prel-第3部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



house　and　lands　themselves。

　　　　Money；　being　the　instrument　of　an　important　public　and

private　purpose；　is　rightly　regarded　as　wealth；　but　everything

else　which　serves　any　human　purpose；　and　which　nature　does　not

afford　gratuitously；　is　wealth　also。　To　be　wealthy　is　to　have　a

large　stock　of　useful　articles；　or　the　means　of　purchasing　them。

Everything　forms　therefore　a　part　of　wealth；　which　has　a　power　of

purchasing；　for　which　anything　useful　or　agreeable　would　be　given

in　exchange。　Things　for　which　nothing　could　be　obtained　in

exchange；　however　useful　or　necessary　they　may　be；　are　not　wealth

in　the　sense　in　which　the　term　is　used　in　Political　Economy。　Air；

for　example；　though　the　most　absolute　of　necessaries；　bears　no

price　in　the　market；　because　it　can　be　obtained　gratuitously：　to

accumulate　a　stock　of　it　would　yield　no　profit　or　advantage　to

any　one；　and　the　laws　of　its　production　and　distribution　are　the

subject　of　a　very　different　study　from　Political　Economy。　But

though　air　is　not　wealth；　mankind　are　much　richer　by　obtaining　it

gratis；　since　the　time　and　labour　which　would　otherwise　be

required　for　supplying　the　most　pressing　of　all　wants；　can　be

devoted　to　other　purposes。　It　is　possible　to　imagine

circumstances　in　which　air　would　be　a　part　of　wealth。　If　it

became　customary　to　sojourn　long　in　places　where　the　air　does　not

naturally　penetrate；　as　in　diving…bells　sunk　in　the　sea；　a　supply

of　air　artificially　furnished　would；　like　water　conveyed　into

houses；　bear　a　price：　and　if　from　any　revolution　in　nature　the

atmosphere　became　too　scanty　for　the　consumption；　or　could　be

monopolized；　air　might　acquire　a　very　high　marketable　value。　In

such　a　case；　the　possession　of　it；　beyond　his　own　wants；　would

be；　to　its　owner；　wealth；　and　the　general　wealth　of　mankind　might

at　first　sight　appear　to　be　increased；　by　what　would　be　so　great

a　calamity　to　them。　The　error　would　lie　in　not　considering；　that

however　rich　the　possessor　of　air　might　become　at　the　expense　of

the　rest　of　the　community；　all　persons　else　would　be　poorer　by

all　that　they　were　compelled　to　pay　for　what　they　had　before

obtained　without　payment。

　　　　This　leads　to　an　important　distinction　in　the　meaning　of　the

word　wealth；　as　applied　to　the　possessions　of　an　individual；　and

to　those　of　a　nation；　or　of　mankind。　In　the　wealth　of　mankind；

nothing　is　included　which　does　not　of　itself　answer　some　purpose

of　utility　or　pleasure。　To　an　individual　anything　is　wealth；

which；　though　useless　in　itself；　enables　him　to　claim　from　others

a　part　of　their　stock　of　things　useful　or　pleasant。　Take；　for

instance；　a　mortgage　of　a　thousand　pounds　on　a　landed　estate。

This　is　wealth　to　the　person　to　whom　it　brings　in　a　revenue；　and

who　could　perhaps　sell　it　in　the　market　for　the　full　amount　of

the　debt。　But　it　is　not　wealth　to　the　country；　if　the　engagement

were　annulled；　the　country　would　be　neither　poorer　nor　richer。

The　mortgagee　would　have　lost　a　thousand　pounds；　and　the　owner　of

the　land　would　have　gained　it。　Speaking　nationally；　the　mortgage

was　not　itself　wealth；　but　merely　gave　A　a　claim　to　a　portion　of

the　wealth　of　B。　It　was　wealth　to　A；　and　wealth　which　he　could

transfer　to　a　third　person；　but　what　he　so　transferred　was　in

fact　a　joint　ownership；　to　the　extent　of　a　thousand　pounds；　in

the　land　of　which　B　was　nominally　the　sole　proprietor。　The

position　of　fundholders；　or　owners　of　the　public　debt　of　a

country；　is　similar。　They　are　mortgagees　on　the　general　wealth　of

the　country。　The　cancelling　of　the　debt　would　be　no　destruction

of　wealth；　but　a　transfer　of　it：　a　wrongful　abstraction　of　wealth

from　certain　members　of　the　community；　for　the　profit　of　the

government；　or　of　the　tax…payers。　Funded　property　therefore

cannot　be　counted　as　part　of　the　national　wealth。　This　is　not

always　borne　in　mind　by　the　dealers　in　statistical　calculations。

For　example；　in　estimates　of　the　gross　income　of　the　country；

founded　on　the　proceeds　of　the　income…tax；　incomes　derived　from

the　funds　are　not　always　excluded：　though　the　tax…payers　are

assessed　on　their　whole　nominal　income；　without　being　permitted

to　deduct　from　it　the　portion　levied　from　them　in　taxation　to

form　the　income　of　the　fundholder。　In　this　calculation；

therefore；　one　portion　of　the　general　income　of　the　country　is

counted　twice　over；　and　the　aggregate　amount　made　to　appear

greater　than　it　is　by　almost　thirty　millions。　A　country；　however；

may　include　in　its　wealth　all　stock　held　by　its　citizens　in　the

funds　of　foreign　countries；　and　other　debts　due　to　them　from

abroad。　But　even　this　is　only　wealth　to　them　by　being　a　part

ownership　in　wealth　held　by　others。　It　forms　no　part　of　the

collective　wealth　of　the　human　race。　It　is　an　element　in　the

distribution；　but　not　in　the　composition；　of　the　general　wealth。

　　　　Another　example　of　a　possession　which　is　wealth　to　the　person

holding　it；　but　not　wealth　to　the　nation；　or　to　mankind；　is

slaves。　It　is　by　a　strange　confusion　of　ideas　that　slave　property

（as　it　is　termed）　is　counted；　at　so　much　per　head；　in　an　estimate

of　the　wealth；　or　of　the　capital；　of　the　country　which　tolerates

the　existence　of　such　property。　If　a　human　being；　considered　as

an　object　possessing　productive　powers；　is　part　of　the　national

wealth　when　his　powers　are　owned　by　another　man；　he　cannot　be

less　a　part　of　it　when　they　are　owned　by　himself。　Whatever　he　is

worth　to　his　master　is　so　much　property　abstracted　from　himself；

and　its　abstraction　cannot　augment　the　possessions　of　the　two

together；　or　of　the　country　to　which　they　both　belong。　In

propriety　of　classification；　however；　the　people　of　a　country　are

not　to　be　counted　in　its　wealth。　They　are　that　for　the　sake　of

which　its　wealth　exists。　The　term　wealth　is　wanted　to　denote　the

desirable　objects　which　they　possess；　not　inclusive　of；　but　in

contradistinction　to；　their　own　persons。　They　are　not　wealth　to

themselves；　though　they　are　means　of　acquiring　it。

　　　　It　has　been　proposed　to　define　wealth　as　signifying

〃instruments：〃　meaning　not　tools　and　machinery　alone；　but　the

whole　accumulation　possessed　by　individuals　or　communities；　of

means　for　the　attainment　of　their　ends。　Thus；　a　field　is　an

instrument；　because　it　is　a　means　to　the　attainment　of　corn。　Corn

is　an　instrument；　being　a　means　to　the　attainment　of　flour。　Flour

is　an　instrument；　being　a　means　to　the　attainment　of　bread。　Bread

is　an　instrument；　as　a　means　to　the　satisfaction　of　hunger　and　to

the　support　of　life。　Here　we　at　last　arrive　at　things　which　are

not　instruments；　being　desired　on　their　own　account；　and　not　as

mere　means　to　something　beyond。　This　view　of　the　subject　is

philosophically　correct；　or　rather；　this　mode　of　expression　may

be　usefully　employed　along　with　others；　not　as　conveying　a

different　view　of　the　subject　from　the　common　one；　but　as　giving

more　distinctness　and　reality　to　the　common　view。　It　departs；

however；　too　widely　from　the　custom　of　language；　to　be　likely　to

obtain　ge