceable, as to distinguish what isdestructive; and to show that it is inevitably destructive; that toreceive pleasure from an evil thing is not to escape from, or alter theevil of it, but to be _altered by_ it; that is, to suffer from it to theutmost, having our own nature, in that degree, made evil also. And itmay be shown farther, that, through whatever length of time orsubtleties of connexion the harm is accomplished, (being also less ormore according to the fineness and worth of the humanity on which it iswrought), still, nothing _but_ harm ever comes of a bad thing.

  34. So that, in sum, the term wealth is never to be attached to the_accidental object of a morbid_ desire, but only to the _constant objectof a legitimate one_.[14] By the fury of ignorance, and fitfulness ofcaprice, large interests may be continually attached to thingsunserviceable or hurtful; if their nature could be altered by ourpassions, the science of Political Economy would remain, what it hasbeen hitherto among us, the weighing of clouds, and the portioning outof shadows. But of ignorance there is no science; and of caprice no law.Their disturbing forces interfere with the operations of faithfulEconomy, but have nothing in common with them: she, the calm arbiter ofnational destiny, regards only essential power for good in all that sheaccumulates, and alike disdains the wanderings[15] of imagination, andthe thirsts of disease.

  35. II. Secondly. The assertion that wealth is not _only_ intrinsic, butdependent, in order to become effectual, on a given degree of vitalpower in its possessor, is opposed to another popular view ofwealth;--namely, that though it may always be constituted by caprice, itis, when so constituted, a substantial thing, of which given quantitiesmay be counted as existing here, or there, and exchangeable at ratedprices.

  In this view there are three errors. The first and chief is theoverlooking the fact that all exchangeableness of commodity, oreffective demand for it, depends on the sum of capacity for its useexisting, here or elsewhere. The book we cannot read, or picture we takeno delight in, may indeed be called part of our wealth, in so far as wehave power of exchanging either for something we like better. But ourpower of effecting such exchange, and yet more, of effecting it toadvantage, depends absolutely on the number of accessible persons whocan understand the book, or enjoy the painting, and who will dispute thepossession of them. Thus the actual worth of either, even to us, dependsno more on their essential goodness than on the capacity existingsomewhere for the perception of it; and it is vain in any completedsystem of production to think of obtaining one without the other. Sothat, though the true political economist knows that co-existence ofcapacity for use with temporary possession cannot be always secured, thefinal fact, on which he bases all action and administration, is that, inthe whole nation, or group of nations, he has to deal with, for everyatom of intrinsic value produced he must with exactest chemistry produceits twin atom of acceptant digestion, or understanding capacity; or, inthe degree of his failure, he has no wealth. Nature's challenge to usis, in earnest, as the Assyrians mock; "I will give thee two thousandhorses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them." Bavieca'spaces are brave, if the Cid backs him; but woe to us, if we take thedust of capacity, wearing the armour of it, for capacity itself, for soall procession, however goodly in the show of it, is to the tomb.

  36. The second error in this popular view of wealth is, that in givingthe name of wealth to things which we cannot use, we in reality confusewealth with money. The land we have no skill to cultivate, the bookwhich is sealed to us, or dress which is superfluous, may indeed beexchangeable, but as such are nothing more than a cumbrous form ofbank-note, of doubtful or slow convertibility. As long as we retainpossession of them, we merely keep our bank-notes in the shape of gravelor clay, of book-leaves, or of embroidered tissue. Circumstances may,perhaps, render such forms the safest, or a certain complacency mayattach to the exhibition of them; into both these advantages we shallinquire afterwards; I wish the reader only to observe here, thatexchangeable property which we cannot use is, to us personally, merelyone of the forms of money, not of wealth.

  37. The third error in the popular view is the confusion of Guardianshipwith Possession; the real state of men of property being, too commonly,that of curators, not possessors, of wealth.

  A man's power over his property is at the widest range of it, fivefold;it is power of Use, for himself, Administration, to others, Ostentation,Destruction, or Bequest: and possession is in use only, which for eachman is sternly limited; so that such things, and so much of them as hecan use, are, indeed, well for him, or Wealth; and more of them, or anyother things, are ill for him, or Illth.[16] Plunged to the lips inOrinoco, he shall drink to his thirst measure; more, at his peril: witha thousand oxen on his lands, he shall eat to his hunger measure; more,at his peril. He cannot live in two houses at once; a few bales of silkor wool will suffice for the fabric of all the clothes he can ever wear,and a few books will probably hold all the furniture good for his brain.Beyond these, in the best of us but narrow, capacities, we have but thepower of administering, or _mal_-administering, wealth: (that is to say,distributing, lending, or increasing it);--of exhibiting it (as inmagnificence of retinue or furniture),--of destroying, or, finally, ofbequeathing it. And with multitudes of rich men, administrationdegenerates into curatorship; they merely hold their property in charge,as Trustees, for the benefit of some person or persons to whom it is tobe delivered upon their death; and the position, explained in clearterms, would hardly seem a covetable one. What would be the probablefeelings of a youth, on his entrance into life, to whom the career hopedfor him was proposed in terms such as these: "You must workunremittingly, and with your utmost intelligence, during all youravailable years, you wil
l thus accumulate wealth to a large amount; butyou must touch none of it, beyond what is needful for your support.Whatever sums you gain, beyond those required for your decent andmoderate maintenance, and whatever beautiful things you may obtainpossession of, shall be properly taken care of by servants, for whosemaintenance you will be charged, and whom you will have the trouble ofsuperintending, and on your deathbed you shall have the power ofdetermining to whom the accumulated property shall belong, or to whatpurposes be applied."

  38. The labour of life, under such conditions, would probably be neitherzealous nor cheerful; yet the only difference between this position andthat of the ordinary capitalist is the power which the latter supposeshimself to possess, and which is attributed to him by others, ofspending his money at any moment. This pleasure, taken _in theimagination of power to part with that with which we have no intentionof parting_, is one of the most curious, though commonest forms of theEidolon, or Phantasm of Wealth. But the political economist has nothingto do with this idealism, and looks only to the practical issue ofit--namely, that the holder of wealth, in such temper, may be regardedsimply as a mechanical means of collection; or as a money-chest with aslit in it, not only receptant but suctional, set in the publicthoroughfare;--chest of which only Death has the key, and evil Chancethe distribution of the contents. In his function of Lender (which,however, is one of administration, not use, as far as he is himselfconcerned), the capitalist takes, indeed, a more interesting aspect; buteven in that function, his relations with the state are apt todegenerate into a mechanism for the convenient contraction of debt;--afunction the more mischievous, because a nation invariably appeases itsconscience with respect to an unjustifiable expense, by meeting it withborrowed funds, expresses its repentance of a foolish piece of business,by letting its tradesmen wait for their money, and always leaves itsdescendants to pay for the work which will be of the least advantage tothem.[17]

  39. Quit of these three sources of misconception, the reader will havelittle farther difficulty in apprehending the real nature of Effectualvalue. He may, however, at first not without surprise, perceive theconsequences involved in his acceptance of the definition. For if theactual existence of wealth be dependent on the power of its possessor,it follows that the sum of wealth held by the nation, instead of beingconstant, or calculable, varies hourly, nay, momentarily, with thenumber and character of its holders! and that in changing hands, itchanges in quantity. And farther, since the worth of the currency isproportioned to the sum of material wealth which it represents, if thesum of the wealth changes, the worth of the currency changes. And thusboth the sum of the property, and power of the currency, of the state,vary momentarily as the character and number of the holders. And notonly so, but different rates and kinds of variation are caused by thecharacter of the holders of different kinds of wealth. The transitionsof value caused by the character of the holders of land differ in modefrom those caused by character in holders of works of art; and theseagain from those caused by character in holders of machinery or otherworking capital. But we cannot examine these special phenomena of anykind of wealth until we have a clear idea of the way in which truecurrency expresses them; and of the resulting modes in which the costand price of any article are related to its value. To obtain this wemust approach the subject in its first elements.

  40. Let us suppose a national store of wealth, composed of materialthings either useful, or believed to be so, taken charge of by theGovernment,[18] and that every workman, having produced any articleinvolving labour in its production, and for which he has no immediateuse, brings it to add to this store, receiving from the Government, inexchange, an order either for the return of the thing itself, or of itsequivalent in other things, such as he may choose out of the store, atany time when he needs them. The question of equivalence itself (howmuch wine a man is to receive in return for so much corn, or how muchcoal in return for so much iron) is a quite separate one, which we willexamine presently. For the time, let it be assumed that this equivalencehas been determined, and that the Government order, in exchange for afixed weight of any article (called, suppose _a_), is either for thereturn of that weight of the article itself, or of another fixed weightof the article _b_, or another of the article _c_, and so on.

  Now, supposing that the labourer speedily and continually presents thesegeneral orders, or, in common language, "spends the money," he hasneither changed the circumstances of the nation, nor his own, except inso far as he may have produced useful and consumed useless articles, or_vice versa_. But if he does not use, or uses in part only, the ordershe receives, and lays aside some portion of them; and thus every daybringing his contribution to the national store, lays by someper-centage of the orders received in exchange for it, he increases thenational wealth daily by as much as he does not use of the receivedorder, and to the same amount accumulates a monetary claim on theGovernment. It is, of course, always in his power, as it is his legalright, to bring forward this accumulation of claim, and at once toconsume, destroy, or distribute, the sum of his wealth. Supposing henever does so, but dies, leaving his claim to others, he has enrichedthe State during his life by the quantity of wealth over which thatclaim extends, or has, in other words, rendered so much additional lifepossible in the State, of which additional life he bequeaths theimmediate possibility to those whom he invests with his claim. Supposinghim to cancel the claim, he would distribute this possibility of lifeamong the nation at large.

  41. We hitherto consider the Government itself as simply a conservativepower, taking charge of the wealth entrusted to it.

  But a Government may be more or less than a conservative power. It maybe either an improving, or destructive one.

  If it be an improving power, using all the wealth entrusted to it to thebest advantage, the nation is enriched in root and branch at once, andthe Government is enabled, for every order presented, to return aquantity of wealth greater than the order was written for, according tothe fructification obtained in the interim. This ability may be eitherconcealed, in which case the currency does not completely represent thewealth of the country, or it may be manifested by the continual paymentof the excess of value on each order, in which case there is(irrespectively, observe, of collateral results afterwards to beexamined) a perpetual rise in the worth of the currency, that is to say,a fall in the price of all articles represented by it.

  42. But if the Government be destructive, or a consuming power, itbecomes unable to return the value received on the presentation of theorder.

  This inability may either be concealed by meeting demands to the full,until it issue in bankruptcy, or in some form of national debt;--or itmay be concealed during oscillatory movements between destructivenessand productiveness, which result on the whole in stability;--or it maybe manifested by the consistent return of less than value received oneach presented order, in which case there is a consistent fall in theworth of the currency, or rise in the price of the things represented byit.

  43. Now, if for this conception of a central Government, we substitutethat of a body of persons occupied in industrial pursuits, of whom eachadds in his private capacity to the common store, we at once obtain anapproximation to the actual condition of a civilized mercantilecommunity, from which approximation we might easily proceed into stillcompleter analysis. I purpose, however, to arrive at every result by thegradual expansion of the simpler conception; but I wish the reader toobserve, in the meantime, that both the social conditions thus supposed(and I will by anticipation say also, all possible social conditions),agree in two great points; namely, in the primal importance of thesupposed national store or stock, and in its destructibility orimproveability by the holders of it.

  44. I. Observe that in both conditions, that of centralGovernment-holding, and diffused private-holding, the quantity of stockis of the same national moment. In the one case, indeed, its amount maybe known by examination of the persons to whom it is confided; in theother it cannot be known but by exposing the private affairs of everyindivi
dual. But, known or unknown, its significance is the same undereach condition. The riches of the nation consist in the abundance, andtheir wealth depends on the nature, of this store.

  45. II. In the second place, both conditions, (and all other possibleones) agree in the destructibility or improveability of the store by itsholders. Whether in private hands, or under Government charge, thenational store may be daily consumed, or daily enlarged, by itspossessors; and while the currency remains apparently unaltered, theproperty it represents may diminish or increase.

  46. The first question, then, which we have to put under our simpleconception of central Government, namely, "What store has it?" is one ofequal importance, whatever may be the constitution of the State; whilethe second question--namely, "Who are the holders of the store?"involves the discussion of the constitution of the State itself.

  The first inquiry resolves itself into three heads:

  1. What is the nature of the store?

  2. What is its quantity in relation to the population?

  3. What is its quantity in relation to the currency?

  The second inquiry into two:

  1. Who are the Holders of the store, and in what proportions?

  2. Who are the Claimants of the store, (that is to say, the holders ofthe currency,) and in what proportions?

  We will examine the range of the first three questions in the presentpaper; of the two following, in the sequel.

  47. I. QUESTION FIRST. What is the nature of the store? Has the nationhitherto worked for and gathered the right thing or the wrong? On thatissue rest the possibilities of its life.

  For example, let us imagine a society, of no great extent, occupied inprocuring and laying up store of corn, wine, wool, silk, and other suchpreservable materials of food and clothing; and that it has a currencyrepresenting them. Imagine farther, that on days of festivity, thesociety, discovering itself to derive satisfaction from pyrotechnics,gradually turns its attention more and more to the manufacture ofgunpowder; so that an increasing number of labourers, giving what timethey can spare to this branch of industry, bring increasing quantitiesof combustibles into the store, and use the general orders received inexchange to obtain such wine, wool, or corn, as they may have need of.The currency remains the same, and represents precisely the same amountof material in the store, and of labour spent in producing it. But thecorn and wine gradually vanish, and in their place, as gradually, appearsulphur and saltpetre, till at last the labourers who have consumed cornand supplied nitre, presenting on a festal morning some of theircurrency to obtain materials for the feast, discover that no amount ofcurrency will command anything Festive, except Fire. The supply ofrockets is unlimited, but that of food, limited, in a quite finalmanner; and the whole currency in the hands of the society represents aninfinite power of detonation, but none of existence.

  48. This statement, caricatured as it may seem, is only exaggerated inassuming the persistence of the folly to extremity, unchecked, as inreality it would be, by the gradual rise in price of food. But it fallsshort of the actual facts of human life in expression of the depth andintensity of the folly itself. For a great part (the reader would notbelieve how great until he saw the statistics in detail) of the mostearnest and ingenious industry of the world is spent in producingmunitions of war; gathering, that is to say the materials, not offestive, but of consuming fire; filling its stores with all power of theinstruments of pain, and all affluence of the ministries of death. Itwas no true _Trionfo della Morte_[19] which men have seen and feared(sometimes scarcely feared) so long; wherein he brought them rest fromtheir labours. We see, and share, another and higher form of his triumphnow. Task-master, instead of Releaser, he rules the dust of the arena noless than of the tomb; and, content once in the grave whither man went,to make his works to cease and his devices to vanish,--now, in the busycity and on the serviceable sea, makes his work to increase, and hisdevices to multiply.

  49. To this doubled loss, or negative power of labour, spent inproducing means of destruction, we have to add, in our estimate of theconsequences of human folly, whatever more insidious waste of toil thereis in production of unnecessary luxury. Such and such an occupation (itis said) supports so many labourers, because so many obtain wages infollowing it; but it is never considered that unless there be asupporting power in the product of the occupation, the wages given toone man are merely withdrawn from another. We cannot say of any tradethat it maintains such and such a number of persons, unless we know howand where the money, now spent in the purchase of its produce, wouldhave been spent, if that produce had not been manufactured. Thepurchasing funds truly support a number of people in making This; but(probably) leave unsupported an equal number who are making, or couldhave made That. The manufacturers of small watches thrive at Geneva;--itis well;--but where would the money spent on small watches have gone,had there been no small watches to buy?

  50. If the so frequently uttered aphorism of mercantile economy--"labouris limited by capital," were true, this question would be a definiteone. But it is untrue; and that widely. Out of a given quantity of fundsfor wages, more or less labour is to be had, according to the quantityof will with which we can inspire the workman; and the true limit oflabour is only in the limit of this moral stimulus of the will, and ofthe bodily power. In an ultimate, but entirely unpractical sense, labouris limited by capital, as it is by matter--that is to say, where thereis no material, there can be no work,--but in the practical sense,labour is limited only by the great original capital of head, heart, andhand. Even in the most artificial relations of commerce, labour is tocapital as fire to fuel: out of so much fuel, you _can_ have only somuch fire; but out of so much fuel, you _shall_ have so much fire,--notin proportion to the mass of combustible, but to the force of wind thatfans and water that quenches; and the appliance of both. And labour isfurthered, as conflagration is, not so much by added fuel, as byadmitted air.[20]

  51. For which reasons, I had to insert, in Sec. 49, the qualifying"probably;" for it can never be said positively that the purchase-money,or wages fund of any trade is withdrawn from some other trade. Theobject itself may be the stimulus of the production of the money whichbuys it; that is to say, the work by which the purchaser obtained themeans of buying it, would not have been done by him unless he had wantedthat particular thing. And the production of any article notintrinsically (nor in the process of manufacture) injurious, is useful,if the desire of it causes productive labour in other directions.

  52. In the national store, therefore, the presence of thingsintrinsically valueless does not imply an entirely correlative absenceof things valuable. We cannot be certain that all the labour spent onvanity has been diverted from reality, and that for every bad thingproduced, a precious thing has been lost. In great measure, the vainthings represent the results of roused indolence; they have been carved,as toys, in extra time; and, if they had not been made, nothing elsewould have been made. Even to munitions of war this principle applies;they partly represent the work of men who, if they had not made spears,would never have made pruning hooks, and who are incapable of anyactivities but those of contest.

  53. Thus then, finally, the nature of the store has to be consideredunder two main lights; the one, that of its immediate and actualutility; the other, that of the past national character which itsignifies by its production, and future character which it must developby its use. And the issue of this investigation will be to show us that.

  Economy does not depend merely on principles of "demand and supply," butprimarily on what is demanded, and what is supplied; which I will beg ofyou to observe, and take to heart.

  * * * * *

  54. II. QUESTION SECOND.--What is the quantity of the store, in relationto the population?

  It follows from what has been already stated that the accurate form inwhich this question has to be put is--"What quantity of each articlecomposing the store exists in proportion to the real need for it by thepopulation?" But we shall for the
time assume, in order to keep all ourterms at the simplest, that the store is wholly composed of usefularticles, and accurately proportioned to the several needs for them.

  Now it cannot be assumed, because the store is large in proportion tothe number of the people, that the people must be in comfort; norbecause it is small, that they must be in distress. An active andeconomical race always produces more than it requires, and lives (if itis permitted to do so) in competence on the produce of its daily labour.The quantity of its store, great or small, is therefore in many respectsindifferent to it, and cannot be inferred from its aspect. Similarly aninactive and wasteful population, which cannot live by its daily labour,but is dependent, partly or wholly, on consumption of its store, may be(by various difficulties, hereafter to be examined, in realizing orgetting at such store) retained in a state of abject distress, thoughits possessions may be immense. But the results always involved in themagnitude of store are, the commercial power of the nation, itssecurity, and its mental character. Its commercial power, in thataccording to the quantity of its store, may be the extent of itsdealings; its security, in that according to the quantity of its storeare its means of sudden exertion or sustained endurance; and itscharacter, in that certain conditions of civilization cannot be attainedwithout permanent and continually accumulating store, of great intrinsicvalue, and of peculiar nature.[21]

  55. Now, seeing that these three advantages arise from largeness ofstore in proportion to population, the question arises immediately,"Given the store--is the nation enriched by diminution of its numbers?Are a successful national speculation, and a pestilence, economicallythe same thing?"

  This is in part a sophistical question; such as it would be to askwhether a man was richer when struck by disease which must limit hislife within a predicable period, than he was when in health. He isenabled to enlarge his current expenses, and has for all purposes alarger sum at his immediate disposal (for, given the fortune, theshorter the life, the larger the annuity); yet no man considers himselfricher because he is condemned by his physician.

  56. The logical reply is that, since Wealth is by definition only themeans of life, a nation cannot be enriched by its own mortality. Or inshorter words, the life is more than the meat; and existence itself,more wealth than the means of existence. Whence, of two nations who haveequal store, the more numerous is to be considered the richer, providedthe type of the inhabitant be as high (for, though the relative bulk oftheir store be less, its relative efficiency, or the amount of effectualwealth, must be greater). But if the type of the population bedeteriorated by increase of its numbers, we have evidence of poverty inits worst influence; and then, to determine whether the nation in itstotal may still be justifiably esteemed rich, we must set or weigh, thenumber of the poor against that of the rich.

  To effect which piece of scale-work, it is of course necessary todetermine, first, who are poor and who are rich; nor this only, but alsohow poor and how rich they are. Which will prove a curiousthermometrical investigation; for we shall have to do for gold and forsilver, what we have done for quicksilver;--determine, namely, theirfreezing-point, their zero, their temperate and fever-heat points;finally, their vaporescent point, at which riches, sometimesexplosively, as lately in America, "make to themselves wings:"--andcorrespondently, the number of degrees _below_ zero at which poverty,ceasing to brace with any wholesome cold, burns to the bone.[22]

  57. For the performance of these operations, in the strictest sensescientific, we will first look to the existing so-called "science" ofPolitical Economy; we will ask it to define for us the comparatively andsuperlatively rich, and the comparatively and superlatively poor; and onits own terms--if any terms it can pronounce--examine, in our prosperousEngland, how many rich and how many poor people there are; and whetherthe quantity and intensity of the poverty is indeed so overbalanced bythe quantity and intensity of wealth, that we may permit ourselves aluxurious blindness to it, and call ourselves, complacently, a richcountry. And if we find no clear definition in the existing science, wewill endeavour for ourselves to fix the true degrees of the scale, andto apply them.[23]

  * * * * *

  58. QUESTION THIRD. What is the quantity of the store in relation to theCurrency?

  We have seen that the real worth of the currency, so far as dependent onits relation to the magnitude of the store, may vary, within certainlimits, without affecting its worth in exchange. The diminution orincrease of the represented wealth may be unperceived, and the currencymay be taken either for more or less than it is truly worth. Usually itis taken for much more; and its power in exchange, or credit-power, isthus increased up to a given strain upon its relation to existingwealth. This credit-power is of chief importance in the thoughts,because most sharply present to the experience, of a mercantilecommunity: but the conditions of its stability[24] and all otherrelations of the currency to the material store are entirely simple inprinciple, if not in action. Far other than simple are the relations ofthe currency to the available labour which it also represents. For thisrelation is involved not only with that of the magnitude of the store tothe number, but with that of the magnitude of the store to the mind, ofthe population. Its proportion to their number, and the resulting worthof currency, are calculable; but its proportion to their will for labouris not. The worth of the piece of money which claims a given quantity ofthe store is, in exchange, less or greater according to the facility ofobtaining the same quantity of the same thing without having recourse tothe store. In other words it depends on the immediate Cost and Price ofthe thing. We must now, therefore, complete the definition of theseterms.

  59. All cost and price are counted in Labour. We must know first,therefore, what is to be counted _as_ Labour.

  I have already defined labour to be the Contest of the life of man withan opposite. Literally, it is the quantity of "Lapse," loss, or failureof human life, caused by any effort. It is usually confused with effortitself, or the application of power (opera); but there is much effortwhich is merely a mode of recreation, or of pleasure. The most beautifulactions of the human body, and the highest results of the humanintelligence, are conditions, or achievements, of quiteunlaborious,--nay, of recreative,--effort. But labour is the _suffering_in effort. It is the negative quantity, or quantity of de-feat, whichhas to be counted against every Feat, and of de-fect which has to becounted against every Fact, or Deed of men. In brief, it is "thatquantity of our toil which we die in."

  We might, therefore, _a priori_, conjecture (as we shall ultimatelyfind), that it cannot be bought, nor sold. Everything else is bought andsold for Labour, but labour itself cannot be bought nor sold foranything, being priceless.[25] The idea that it is a commodity to bebought or sold, is the alpha and omega of Politico-Economic fallacy.

  60. This being the nature of labour, the "Cost" of anything is thequantity of labour necessary to obtain it;--the quantity for which, orat which, it "stands" (constant). It is literally the "Constancy" of thething;--you shall win it--move it--come at it, for no less than this.

  Cost is measured and measurable (using the accurate Latin terms) only in"labour," not in "opera."[26] It does not matter how much _work_ a thingneeds to produce it; it matters only how much _distress_. Generally themore the power it requires, the less the distress; so that the noblestworks of man cost less than the meanest.

  True labour, or spending of life, is either of the body, in fatigue orpain; of the temper or heart (as in perseverance of search forthings,--patience in waiting for them,--fortitude or degradation insuffering for them, and the like), or of the intellect. All these kindsof labour are supposed to be included in the general term, and thequantity of labour is then expressed by the time it lasts. So that aunit of labour is "an hour's work" or a day's work, as we maydetermine.[27]

  61. Cost, like value, is both intrinsic and effectual. Intrinsic cost isthat of getting the thing in the right way; effectual cost is that ofgetting the thing in the way we set about it. But intrinsic cost ca
nnotbe made a subject of analytical investigation, being only partiallydiscoverable, and that by long experience. Effectual cost is all thatthe political Economist can deal with; that is to say, the cost of thething under existing circumstances, and by known processes.

  Cost, being dependent much on application of method, varies with thequantity of the thing wanted, and with the number of persons who workfor it. It is easy to get a little of some things, but difficult to getmuch; it is impossible to get some things with few hands, but easy toget them with many.

  62. The cost and value of things, however difficult to determineaccurately, are thus both dependent on ascertainable physicalcircumstances.[28]

  But their _price_ is dependent on the human will.

  Such and such a thing is demonstrably good for so much. And it maydemonstrably be had for so much.

  But it remains questionable, and in all manner of ways questionable,whether I choose to give so much.[29]

  This choice is always a relative one. It is a choice to give a price forthis, rather than for that;--a resolution to have the thing, if gettingit does not involve the loss of a better thing. Price depends,therefore, not only on the cost of the commodity itself, but on itsrelation to the cost of every other attainable thing.

  Farther. The _power_ of choice is also a relative one. It depends notmerely on our own estimate of the thing, but on everybody else'sestimate; therefore on the number and force of the will of theconcurrent buyers, and on the existing quantity of the thing inproportion to that number and force.

  Hence the price of anything depends on four variables.

  (1.) Its cost.

  (2.) Its attainable quantity at that cost.

  (3.) The number and power of the persons who want it.

  (4.) The estimate they have formed of its desirableness.

  Its value only affects its price so far as it is contemplated in thisestimate; perhaps, therefore, not at all.

  63. Now, in order to show the manner in which price is expressed interms of a currency, we must assume these four quantities to be known,and the "estimate of desirableness," commonly called the Demand, to becertain. We will take the number of persons at the lowest. Let A and Bbe two labourers who "demand," that is to say, have resolved to labourfor, two articles, _a_ and _b_. Their demand for these articles (if thereader likes better, he may say their need) is to be conceived asabsolute, their existence depending on the getting these two things.Suppose, for instance, that they are bread and fuel, in a cold country,and let a represent the least quantity of bread, and _b_ the leastquantity of fuel, which will support a man's life for a day. Let _a_ beproducible by an hour's labour, but _b_ only by two hours' labour.

  Then the _cost of a_ is one hour, and of _b_ two (cost, by ourdefinition, being expressible in terms of time). If, therefore, each manworked both for his corn and fuel, each would have to work three hours aday. But they divide the labour for its greater ease.[30] Then if Aworks three hours, he produces 3 _a_, which is one a more than both themen want. And if B works three hours, he produces only 1-1/2 _b_, orhalf of _b_ less than both want. But if A work three hours and B six, Ahas 3 _a_, and B has 3 _b_, a maintenance in the right proportion forboth for a day and half; so that each might take half a day's rest. Butas B has worked double time, the whole of this day's rest belongs inequity to him. Therefore the just exchange should be, A giving two _a_for one _b_, has one _a_ and one _b_;--maintenance for a day. B givingone _b_ for two _a_, has two _a_ and two _b_; maintenance for two days.

  But B cannot rest on the second day, or A would be left without thearticle which B produces. Nor is there any means of making the exchangejust, unless a third labourer is called in. Then one workman, A,produces _a_, and two, B and C, produce _b_:--A, working three hours,has three _a_;--B, three hours, 1-1/2 _b_;--C, three hours, 1-1/2 _b_. Band C each give half of _b_ for _a_, and all have their equal dailymaintenance for equal daily work.

  To carry the example a single step farther, let three articles, _a_,_b_, and _c_ be needed.

  Let _a_ need one hour's work, _b_ two, and _c_ four; then the day's workmust be seven hours, and one man in a day's work can make 7 _a_, or3-1/2 _b_, or 1-3/4 _c_.

  Therefore one A works for _a_, producing 7 _a_; two B's work for _b_,producing 7 _b_; four C's work for _c_, producing 7 _c_.

  A has six _a_ to spare, and gives two _a_ for one _b_, and four _a_ forone _c_. Each B has 2-1/2 _b_ to spare, and gives 1/2 _b_ for one _a_,and two _b_ for one _c_.

  Each C has 3/4 of _c_ to spare, and gives 1/2 _c_ for one _b_, and 1/4of _c_ for one _a_.

  And all have their day's maintenance.

  Generally, therefore, it follows that if the demand is constant,[31] therelative prices of things are as their costs, or as the quantities oflabour involved in production.

  64. Then, in order to express their prices in terms of a currency, wehave only to put the currency into the form of orders for a certainquantity of any given article (with us it is in the form of orders forgold), and all quantities of other articles are priced by the relationthey bear to the article which the currency claims.

  But the worth of the currency itself is not in the slightest degreefounded more on the worth of the article which it either claims orconsists in (as gold) than on the worth of every other article for whichthe gold is exchangeable. It is just as accurate to say, "so many poundsare worth an acre of land," as "an acre of land is worth so manypounds." The worth of gold, of land, of houses, and of food, and of allother things, depends at any moment on the existing quantities andrelative demands for all and each; and a change in the worth of, ordemand for, any one, involves an instantaneously correspondent change inthe worth of, and demand for, all the rest;--a change as inevitable andas accurately balanced (though often in its process as untraceable) asthe change in volume of the outflowing river from some vast lake, causedby change in the volume of the inflowing streams, though no eye cantrace, nor instrument detect, motion, either on its surface, or in thedepth.

  65. Thus, then, the real working power or worth of the currency isfounded on the entire sum of the relative estimates formed by thepopulation of its possessions; a change in this estimate in anydirection (and therefore every change in the national character),instantly alters the value of money, in its second great function ofcommanding labour. But we must always carefully and sternly distinguishbetween this worth of currency, dependent on the conceived orappreciated value of what it represents, and the worth of it, dependenton the _existence_ of what it represents. A currency is _true, orfalse_, in proportion to the security with which it gives claim to thepossession of land, house, horse, or picture; but a currency is _strongor weak_,[32] worth much, or worth little, in proportion to the degreeof estimate in which the nation holds the house, horse, or picture whichis claimed. Thus the power of the English currency has been, till oflate, largely based on the national estimate of horses and of wine: sothat a man might always give any price to furnish choicely his stable,or his cellar; and receive public approval therefor: but if he gave thesame sum to furnish his library, he was called mad or a biblio-maniac.And although he might lose his fortune by his horses, and his health orlife by his cellar, and rarely lost either by his books, he was yetnever called a Hippo-maniac nor an Oino-maniac; but only Biblio-maniac,because the current worth of money was understood to be legitimatelyfounded on cattle and wine, but not on literature. The prices latelygiven at sales for pictures and MSS. indicate some tendency to change inthe national character in this respect, so that the worth of thecurrency may even come in time to rest, in an acknowledged manner,somewhat on the state and keeping of the Bedford missal, as well as onthe health of Caractacus or Blink Bonny; and old pictures be consideredproperty, no less than old port. They might have been so before now, butthat it is more difficult to choose the one than the other.

  66. Now, observe, all these sources of variation in the power of thecurrency exist, wholly irrespective of the influences of vice,indolence, and improvidence. We have hitherto supposed, throughou
t theanalysis, every professing labourer to labour honestly, heartily, and inharmony with his fellows. We have now to bring farther into thecalculation the effects of relative industry, honour, and forethought;and thus to follow out the bearings of our second inquiry: Who are theholders of the Store and Currency, and in what proportions?

  This, however, we must reserve for our next paper--noticing here onlythat, however distinct the several branches of the subject are,radically, they are so interwoven in their issues that we cannot rightlytreat any one, till we have taken cognizance of all. Thus the need ofthe currency in proportion to number of population is materiallyinfluenced by the probable number of the holders in proportion to thenon-holders; and this again, by the number of holders of goods, orwealth, in proportion to the non-holders of goods. For as, bydefinition, the currency is a claim to goods which are not possessed,its quantity indicates the number of claimants in proportion to thenumber of holders; and the force and complexity of claim. For if theclaims be not complex, currency as a means of exchange may be very smallin quantity. A sells some corn to B, receiving a promise from B to payin cattle, which A then hands over to C, to get some wine. C in due timeclaims the cattle from B; and B takes back his promise. These exchangeshave, or might have been, all effected with a single coin or promise;and the proportion of the currency to the store would in suchcircumstances indicate only the circulating vitality of it--that is tosay, the quantity and convenient divisibility of that part of the storewhich the _habits_ of the nation keep in circulation. If a cattlebreeder is content to live with his household chiefly on meat and milk,and does not want rich furniture, or jewels, or books--if a wine andcorn grower maintains himself and his men chiefly on grapes andbread;--if the wives and daughters of families weave and spin theclothing of the household, and the nation, as a whole, remains contentwith the produce of its own soil and the work of its own hands, it haslittle occasion for circulating media. It pledges and promises littleand seldom; exchanges only so far as exchange is necessary for life. Thestore belongs to the people in whose hands it is found, and money islittle needed either as an expression of right, or practical means ofdivision and exchange.

  67. But in proportion as the habits of the nation become complex andfantastic (and they may be both, without therefore being civilized), itscirculating medium must increase in proportion to its store. If everyone wants a little of everything,--if food must be of many kinds, anddress of many fashions,--if multitudes live by work which, ministeringto fancy, has its pay measured by fancy, so that large prices will begiven by one person for what is valueless to another,--if there aregreat inequalities of knowledge, causing great inequalities ofestimate,--and, finally, and worst of all, if the currency itself, fromits largeness, and the power which the possession of it implies, becomesthe sole object of desire with large numbers of the nation, so that theholding of it is disputed among them as the main object of life:--ineach and all of these cases, the currency necessarily enlarges inproportion to the store; and as a means of exchange and division, as abond of right, and as an object of passion, has a more and moreimportant and malignant power over the nation's dealings, character, andlife.

  Against which power, when, as a bond of Right, it becomes tooconspicuous and too burdensome, the popular voice is apt to be raised ina violent and irrational manner, leading to revolution instead ofremedy. Whereas all possibility of Economy depends on the clearassertion and maintenance of this bond of right, however burdensome. Thefirst necessity of all economical government is to secure theunquestioned and unquestionable working of the great law ofProperty--that a man who works for a thing shall be allowed to get it,keep it, and consume it, in peace; and that he who does not eat his caketo-day, shall be seen, without grudging, to have his cake to-morrow.This, I say, is the first point to be secured by social law; withoutthis, no political advance, nay, no political existence, is in any sortpossible. Whatever evil, luxury, iniquity, may seem to result from it,this is nevertheless the first of all Equities; and to the enforcementof this, by law and by police-truncheon, the nation must alwaysprimarily set its mind--that the cupboard door may have a firm lock toit, and no man's dinner be carried off by the mob, on its way home fromthe baker's. Which, thus fearlessly asserting, we shall endeavour innext paper to consider how far it may be practicable for the mob itself,also, in due breadth of dish, to have dinners to carry home.

  FOOTNOTES:

  [14] Remember carefully this statement, that Wealth consists only in thethings which the nature of humanity has rendered in all ages, and mustrender in all ages to come, (that is what I meant by "constant") theobjects of legitimate desire. And see Appendix II.

  [15] The _Wanderings_, observe, not the Right goings, of Imagination.She is very far from despising these.

  [16] _See_ Appendix III.

  [17] I would beg the reader's very close attention to these 37th and38th paragraphs. It would be well if a dogged conviction could beenforced on nations, as on individuals, that, with few exceptions, whatthey cannot at present pay for, they should not at present have.

  [18] _See_ Appendix IV.

  [19] I little thought, what _Trionfo della Morte_ would be, for thisvery cause, and in literal fulfilment of the closing words of the 47thparagraph, over the fields and houses of Europe, and over its fairestcity--within seven years from the day I wrote it.

  [20] The meaning of which is, that you may spend a great deal of money,and get very little work for it, and that little bad; but having good"air" or "spirit," to put life into it, with very little money, you mayget a great deal of work, and all good; which, observe, is anarithmetical, not at all a poetical or visionary circumstance.

  [21] More especially, works of great art.

  [22] The meaning of that, in plain English, is, that we must find outhow far poverty and riches are good or bad for people, and what is thedifference between being miserably poor--so as, perhaps, to be driven tocrime, or to pass life in suffering--and being blessedly poor, in thesense meant in the Sermon on the Mount. For I suppose the people whobelieve that sermon, do not think (if they ever honestly ask themselveswhat they do think), either that Luke vi. 24. is a merely poeticalexclamation, or that the Beatitude of Poverty has yet been attained inSt. Martin's Lane and other back streets of London.

  [23] Large plans!--Eight years are gone, and nothing done yet. But Ikeep my purpose of making one day this balance, or want of balance,visible, in those so seldom used scales of Justice.

  [24] These are nearly all briefly represented by the image used for theforce of money by Dante, of mast and sail:--

  Quali dal vento le gonfiate vele Caggiono avvolte, poi che l'alber fiacca Tal cadde a terra la fiera crudele.

  The image may be followed out, like all of Dante's, into as close detailas the reader chooses. Thus the stress of the sail must be proportionedto the strength of the mast, and it is only in unforeseen danger that askilful seaman ever carries all the canvas his spars will bear, statesof mercantile languor are like the flap of the sail in a calm; ofmercantile precaution, like taking in reefs; and mercantile ruin isinstant on the breaking of the mast.

  [I mean by credit-power, the general impression on the national mindthat a sovereign, or any other coin, is worth so much bread andcheese--so much wine--so much horse and carriage--or so much fine art:it may be really worth, when tried, less or more than is thought: thethought of it is the credit-power.]

  [25] The object of Political Economy is not to buy, nor to sell labour,but to spare it. Every attempt to buy or sell it is, in the outcome,ineffectual; so far as successful, it is not sale, but Betrayal; and thepurchase-money is a part of that thirty pieces which bought, first thegreatest of labours, and afterwards the burial-field of the Stranger;for this purchase-money, being in its very smallness or vileness theexactly measured opposite of the "vilis annona amicorum," makes all menstrangers to each other.

  [26] Cicero's distinction, "sordidi quaestus, quorum operae, non quorumartes emuntur," admirable in principle, is inaccurate in e
xpression,because Cicero did not practically know how much operative dexterity isnecessary in all the higher arts; but the cost of this dexterity isincalculable. Be it great or small, the "cost" of the mere perfectnessof touch in a hammer-stroke of Donatello's, or a pencil-touch ofCorreggio's, is inestimable by any ordinary arithmetic.

  [Old notes, these, more embarrassing I now perceive, than elucidatory;but right, and worth retaining.]

  [27] Only observe, as some labour is more destructive of life than otherlabour, the hour or day of the more destructive toil is supposed toinclude proportionate rest. Though men do not, or cannot, usually takesuch rest, except in death.

  [28] There is, therefore, observe, no such thing as cheapness (in thecommon use of that term), without some error or injustice. A thing issaid to be cheap, not because it is common, but because it is supposedto be sold under its worth. Everything has its proper and true worth atany given time, in relation to everything else; and at that worth shouldbe bought and sold. If sold under it, it is cheap to the buyer byexactly so much as the seller loses, and no more. Putrid meat, attwopence a pound, is not "cheaper" than wholesome meat at sevenpence apound; it is probably much dearer; but if, by watching your opportunity,you can get the wholesome meat for sixpence a pound, it is cheaper toyou by a penny, which you have gained, and the seller has lost. Thepresent rage for cheapness is either, therefore, simply and literally arage for badness of all commodities, or it is an attempt to find personswhose necessities will force them to let you have more than you shouldfor your money. It is quite easy to produce such persons, and in largenumbers; for the more distress there is in a nation, the more cheapnessof this sort you can obtain, and your boasted cheapness is thus merely ameasure of the extent of your national distress.

  There is, indeed, a condition of apparent cheapness, which we have someright to be triumphant in; namely, the real reduction in cost ofarticles by right application of labour. But in this case the article isonly cheap with reference to its _former_ price; the so-called cheapnessis only our expression for the sensation of contrast between its formerand existing prices. So soon as the new methods of producing the articleare established, it ceases to be esteemed either cheap or dear, at thenew price, as at the old one, and is felt to be cheap only when accidentenables it to be purchased beneath this new value. And it is noadvantage to produce the article more easily, except as it enables youto multiply your population. Cheapness of this kind is merely thediscovery that more men can be maintained on the same ground; and thequestion how many you will maintain in proportion to your additionalmeans, remains exactly in the same terms that it did before.

  A form of immediate cheapness results, however, in many cases, withoutdistress, from the labour of a population where food is redundant, orwhere the labour by which the food is produced leaves much idle time ontheir hands, which may be applied to the production of "cheap" articles.

  All such phenomena indicate to the political economist places where thelabour is unbalanced. In the first case, the just balance is to beeffected by taking labourers from the spot where pressure exists, andsending them to that where food is redundant. In the second, thecheapness is a local accident, advantageous to the local purchaser,disadvantageous to the local producer. It is one of the first duties ofcommerce to extend the market, and thus give the local producer his fulladvantage.

  Cheapness caused by natural accidents of harvest, weather, &c., isalways counterbalanced, in due time, by natural scarcity, similarlycaused. It is the part of wise government, and healthy commerce, so toprovide in times and places of plenty for times and places of dearth, asthat there shall never be waste, nor famine.

  Cheapness caused by gluts of the market is merely a disease of clumsyand wanton commerce.

  [29] Price has been already defined (p. 9) to be the quantity of labourwhich the possessor of a thing is willing to take for it. It is best toconsider the price to be that fixed by the possessor, because thepossessor has absolute power of refusing sale, while the purchaser hasno absolute power of compelling it; but the effectual or market price isthat at which their estimates coincide.

  [30] This "greater ease" ought to be allowed for by a diminution in thetimes of the divided work; but as the proportion of times would remainthe same, I do not introduce this unnecessary complexity into thecalculation.

  [31] Compare _Unto this Last_, p. 115, _et seq._

  [32] [That is to say, the love of money is founded first on theintenseness of desire for given things; a youth will rob the till,now-a-days, for pantomime tickets and cigars; the "strength" of thecurrency being irresistible to him, in consequence of his desire forthose luxuries.]