defence of usury-第19节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


are　enabled　to　employ　in　dissipation。　　　　　It　is　not　incumbent　on　those　who　take　the　side　I　take；　to　go　about　to　prove　a　negative；　viz。　that　in　the　class　of　borrowers　there　is　not　likely　to　be　more　frugality　than　in　the　class　of　lenders。　It　is　incumbent　on　those　who　take　the　side　I　combat；　to　establish　the　opposite　affirmative　proposition。　Every　restraint　on　liberty　is　so　far　an　evil：　and　it　lies　on　him　who　proposes　any　such　restraint；　to　shew　the　greater　good　by　which　this　evil　is　counterbalanced。　This　has　never　been　attempted：　nor；　howsoever　it　may　have　been　tacitly　taken　for　granted；　has　it　in　any　instance　been　directly　and　explicitly　affirmed。　Propositions　diametrically　opposite　are　both　received　with　open　arms；　to　justify　the　propensity　to　injure　and　oppress　the　class　of　lenders。　At　one　time　lenders　are　to　be　pinched；　because　borrowers　are　more　likely　to　be　spendthrifts　than　hoarders：　at　another　time；　because　they　are　more　likely　to　be　hoarders　than　spendthrifts。　　　　　Persons　concerned　in　bargains　of　this　kind　may　be　distinguished　into　three　classes：　possessors　of　capital　who　risk　to　lend　it；　i。e。　money　lenders；　dissipating　borrowers；　and　accumulating　borrowers。　The　restraint　in　question　favours　the　two　latter　classes　at　the　expence　of　the　former。　That　in　as　far　as　it　favours　dissipating　borrowers；　it　counteracts　its　avowed　purpose；　is　manifest　at　any　rate：　does　it　promote　that　purpose　in　as　far　as　it　favours　accumulating　borrowers？　This　can　not　so　clearly　be　averred。　It　does　so　only　in　as　far　as　the　accumulating　borrowers　are　greater　accumulators　than　the　persons　of　whom　they　borrow。　　　　　Take　an　instance。　The　money　that　is　borrowed　by　accumulators　engaged　in　trade；　of　whom　is　it　borrowed　principally？　of　persons　who　spend　all　their　income？　No；　but　of　other　accumulators　　of　other　persons　as　great　accumulators　as　themselves：　of　shopkeepers　or　wholesale　dealers　in　the　way　of　goods　ordered　on　credit：　or　of　bankers　or　merchants　in　the　way　of　discount。　And　thus　far；　therefore；　it　is　evident　that　accumulation　is　not　more　favoured　by　the　restraint　in　one　way；　than　it　is　checked　in　the　other。　　　　　In　another　way　the　restraint　in　question　counteracts　this　part　of　its　object　in　a　more　manifest　and　conspicuous　manner：　viz。　by　lessening　the　quantity　of　borrowed　capital　employed　in　accumulation。　　　　　The　world　can　augment　its　capital　only　in　one　way：　viz。　by　parsimony。　A　nation　may　augment　its　capital；　as　an　individual　may　augment　his　capital；　in　either　of　two　ways：　by　saving；　or　by　borrowing。　By　borrowing　capital　for　the　purpose　of　accumulation；　is　it　likely　to　add　to　the　stock　of　national　wealth？　Yes：　if　the　value　of　what　is　thereby　produced　is　greater　than　the　value　of　what　is　paid　for　interest：　in　that　case　the　clear　amount　of　the　accumulation；　the　clear　gain　to　the　nation；　is　to　the　amount　of　the　difference。　But　this　it　may　always　be　reckoned；　and　that　on　two　different　accounts　which　concurr　in　encreasing　the　advantage：　1。　In　the　first　place；　the　general　rate　of　mercantile　profit　is　greater　every　where　than　the　rate　of　interest：　it　is　in　general　at　least　double：　2。　In　the　next　place；　in　manufactures（33*）　the　rate　of　profit　encreases　with　the　encrease　of　capital　by　the　advantages　derivable　from　the　division　of　labour；　and　the　making　the　same　quantity　of　machinery　and　warehouse　room　and　even　labour　in　some　cases　serve　for　a　larger　quantity　of　work　than　would　have　been　necessary　for　a　smaller。　　　　　It　has　already　been　shewn　in　the　body　of　the　work　that　the　quantity　of　good　success　in　all　branches　of　industry　taken　together　is　much　superior　to　the　quantity　of　ill　success：　and　this　it　is　not　less　likely　to　be　in　the　instances　where　a　man　aids　his　original　by　borrowed　capital　than　in　others。　If　a　man　engaged　in　industry　did　not　expect　to　get　more　by　the　money　he　borrows　than　he　pays　for　it；　he　would　not　borrow　it：　and　it　has　been　shewn　that　such　expectations　are　much　more　frequently　realised　than　frustrated。　To　seek　to　restrain　industrious　men　from　borrowing　money　under　the　apprehension　of　its　not　answering　to　them　would　be　an　additional　instance；　but　an　instance　not　more　flagrant　than　those　which　are　perpetually　exhibited；　of　the　ignorance　and　folly；　and　blindness；　and　vanity；　and　presumption；　and　despotism　that　hitherto　have　been　endemial　among　legislators。　　　　　Look　into　pamphlets　and　debates；　you　will　find　people　disposed　to　quarrel　with　outlandish　money；　because　it　is　outlandish；　at　least　for　the　purpose　of　the　argument。　The　popular　notion　that　ill…gotten　money　does　not　thrive；　howsoever　hacknied　by　superstition；　has　not　only　a　much　better　effect；　but　even　a　more　rational　ground。　　　　　Two　ill　effects　are　attributed　to　outlandish　money：　　　　　1st。　That　the　interest　paid　for　it　is　so　much　money　sent　out　of　the　country。　But　were　not　the　interest　sent　out　of　the　country；　the　profit　would　not　come　into　it。　And　profit；　we　have　seen；　ought　to　be　estimated　at　more　than　double　the　value　of　the　interest。　The　force　of　this　argument　depends　upon　the　forgetting　altogether　the　chapter　of　profit：　and　supposing　that　the　money　thus　sent　out　of　the　country；　is　sent　out　for　nothing。　It　is　an　argument　that　applies　against　selling　any　thing　to　foreigners：　or　indeed　to　any　body　on　any　terms。　　　　　What　are　the　particular　courses　taken　by　such　imported　money；　whether　for　example　it　being　laid　out　in　the　public　funds　or　lent　out　to　individuals；　makes　no　sort　of　difference。　If　the　money　laid　out　by　the　Dutch　in　the　English　funds；　that　is；　lent　to　the　English　government；　had　not　been　so　disposed　of；　English　money　to　the　same　amount　must　have　lain　there：　there　would　therefore　have　been　so　much　less　English　money　to　be　applied　in　the　support　of　English　industry；　in　the　encrease　of　the　sum　of　the　national　wealth　of　England。（34*）　　　　　2dly。　That　money　borrowed　of　foreigners　will　be　perpetually　liable　to　be　recalled。　　　　　To　render　this　an　objection；　two　circumstances　must　concur。　　　　　1。　The　foreign　money　must　be　more　liable　to　be　recalled　than　home　money。　　　　　2。　When　recalled；　the　prejudice　resulting　from　the　recall　must　be　likely　to　be　greater　than　all　the　advantage　reaped　before　the　recall。　　　　　Neither　of　these　propositions　has　ever　been　attempted　to　be　proved：　nor　does　either　seem　likely　to　be　true。　　　　　1。　It　may　happen　to　any　lender　to　recall　his　money：　but　this　is　not　more　likely　to　happen　to　a　man　of　one　country　than　of　another。　You　may　put　cases　where　an　Englishman　who　has　lend　his　money　in　Ireland（35*）　may　be　disposed　to　recall　that　money：　but　it　is　just　as　easy　to　put　cases　in　which　an　Irishman　who　has　lent　his　money　in　Ireland　may　be　disposed　to　do　the　same　thing。　An　Irishman　who　is　upon　the　spot　is　more　likely　to　look　for；　to　spy　out；　and　to　improve　such　opportunities；　than　an　Englishman　who　is　at　a　distance；　and　who；　if　he　lends　his　money　in　such　a　way；　is　more　likely　to　have　lent　it　with　views　of　permanence；　and　as　a　means　of　providing　himself　for　life；　without　farther　sollicitude；　a　settled　income。　　　　　2。　If　there　were　any　reason　to　apprehend　that　the　time　when　the　foreign　lender　may　call　in　his　money　would　be　more　inconvenient　to　the　lender　than　the　time　when　a　home　lender　might　call　in　his；　the　danger　of　recall　might　sooner　afford　an　objection　to　the　importation　of　foreign　capital。　But　no　such　reason　can　be　assigned。　The　disposition　of　the　foreign　lender　to　call　in　his　money　will　not　be　governed　by　the　consideration　of　the　inconvenience　to　the　borrower；　but　by　the　consideration　of　his　own　convenience。　But　that　convenience　is　not　the　more　likely　to　clash　with　the　convenience　of　the　borrower　on　account　of　the　lender's　being　a　foreigner：　not　more　likely　to　do　so　than　that　of　a　lender　at　home。　We　have　seen　that　on　one　account　it　is　less　likely：　because　a　foreign　lender　is　less　likely　to　be　tempted　by　opportunities　of　occasional　profit　to　clasp　and　change　his　security　than　a　native。　It　is　also　on　another　account：　a　lender　at　home　is　more　in　the　way　of　being　acquainted　with　the　circumstances　and　exigencies　of　his　borrower。。　more　in　the　way　of　having　quarrels　with　him：　of　watching　opportunities　of　distressing　him　in　a　time　of　need；　either　for　the　sake　of　hurting　him；　or　for　the　sake　of　making　a　profit　of　his　distress。　　　　　Whatever　may；　by　accident；　be　the　disadvantage　resulting　to　A　or　B　in　this　way　from　a　recall　of　a　foreign　capital；　a　capital　thus　imported　will；　so　long　as　it　continues　unrecalled；　be　productive　to　the　nation　that　has　imported　it；　of　a　clear　revenue　to　the　amount　just　stated。　If　the　use　of　a　million　for　ten　years　would　have　been　worth　*600；000；　the　use　of　the　same　million　for　one　year　will　have　been　*60；000。　Recall　it　when　you　will；　it　will　have　had　its　value　from　the　time　of　its　importation　to　the　time　of　its　recall。　To　furnish　an　argument　against　the　import；　the　inconvenience　likely　to　result　from　the　recall　must　be　not　only　very　considerable；　but　superior　to　the　whole　amount　of　the　benefit　reaped　previously　to　the　recall。

　DEVELOPMENT　OF　THE　PRINCIPLE　〃NO　MORE　TRADE　THAN　CAPITAL〃；　OR　〃CAPITAL　LIMITS　TRADE〃。

　　　　1。　No　branch　of　productive　industry　can　be　carried　on　without　the　help　of　a　certain　quantity　of　capital　previously　accumulated。　　　　　2。　The　whole　quantity　of　productive　industry　each　individual　can　carry　on；　is　limited　by　the　quantity　he　has　of