“ON RICOCHETS, HIDDEN CHANNELS, AND NEGATIVE MULTIPLIERS: BASTIAT ON CALCULATING THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF ‘THE UNSEEN’”

By David M. Hart

[Created: 24 November, 2014] [Revised: 22 July, 2024]

 

Introduction

This paper was origianlly given at the “History of Thought” Session of the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, Southern Economic Association 83rd Annual Meeting, November 23–25, 2013, Tampa, Florida.

 

---

 

Abstract

In this paper I would like to examine a theory Bastiat developed in the latter years of his life (1847-1850) on calculating the costs and benefits of what he called “ce qu'on ne voit pas" (the unseen). This is an important part of Bastiat’s economic theory which has been ignored by researchers to date, partly because the relevant articles were not included in the FEE translation of his Economic Sophisms (but which is included in LF’s translation of the complete Sophisms), partly because of mistranslations of those that have been translated (the key word “par ricochet” was often translated figuratively, often as “indirect” or “rebounds”, and not as the technical economic word Bastiat intended it to be), and partly because a full electronic version of his complete works did not exist until recently when comprehensive key word searches could be used for the first time to uncover the rich and colorful vocabulary Bastiat used in formulating his ideas on this topic.

The methodology used in this paper is a combination of history of ideas and linguistic analysis of his and other contemporary writings.

I will begin with a discussion of the idea of “the double incidence of loss” which Bastiat borrowed from the English free trader Perronet Thompson, Bastiat’s expansion of this idea, which originally included only three parties, to one which included many (perhaps millions) of interconnected parties in an economy (“the ricochet effect”), his failed attempts to use mathematics to scientifically calculate the losses caused by government interventions in the economy or by natural disasters, and his realization that there could be positive ricochet effects (PRE) as well as the negative ricochet effects (NRE) which is what he was most interested in when he began his analysis.

Bastiat’s theory of “the ricochet effect” led him to think about concepts such as opportunity costs, the multiplier effect (positive and negative), the use of mathematics to quantify costs and benefits of economic actions, the use of thought experiments (“Crusoe economics” and stories about Jacques Bonhomme) to explore the nature of human action in the abstract (praxeology), the interconnectedness of all economic activity, the idea of unintended consequences, and the transmission of economic information to other economic actors via information “flows”.

This analysis only proves yet again what a loss his premature death was in 1850. The originality and richness of his ideas are striking and one can only speculate what he might have done to develop them had he lived longer.

The paper also includes several Appendices illustrating Bastiat’s use of the term “ricochet” and some of the sources he used.

Table of Contents

• The Problem of Calculating the Economic Costs of the Unseen: the “Double Incidence of Loss”
  • Introduction
• Seeing the Problem of “the Seen” and “the Unseen”
• Bastiat’s First Formulation in 1847: “the Double Incidence of Loss”
• The “Triple Incidence of Loss”
• The Sophism Bastiat never wrote: the Sophism of the Ricochet Effect
  • Preparatory Work and Regrets
  • The Intellectual Origins of “The Ricochet Effect”
  • Bastiat’s Use of the Term Ricochet
    • 1. Bastiat’s use of metaphors to understand economic activity
    • 2. Bastiat’s use of expressions which suggest that economic actions can have unintended consequences
    • 3. Bastiat’s criticism of the sophistical use of the term “ricochet” to justify government actions
  • The Distinction between “Positive Ricochet Effects” (PRE) and “Negative Ricochet Effects” (NRE)
  • Conclusion
• Endnotes
• Appendices
  • Appendix 1: Chronological List of Bastiat’s use of the Term “Ricochet” and related Expressions
  • Appendix 2: Fuller Quotation on “ricochets” from Fourier’s Le Nouveau monde industriel (1829)
  • Appendix 3: Perronet Thompson and the “Double Incidence of Loss” (1834)
• Bibliography
  • Works by Bastiat
  • Other Primary Sources
  • Secondary Source

The Problem of Calculating the Economic Costs of the Unseen: the “Double Incidence of Loss”↩

Introduction

A number of modern day Austrian economists (Hülsmann, Thornton, and DiLorenzo) have claimed that Bastiat is an “Austrian economist” because of his ideas on a number of topics, namely that: [1]

1. economics is a science of universally valid laws that are discovered by logical deductive reasoning
2. the methodology of using thought experiments in order to understand human action (and curiously, in the light of this paper, Bastiat’s rejection of mathematics for understanding economics)
3. the science of human action (praxeology) where individuals make valuations and choices, and take actions to achieve their goals
4. everybody’s economic interests are harmonious (in the absence of coercion)
5. the importance of justly acquired property as the basis of economic transactions
6. the value of goods and services are judged differently by each individual (subjective value theory)
7. the coordinating function of the market
8. capital accumulation enriches ordinary workers by raising their marginal productivity

I don't go as far as they do, preferring to see him as a “proto-Austrian” who developed in a fairly precocious manner several ideas which have become associated with the Austrian school but which he did not have time to develop into a coherent theory because of his untimely death at the age of 49. One key weakness in his theory was the un-Austrian notion that only things of "equivalent value" were exchanged in a transaction. He explicitly rejected the argument of Condillac that exchanges only occurred because individuals valued differently the things which were exchanged. [2]

In this paper I would like to examine a theory Bastiat developed in the latter years of his life (1847-1850) on calculating the costs and benefits of what he called “the unseen”. [3] This is an important part of Bastiat’s economic theory which has been ignored by researchers to date, partly because the relevant articles were not included in the FEE translation of his Economic Sophisms (but is included in LF’s new translation of the complete Sophisms), partly because of mistranslations of those that have been translated (the key phrase “par ricochet” was often translated figuratively, often as “indirect” or “rebounds”, and not as the technical economic word Bastiat intended it to be), and partly because a full electronic version of his complete works did not exist until recently when comprehensive key word searches could be used for the first time to uncover the rich and colorful vocabulary Bastiat used in formulating his ideas on this topic. [4]

The methodology used in this paper is a combination of history of ideas and linguistic analysis of his and other contemporary writings.

I will begin with a discussion of the idea of “the double incidence of loss” which Bastiat borrowed from the English free trader Perronet Thompson, Bastiat’s expansion of this idea, which originally included only three parties, to one which included many (perhaps millions) of interconnected parties in an economy (“the ricochet effect”), his failed attempts to use mathematics to scientifically calculate the losses caused by government interventions in the economy or by natural disasters, and his realization that there could be positive ricochet effects (PRE) as well as the negative ricochet effects (NRE) which is what he was most interested in when he began his analysis.

Bastiat’s theory of “the ricochet effect” led him to think about concepts such as opportunity costs, the multiplier effect (positive and negative), the use of mathematics to quantify costs and benefits of economic actions, the use of thought experiments (“Crusoe economics” and stories about the French every man "Jacques Bonhomme") to explore the nature of human action in the abstract (praxeology), [5] the interconnectedness of all economic activity, the idea of unintended consequences, and the transmission of economic information to other economic actors via information “flows”.

This analysis only proves yet again what a loss his premature death was in 1850. The originality and richness of his ideas are striking and one can only speculate what he might have done to develop them had he lived longer. [6]

Seeing the Problem of “the Seen” and “the Unseen”

The French economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) is probably best known for his short essay debunking the view that the breaking of a window could result in an overall benefit for a society. “La vitre casée" (The Broken Window) was a chapter in a short book he wrote as he was dying from throat cancer in July 1850, Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas (What is Seen and What is not Seen), [7] which also carried the marvelous and also true subtitle “Economics in One Lesson”. He took precious time off from writing his treatise on economic theory, Harmonies Économiques, the first half of which appeared in 1850 and the second half of which appeared in 1851 and was cobbled together from his unfinished manuscripts by his literary executors Prosper Paillottet and Roger Fonteyraud, or as they called themselves on the title page “Les Amis de Frédéric Bastiat.” [8] The key insight which Bastiat articulated in this and other chapters in the book is the notion that there are consequences of economic activity (gains and losses for different individuals) which are immediately obvious to every observer (what he called “the seen”), and more importantly sometimes, there are consequences which remain hidden for a period of time, or are indirect and are not immediately apparent to observers, or which are unintended and thus not expected, but which need to be taken into account nevertheless (what he called “the unseen”). As was his wicked and amusing way, Bastiat called the economists who expected there to be “unseen” consequences, “good economists”, and those who only saw the immediately obvious, “the seen”, “bad economists.”

In addition, Bastiat also wanted to be able to calculate the gains and losses caused by these indirect, hidden or unexpected events, whether natural by means of storms or fires (the commonly discussed example in Bastiat’s day was the Great Fire of London in September 1666), or the result of human actions (whether by hooligan sons throwing rocks through windows or governments imposing taxes and regulations on economic activity). The arguments which he presented in WSWNS [9] were not his final thoughts on the matter as he had been thinking about this problem in several of his essays written between 1845 and 1848 which appeared in his collections of Sophismes Économiques, as well as in some of the chapters he was writing for the Harmonies Économiques. Unfortunately, he was not able to bring all his scattered thoughts and incomplete arguments into a coherent theory of the calculation of the economic costs and benefits of “the unseen” before he died. What we will attempt to show in this paper is how his thinking on this topic was evolving and where it might have ended up if he had not died before he could complete the task. Also at the back of our mind is the question of “how Austrian” was Bastiat in his insights?

Bastiat’s First Formulation in 1847: “the Double Incidence of Loss”

The trajectory his thinking took was to begin with a crude three-party analysis in which the amounts of the gains and losses were equal for each participant, with one party gaining and two parties losing an equal amount, hence there is a “double incidence of loss". “The Double Incidence of Loss” is a theory first formulated by the anti-corn law campaigner Colonel Perronet Thompson (1783-1869) [10] in 1834-36 and taken up by Bastiat in 1847 when the campaign against protectionism was gaining momentum in the Chamber of Deputies. Bastiat was aware of Thompson because of his prominent position within the Anti-Corn Law league which Bastiat so much admired. The League’s success in getting the protectionist Corn Laws repealed in 1846 inspired Bastiat to set up a French Free Trade Association in mid-1846 and to lobby for tariff reform within France over the coming year. (This campaign was ultimately unsuccessful and the free trade lobby were defeated in Committee in mid-1847.) Thus Thompson’s and Bastiat’s first use of this theory had to do with tariffs and their impact on consumers. Later Bastiat was to make this theory more general when he applied it to the impact of any economic intervention in the economy (such as taxation) or any natural or human disaster such as the destruction of property, as in “The Broken Window” essay in 1850.

With respect to the impact of tariff protection or subsidies to industry on the economy, Thompson and Bastiat argued that they resulted in a directly observable and obvious profit for one industry (and its workers) but at the expense of two other participants in the market. These other participants (or would-be participants) suffer a loss equal to the benefit gained by the first party: the consumer loses by having to pay a higher price for a good which he or she could have bought more cheaply from another supplier (often foreign), and unknown third parties also lose because the consumer who was forced to pay more for a good which is protected or subsidized has that much less to spend on other goods and services. Hence there is one party which benefits and two which lose out to the same amount.

The phrase appears in Thompson's A Running Commentary on Anti-Commercial Fallacies which were a series of articles which appeared in The Spectator magazine between February and June 1834, in which he attempts to quantify the losses to consumers (and by extension the nation) caused by protected industries: [11]

(T)he (part) of the sum gained to the monopolists and lost twice over by the rest of France, - (viz. once by a corresponding diminution of business to some other French traders, and once more by the loss to the consumers, who are the nation)... The understanding of the misery of this basis, depends upon a clear comprehension of the way in which the gain to the monopolist is lost twice over by other parties; or what in England has been called the double incidence of loss.

Later that same year Perronet Thompson put the argument in its reverse format, namely an attempt to calculate the gains to consumers provided by free trade. In a paragraph by paragraph refutation of a French government inquiry into tariff policy in 1834 called Contre-Enquête (Counter-Inquiry) he notes that free trade increases “la masse de la consommation collective” (the aggregate total of consumption) because it lowers the price of goods and “the difference of price” enjoyed by the consumers was a “nett gain” for the country: [12]

(40.) There is no difficulty about having facts. Why has nobody asked the witness under examination, “If there was liberty of trade, do you think that supplying the goods to be given for the foreign cloths would make a gain [un gain] to anybody, and to what amount? Do you think that the expenditure of the difference of price by the consumer (la différence du prix pa la consommateur) would make a gain to anybody, and to what amount? Do you think that these two gains put together might equal what you would lose (deux gains ensemble pussent égaler vos pertes)? Do you think that after this, the gain of consumers, who are France, would stand out as nett gain?” It is pity there should be any scarcity of facts. (p. 211)

(41.) The liberty of commerce would increase the aggregate total of consumption (la masse de la consommation collective), by all the difference of prices; in the same manner as the quantity of wood a man cuts, would be increased by the liberty of using a sharp hatchet instead of a blunt one. (p. 213)

Bastiat recognized that this was a powerful argument which could be used against defenders of tariff protection and subsidies to industry which he used for the first time in two articles which he wrote in May 1847 for the free trade journal Libre-Échange which he edited. The first was ES3 04 “Un profit contre deux pertes” (One Profit versus Two Losses) (9 May 1847) and the second was ES3 07 “Deux pertes contre un profit” (Two Losses versus One Profit) (30 May 1847). [13] These two essays were not republished in his collections of similar essays which were called the Sophismes Économique, two series of which appeared in January 1846 (ES1) and late 1847 or early 1848 (ES2), and thus did not get wider circulation. He had enough material for a third series of Sophisms (ES3) but did not live long enough to publish it. Therefore these and other articles languished in the relative obscurity of his Oeuvres complètes (1854-55). They were included in Liberty Fund's edition CW3.

This is how Bastiat in May 1847 first defined the problem of calculating gains and losses after some act of destruction. Bastiat refuses to name the source for his insight as Perronet Thompson had acquired some notoriety for his mathematical equations and geometrical analyses which were regarded with some suspicion and thought of as overly complex. [14]

Supprimant donc le nom de l’auteur et la forme algébrique, je reproduirai l’argument qui se borne à établir que toute faveur du tarif entraîne nécessairement :	I will therefore suppress the name of the author and the algebraic form and reproduce the argument, which is limited to establishing that any advantage flowing from tariffs will of necessity bring about the following:
1° Un profit pour une industrie ;	1.) A profit for one industry;
2° Une perte égale pour une autre industrie ;	2.) An equal loss for another industry;
3° Une perte égale pour le consommateur.)	3.) An equal loss for the consumer.

Bastiat used the same formula in his 30 May letter to the mathematician and astronomer François Arago (1786-1853) [15] which he capitalizes for special emphasis: [16]

SI UN DROIT PROTECTEUR ÉLÈVE LE PRIX D’UN OBJET D’UNE QUANTITÉ DONNÉE, LA NATION GAGNE CETTE QUANTITÉ UNE FOIS ET LA PERD DEUX FOIS.

IF A PROTECTIONIST DUTY RAISES THE PRICE OF AN OBJECT BY A GIVEN QUANTITY, THE NATION GAINS THIS QUANTITY ONCE AND LOSES IT TWICE.

Bastiat was still using the three party model when he wrote “La vitre cassée” (The Broken Window) in WSWNS (July 1850). [17] His editor Paillottet tells us that Bastiat wrote this at least a year earlier but had lost the manuscript and had rewritten it from memory. This might explain why he makes no reference to “the ricochet effect” but sticks with the theory of “the double incidence of loss.” Here is how he concludes “The Broken Window”: [18]

Il faut que le lecteur s’attache à bien constater qu’il n’y a pas seulement deux personnages, mais trois dans le petit drame que j’ai soumis à son attention. L’un, Jacques Bonhomme, représente le Consommateur, réduit par la destruction à une jouissance au lieu de deux. L’autre, sous la figure du Vitrier, nous montre le Producteur dont l’accident encourage l’industrie. Le troisième est le Cordonnier (ou tout autre industriel) dont le travail est découragé d’autant par la même cause. C’est ce troisième personnage qu’on tient toujours dans l’ombre et qui, personnifiant ce qu’on ne voit pas, est un élément nécessaire du problème. C’est lui qui nous fait comprendre combien il est absurde de voir un profit dans une destruction. C’est lui qui bientôt nous enseignera qu’il n’est pas moins absurde de voir un profit dans une restriction, laquelle n’est après tout qu’une destruction partielle.

The reader must take care to note clearly that there are not just two characters, but three, in the little drama that I have put before him. One, Jacques Bonhomme, represents the Consumer, reduced by the breakage to enjoy one good instead of two. The second is the Glazier, who shows us the Producer whose activity is stimulated by the accident. The third is the Shoemaker (or any other producer) whose output is reduced to the same extent for the same reason. It is this third character that is always kept in the background and who, by personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. He is the one who makes us understand how absurd it is to see profit in destruction. He is the one who will be teaching us shortly that it is no less absurd to see profit in a policy of trade restriction, which is after all, nothing other than partial destruction.

The next stage in his thinking was firstly, the realization that more than three parties were involved and secondly, that sometimes these “unseen” consequences could have positive effects and were not always negative. There is a hint of this in the 9 May article where he refers in passing to numerous “ancillary losses” but it is left tantalizingly undeveloped: [19]

Ce sont là les effets directs et nécessaires de la protection. En bonne justice, et pour compléter le bilan, il faudrait encore lui imputer de nombreuses pertes accessoires, telles que : frais de surveillance, formalités dispendieuses, incertitudes commerciales, fluctuations de tarifs, opérations contrariées, chances de guerre multipliées, contrebande, répression, etc.

These (3 costs and benefits) are the direct and necessary effects of protection. In all justice, and to complete the assessment, we ought in addition to impute to it a number of ancillary losses, such as the cost of surveillance, expensive formalities, commercial uncertainty, fluctuations in duties, aborted operations, the increased likelihood of war, smuggling, repression, etc.

By moving beyond the three-party model he recognized the interconnectedness of all economic activity which meant that potentially millions of individuals might be influenced to one degree or another by an economic action. He also offers in the 30 May article another tantalizing insight about the role that the “circulation ultérieure” (subsequent circulation) of money might play in spreading the harms and benefits of government intervention. He throws his arms up figuratively in despair because he does not know how to calculate the impact of “des parallèles infinies” (infinite trajectories) created by the circulation of money. [20]

On dira encore ceci : Le franc que le coutelier reçoit en plus, grâce à la protection, il le fait gagner à des travailleurs. — Je réponds  : Le franc que le libraire recevrait en plus, grâce à la liberté, il le ferait gagner aussi à d’autres travailleurs ; en sorte que, de ce côté, la compensation n’est pas détruite, et il reste toujours que, sous un régime vous avez un livre, et sous l’autre vous n’en avez pas. — Pour éviter la confusion volontaire ou non qu’on ne manquera pas de faire à ce sujet, il faut bien distinguer la distribution originaire de vos 3 francs d’avec leur circulation ultérieure, laquelle, dans l’une et dans l’autre hypothèse, suit des parallèles infinies, et ne peut jamais affecter notre calcul.

The following is also said: the franc that the cutler receives as a supplement, thanks to trade protection, he pays to his workers. My reply is this : the franc that the bookseller would receive in addition, thanks to free trade, he would also pay to other workers, so that in this respect the balance is not upset, and it remains true that under one regime you have a book and on the other you do not. To avoid the confusion, intentional or not, that will not fail to be cast over this subject, you have to make a clear distinction between the original distribution of your 3 francs and their subsequent circulation which, in both hypotheses, follows infinite trajectories and can never affect our calculation.

His hope is that the mathematician and astronomer François Arago would come to his rescue with the requisite mathematics which would enable him to calculate scientifically the gains and losses to the relevant parties and thus make his theoretical arguments against tariffs and subsidies “invincible" (“je désire voir cette démonstration revêtue de l’évidence invincible que communique la langue des équations" (I would like to see this demonstration clad in the invincible evidence that the language of equations communicates)). Unfortunately his reply is not known and nothing came of the matter as far as we know.

Another complication was that the losses to one party and gains to another might not be exactly equal as he had first thought. They could of course, just cancel each other out or, if a sufficiently large number of participants were involved, then the relative gains and losses would gradually diminish (like waves on a pond or lines disappearing into infinity “des parallèles infinies") and thus have to be calculated using mathematics which he did not possess, especially as the impact became smaller, more distant and indirect over time.

The “Triple Incidence of Loss”

Had Bastiat thought about Thompson’s theory a bit more he might have come to the realisation that the damage caused by a broken window was even worse than he had first thought. It was true that at least three parties were involved but he ignores the fact that Jacques actually suffers a double not a single loss when his window gets broken. He loses the capital value of the window and then the value of his time in making temporary repairs and arranging for the window to be replaced, and then the out of pocket cost of buying the new window and having it installed. Since a new window cost Fr 6, and the average wage of a semi-skilled labourer was Fr 2-3 per day, his total losses would be the sum of the discounted capital value of the window which was broken (Fr 2), the time he spends cleaning up and making temporary repairs and arranging for a glazier to come (Fr. 1.5), the cost of the glazier’s repairs (Fr 6 for the window plus Fr 2 for time). When these additional factors are taken into account the costs to Jacques are no longer just Fr 6 but closer to Fr 12 or double the figure Bastiat was working with. Jacques could have been out of pocket the equivalent of 4-6 days work for an average semi-skilled labourer.

If one were a Keynesian one might object to Bastiat’s reasoning that the losses resulting from a broken window (or other natural disaster) always outweigh the gains by reversing the analysis. The glazier who gains the Fr 6 for repairing the broken window likewise will spend some or all of it on other things such as a new pair of shoes or a chicken for the Sunday pot. This purchase by the glazier is also “unseen” just as Jacques Bonhomme’s unmade purchase is also “unseen.” Bastiat in turn might admit that the sum of losses on Jacques’ side of the equation might equal the gains on the glazier’s side of the equation but that there is still a net loss to the economy in the form of the destroyed capital stock of a broken window. This Keynesian economist might go further by arguing that if the government had broken some strategically placed “windows” then the glazier’s income and his subsequent expenditure might have “multiplier effects” as they unlocked “idle resources” which were not being used productively in the economy. But this is another story.

Another twist in the argument is introduced if one examines a criminal act rather than an act of nature. It may well be that, in the case of an act of nature, the benefits accruing to “the glazier” and all the recipients of his new expenditure might equal those which would have accrued to the “unseen” shopkeepers had Jacques Bonhomme not had to replace his brown window. But if one considers an act of robbery does this change the mathematics of calculating gains and losses? This was an argument used by Perronet Thompson in “A Running Commentary on Anti-Commercial Fallacies” who regarded the beneficiaries of a tariff to be “robbers”. Would it be a reasonable economic argument to say that once the robbery had been committed one could argue in favour of it because the expenditure of the newly acquired money by the robbers stimulated consumption and production in all the businesses they subsequently frequented?

The Commission, however, think they have settled the point to all eternity; and they proceed without hesitation to avow, that in fixing the articles of the tariff, they pay not the slightest attention to the fact that France is the loser by each and every act of robbery, but confine themselves entirely to the question whether the several robbers declare their respective robberies to be "profitable" to themselves. (p. 188)

I suspect that Bastiat may have been aware of some of these concerns and tried to address them in his related theory which he called the "ricochet effect" (par ricochet) or “flow on effect.” By this he meant the indirect consequences of an economic action which flow or knock on to third or more parties, sometimes with positive results but more often with negative results.

The Sophism Bastiat never wrote: the Sophism of the Ricochet Effect↩

Preparatory Work and Regrets

Bastiat worked on this new theory intermittently during late 1847 and early 1848, before dropping it to work on more pressing matters such as his work as Vice-President of the Finance Committee in the Constituent and then the National Assembly to which he had been elected in April 1848, writing a series of pamphlets in the pamphlet war against the socialists which he took up in 1849, and working on the first half of his treatise Harmonies économiques.

Something should be said about why the translator of the FEE edition of Bastiat’s works missed this crucial expression and its related terms. Firstly, they only translated the two Series of Economic Sophisms which were published in Bastiat’s lifetime. The material he did not have time to edit into a third series, which was discussed as a possibility by Paillottet the French editor, contains the three essays which included his lengthy discussion of the theory of “the double incidence of loss” and the sophism ES3.20 "Monita secreta" (The Secret Handbook) (20 Feb. 1848) which contain five references to “ricochet”. [21]

Secondly, when they did come across the word, for example in ES2.04 "Conseil inférieur du travail)" (The Lower Council of Labor), they translated “par ricochet” as “rebounds”, [22] or in WSWNS 3 “L'impôt” (Taxes) [23] they translated “ses ricochets sur l’industrie” as “their indirect effects on industry”. This also occurred in Harmonies économiques. Chap. 17. “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services) [24] where they translated the several references to “ricochet” as the “indirect effect of spending”. Even when there was an explicit reference to “le sophisme des ricochets” in the essay “Spoliation et loi” (Plunder and Law) [25] they translated it somewhat strangely as “the sophism of chain reactions.” This is in fact the reverse of what Bastiat was getting at. A chain reaction suggest an out of control and ever increasing reaction leading to an explosion. Ricochet suggests the opposite, as in a stone ricocheting across a pond with ever diminishing energy as each bounce becomes smaller and smaller, until the stone sinks beneath the surface. Bastiat realized that the impact of an economic action had a diminishing effect the further it moved away from its original source. The problem was how to calculate the total of these effects, which is where the need for calculus comes into the picture. Hence his appeal to the astronomer Arago.

An analysis of the electronic version of Bastiat’s Oeuvres complètes shows that Bastiat makes the following explicit references to “ricocher” (verb) or “ricochet” (noun) for a total of 28 uses of the word (see the Appendix for the full quotations):

• 1 reference to “ricocher” (the verb - to ricochet) in the essays published in ES1 (January 1846): ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw Materials) - ES1 21, p. 151 Online.
• 2 references to “ricochet” in the essays published in ES2 (January 1848):
  • 1 in ES2 4 “Conseil inférieur du travail” (The Lower Council of Labor) - ES2 4, p. 47-48 Online.
  • 1 in ES2 13 “La protection ou les trois Échevins” (Protection, or the Three Municipal Magistrates) - ES2, pp. 147-48 Online.
• 8 references to “ricochet” in the essays we have called ES3 (other similar articles written between January 1846 and February 1848):
  • 1 in ES3.04 "Un profit contre deux pertes" (One Profit against Two Losses) (9 May 1847) - OC2 57, pp. 378-79 Online.
  • 1 in ES3.07 "Deux pertes contre un profit" (Two Losses against One Profit) (30 May 1847) - OC2 59, p. 390 Online.
  • 1 in ES3 12 “L'indiscret” (The Man who asked Embarrassing Questions) (12 Dec. 1847) - OC2, p. 445 Online.
  • 5 in the Sophism he wrote in February 1848 just before the outbreak of the Revolution, ES3 20 “Monita secreta” (The Secret Handbook) (20 February 1848) - OC2, pp. 455-56 Online.
• 2 references to “ricochet” in speeches and other writings in 1847:
  • 1 in “Cinquième discours, à Lyon” (Fifth Speech given at Lyons) (August 1847) - OC2, pp. 282-83 Online.
  • 1 in “Réponse au journal l’Atelier” (Response to the journal The Workshop) (12 Sept. 1847) - OC2. 23, p. 129 Online.
• 7 references to “ricochet” in speeches and other writings in 1848:
  • 3 in “Réponse à divers” (Response to various (criticisms) (1 Jan. 1848) - OC2. 23, p. 129 Online and OC2, pp. 132-33 Online
  • 4 in “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris) (7 Jan 1848) - OC2, pp. 320-21 Online.
• 1 reference to “ricochet” in 1849: “Paix et liberté ou le budget républicain” (Peace and Freedom or the Republican Budget) (February 1849) - OC5, pp. 426-27 Online.
• 7 references to “ricochet” in 1850/51:
  • 1 in “Spoliation et loi” (Plunder and Law) (15 May 1850) - OC5, p. 13 Online.
  • 1 in WSWNS 3 “L'impôt” (Taxes) (July 1850) - p. 13 Online.
  • 5 in Economic Harmonies with 1 reference in Chap. XI. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer) pp. 348-49 Online and 4 in Chap. XVII. “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services) pp. 486-88 Online with an explicit reference to “the Sophism of the Ricochet Effect.”

This analysis of key words shows a clustering of interest in the topic in January and February 1848 and then in late 1850. Bastiat seems to have returned to work on the ricochet effect in late 1850 when he was rushing to complete the second half of Harmonies économiques before he died. His most detailed comments on the theory of the ricochet effect appeared in the unfinished chapters in the second half of Harmonies Économiques, Chap. XI. Producteur. - Consommmateur (Producer, Consumer) and Chap. XVII. “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services). [26] There was no mention of ricochet in the first part of 10 chapters which was published in the last year of his life. However, all the references are to be found in the notes and fragments he left behind which Paillottet put together for the second half of the treatise which appeared in 1851. A hint perhaps of the growing importance Bastiat was placing on this new kind of economic sophism.

As the second series of Economic Sophisms was being printed in January 1848 Bastiat expressed some regret in a public lecture he gave for the Free Trade Association at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris that he had never got around to writing a Sophism explicitly about what he called "le sophisme des ricochets" (the sophism of ricochet effects). [27] Many in the audience must have read his earlier thoughts on the matter as they responded very positively to his comments about his plans for “the next edition” of the Economic Sophisms [28] which he promised would contain such an essay.

In his lecture Bastiat was reflecting on why the Swiss refused to impose tariffs on their economy in spite of the fact that they had large landowners, as France did, who had an economic interest in using the power of the state to gain benefits in this way. The answer, he thought, lay in the fact that Swiss voters, unlike their French counterparts, were not deceived by the sophistical arguments about the claimed benefits to ordinary workers of the “gros avantages par ricochet” (the considerable advantages of the ricochet effect). By this is meant the argument used by those in favour of high taxes and high tariffs that the ordinary worker will eventually benefit as a result of a form of “trickle down” theory. The beneficiaries of high taxes (the government) and tariffs (agriculture or industry), it is argued, will eventually spend their money in ways which will benefit the ordinary worker. Bastiat argued that the Swiss were different from other Europeans on the question of tariffs not because they lived in a mountainous country (as some defenders of French tariffs rather dismissively maintained) but because they had not been duped by the protectionists specious arguments: [29]

Ce n’est pas qu’il ait manqué de gros propriétaires de champs et de forêts, de gros entrepreneurs qui aient essayé d’implanter en Suisse la restriction. Ces hommes qui vendent des produits disaient à ceux qui vendent leur travail : Soyez bonnes gens ; laissez-nous renchérir nos produits, nous nous enrichirons, nous ferons de la dépense, et il vous en reviendra de gros avantages par ricochet. (Hilarité.) Mais jamais ils n’ont pu persuader au peuple suisse qu’il fût de son avantage de payer cher ce qu’il peut avoir à bon marché. La doctrine des ricochets n’a pas fait fortune dans ce pays. Et, en effet, il n’y a pas d’abus qu’on ne puisse justifier par elle. Avant 1830, on pouvait dire aussi : C’est un grand bonheur que le peuple paye une liste civile de 36 millions. La cour mène grand train, et l’industrie profite par ricochet…	It is not that Switzerland lacks large proprietors of agricultural land and forests, or large entrepreneurs who would attempt to introduce trade restrictions. These men who sell products said to those who sell their labour: Be good chaps; let us raise the price of our products and we will enrich ourselves, we will spend it, and it will come back to you by the ricochet effect to your great advantage. (Great mirth). But they were never able to persuade the Swiss people that it would be be to their advantage to pay a high price for something that could be got cheaply. The theory of the ricochet effect has not sold well in this country. And indeed, there is no abuse which couldn’t be justified by the is idea. Before 1830 one could also have said: It is a very great honor for the people to pay 36 million francs for the Civil List. The Royal Court lives lavishly and industry profits from the ricochet effect…
En vérité, je crois que, dans certain petit volume, j’ai négligé d’introduire un article intitulé : Sophisme des ricochets.	Truthfully, I believe that I neglected to include in a certain small volume an article entitled “the Sophism of the Ricochet Effect.”
Je réparerai cet oubli à la prochaine édition. (Hilarité prolongée.))	I will fix this oversight in the next edition [prolonged hilarity from the audience].
Nos adversaires disent que l’exemple de la Suisse ne conclut pas, parce que c’est un pays de montagnes. (Rires.)	Our adversaries claim that the example provided by the Swiss doesn’t count because it is a mountainous country. (Laughter).

Since Bastiat never lived to write “The Sophism of the Ricochet Effect” we can only collect the scattered remarks he did make about it and attempt to reconstruct what he might have written had he lived longer.

The Intellectual Origins of “The Ricochet Effect”

The word “ricochet” is a curious one for an economist like Bastiat to adopt. Its traditional meanings include a literal sense, as in English, of an object bouncing off objects in its path, such as a flat stone being bounced off the surface of a body of water. Bastiat used the word in this sense on several occasions along with other water images.

It also had a military meaning, referring to the strategy of firing artillery shells high in the air so they would land just behind the wall of a fortress thereby causing maximum damage to the walls and to any humans standing nearby from flying shrapnel ricocheting off the walls. [30]

There were also several uses of the word in political writings in the 1830s and 1840s. The socialist Charles Fourier used it in Le Nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire (1829) as part of his theory of class, where he talks about the "ricochet de mépris des supérieurs aux inférieurs, et ricochet de haines des inférieurs aux supérieurs" (the flow (ricochet) of disdain by the superior classes to the inferior, and the flow (ricochet) of hatred of the inferior classes for the superior classes." [31]

The anarchist socialist Proudhon used the term as part of his theory of property developed in Qu'est-ce que la propriété? (1841). He believed that the ownership of property creates a privilege and a benefit which puts the worker on wages at a disadvantage to the property owner on the "social ladder" (l'échelle sociale) resulting in "un ricochet de spoliation du plus fort au plus faible" (a cascade of plunder by the strongest of the weakest) where "la dernière classe du peuple est littéralement mise à nu et mangée vive par les autres" (the lowest class of the people is literally stripped naked and eaten alive by the others). [32]

The classical liberal economist and associate of Bastiat’s, Louis Reybaud, used the word ricochet in his amusing critiques of French society and politics, Mémoires de Jérôme Paturet, which appeared in serial form between 1843 and 1848, in particular his witty critique of how bureaucracies functioned. Reybaud describes the behaviour of individuals within the "ruche bureaucratique" (bureaucratic hive) where appointments are solicited by the weak and powerless from the powerful and well-connected thus creating a network of obligation and control throughout the hierarchy which radiates outwards to infinity ("ces ricochets allaient à l'infini"). This and other insights come from his witty and clever satirical stories about the exploits of the ambitious Jérôme Paturot about whom he wrote for over 20 years to much popular acclaim. In the story "Paturot publiciste officiel" Jérôme visits a friend who works in a large government bureaucracy and as the public servants stream out of the building at the end of the work day his friend explains the nepotism and connections which got them their jobs: [33]

La vie des employés peut se résumer par deux préoccupations: arriver le plus tard possible, partir le plus tôt possible; et, si l'on y ajoute travailler le moins possible. on obtient les trois termes de l'existence administrative. … (p. 126)

The life of the employees can be summarized by two preoccupations: to arrive as late as possible and to leave as soon as possible. And if you add to work as little as possible, then you get the three ends of administrative existence …

Nous sortîmes, et déjà l'essaim (swarm) des employés sortait aussi, en bourdonnant (buzzing), de la ruche bureaucratique. Depuis une heure, on brossait les chapeaux, les paletots et les pantalons; on essuyait la poussière des pupitres, on rangeait dans les casiers les papiers épars. La taille des plumes était généralement suspendue, et le mot commencé remis au lendemain. Les employés défilèrent devant nous, les supérieurs comme les inférieurs, Max me les nomma, en me mettant au courant de leurs fonctions, à peu près aussi lourdes que les siennes, en me récapitulant leurs chances et me nommant leurs protecteurs. Les députés jouaient encore un grand rôle dans cette hiérarchie: les bureaux étaient peuplés de leurs créatures. Fils de député, cousin de député, neveu de député, filleul (godchild) de député, voilà ce qui retentissait à mon oreille. D'autres fois, l'influence était indirecte sans être moins active. C'était un électeur considérable qui recommandait au député, lequel recommandait à son tour au ministre. Ces ricochets allaient à l'infini; de sorte qu'on pouvait, à la rigueur, dire que pas un employé ne se trouvait là à cause de son propre mérite et pour ses services personnels. La faveur dominait, et avec elle l'impéritie (incompetence).

We have left, and already the buzzing swarm of employées also leaves the bureaucratic hive. For an hour, they have been brushing their hats, their coats, and their trousers. They wiped the dust from their desks, they sorted their scattered papers into the filing cabinets. They have put away their pens and the word they have begun writing is left for the next day. The employees file out before us, both the senior bureaucrats as well as the junior ones. Max names them for me, telling me about their functions (pretty much as weighty as his), summing up their future prospects and telling me who their protectors are. Deputies (i.e. elected politicians) still play a very important role in this hierarchy: the bureaux were populated with their creatures. The son of a Deputy, the cousin of a Deputy, the nephew of a Deputy, the god child of a Deputy, these were the words which resounded in my ears. On the other hand, their influence was indirect without being any less powerful. There was an influential voter who was recommended to a Deputy, who in his turn recommended him to the Minister. These "ricochets" go on to infinity; in this way one could say, at a pinch, that no employee holds his position because of his own merit or his personal ability. Favouritism dominates and with this, incompetence.

What is clear from this brief analysis is that originally the word “ricochet” was used in order to explain certain political or social relationships of a hierarchical or “vertical” nature between those with power and those without power. The first was a political sense in which ricochet referred to the mutual ties of political influence and dependence which existed in a political or bureaucratic structure, as described by Louis Reybaud, where one’s position in the hierarchy was acquired through cronyism and nepotism, and where influence peddling determined the level of one’s success. Here, waves of power and influence would “ricochet” up and down the bureaucratic ladder, or, to return to Reybaud’s colorful image of the "ruche bureaucratique" (bureaucratic hive) one could almost hear the hive throbbing with power.

The socialist Fourier and Proudhon used the word “ricochet” in order to criticize what they regarded as unjust social and economic relationships which existed in the economic order. Because they were socialists they did not understand how the free market operated and they therefore falsely attributed to the market the “ricochets of plundering” (ricochet de spoliation) between the property owner and the propertyless (Proudhon), and the “ricochets of disdain and hatred” (ricochet de mépris et de haines) (Fourier) between the social classes, which, as Bastiat fully realized, were more properly the result of “disturbing factors” (des causes perturbatrices (also “des forces perturbatrices”)) caused by government privileges and use of coercion. [34]

Bastiat’s innovation was to “flatten” the concept of ricochet so that it referred to the consequences an economic action had on other participants in an economy. These consequences were often indirect, unforeseen, [35] and unintended and Bastiat compared them to ripples in a pond spreading our from its point of impact.

Bastiat’s Use of the Term Ricochet

Bastiat knew the work of Fourier, Proudhon, and Reybaud and would no doubt have been familiar with their ideas about the ricochet effect in their social and political meanings of the term. However, Bastiat’s first use of the word was in a purely literal and negative sense of a flat stone being bounced across a body of water. He does this in a discussion in ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw Materials) (c. 1845) where he talks about trade restrictions which encourage cargo ships to carry “useless refuse” on their return journeys because Navigation Laws restricted what cargoes could be carried by what nations from port to port. Bastiat describes this as wasteful of human energy as paying sailors “pour faire ricocher des cailloux sur la surface de l’eau” (to make pebbles skim across the surface of the water.) [36] In other words it was a wasteful government make-work scheme for sailors. It is clear that in this instance Bastiat is using the word “ricochet” in a purely literary and figurative manner with no real economic significance attached to it. He was later to move beyond this and develop a new economic meaning for this colorful metaphor.

Whereas Fourier, Proudhon, and Reybaud used the term “ricochet” in a vertical or “political” sense, of waves of hatred and disdain going up and down the social hierarchy, or ties of power and influence going up and down the levels within a bureaucracy, Bastiat came to use the word primarily in a horizontal or “economic” sense. In fact, he seems to view it much like horizontal flows of water (or electricity) which radiate out from a central point. Thus, by "the ricochet effect" Bastiat meant the concatenation of effects caused by a single economic event which "rippled" outwards from its source causing indirect flow on effects to third and other parties. [37] A key insight behind this term is the idea that all economic events are tied together by webs of connectivity and mutual influence. The analogies he liked to use often involved water or lines of force, such as:

• stones and pebbles thrown into water, or dropping coins into a cup, causing concentric circles of ripples to fan outwards
• objects bouncing or rebounding of each other or walls
• water splashing back, or blowing back in one’s face - “rejaillir” (to spill, , to cascade, to splash over) [38]
• water flowing over objects - “glisser” (to slide or slip over something) [39]
• communication flows through “canaux secrets” (hidden channels) [40] or “parallèles infinies” (infinite trajectories) [41] - In this context he has an intriguing and precocious statement about the “circulation of money” - “il faut bien distinguer la distribution originaire de vos 3 francs d’avec leur circulation ultérieure, laquelle, dans l’une et dans l’autre hypothèse, suit des parallèles infinies” (it is necessary to distinguish between the orignal distribution of your 3 francs and their subsequent circulation, which in either one of the hypotheses, follows infinite trajectories)
• consumers are like reservoirs of water or electricity out of which all costs from intervention must be paid

The following is a listing of some of these key words and phrases which Bastiat used to explain economic actions. They include his use of colorful metaphors to understand economic activity, his use of expressions which suggest the unintended consequences of economic actions, and his criticism of the sophistical use of ricochet to justify government actions.

1. Bastiat’s use of metaphors to understand economic activity

(See Appendix 1 for a longer version of the quotation ("Q") and publishing details.)

1. Q1 : “pour faire ricocher des cailloux sur la surface de l’eau” (making pebbles skim or bounce across the surface of the water) - ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw materials)
2. Q5: “la distribution originaire de vos 3 francs d’avec leur circulation ultérieure, laquelle, dans l’une et dans l’autre hypothèse, suit des parallèles infinies, et ne peut jamais affecter notre calcul” (the original distribution of your 3 francs and their subsequent circulation which, in both hypotheses, follows infinite trajectories and can never affect our calculation) - ES3 7 “Deux pertes contre un profit” (Two Losses versus One Profit)
3. Q8. “ne doit-il pas arriver que la détresse des non-protégés rejaillisse sur les protégés ? — Je le crois. Je suis convaincu qu’à la longue la perte tend à se répartir sur tout le monde.” (should the distress of those not protected not spill over [rejaillir] on to those protected? I think so. I am convinced that in the long run the loss tends to spread over everyone) - ES3 7 “Deux pertes contre un profit” (Two Losses versus One Profit)
4. Q12. “quand on a étudié le mécanisme naturel des impôts, leurs ricochets, leurs contre-coups, on sait bien que ce que le fisc demande à une classe est payé en grande partie par une autre” (when you have studied the natural mechanism of taxes, their rebounds and repercussions, you know full well that what the tax authorities require from one class is paid for the most part by another) - “Paix et liberté ou le budget républicain” (Peace and Freedom or the Republican Budget)
5. Q16. “Cette bienheureuse pièce de cent sous, que vous ferez tomber dans mon coffre-fort, comme une pierre qu’on jette dans un lac, fera rayonner au loin un nombre infini de cercles concentriques.” (This fortunate hundred sou coin that you drop into my coffer will radiate outwards to the far corners of the country an infinite number of concentric circles, just like a stone thrown into a lake.) - WSWNS 7 “Restriction” (Trade Restrictions)
6. Q16. “La pierre n’est jetée sur un point du lac que parce qu’elle a été législativement empêchée d’être jetée sur un autre.” (The stone is merely cast into a particular point on the lake because it has been prevented by law from being cast into another.)- WSWNS 7 “Restriction” (Trade Restrictions)
7. Q17. “Le consommateur, le public est donc, relativement à la perte ou au bénéfice qui affectent d'abord telle ou telle classe de producteurs, ce que la terre est à l'électricité: le grand réservoir commun. Tout en sort; et, après quelques détours plus ou moins longs, après avoir engendré des phénomènes plus ou moins variés, tout y rentre. Nous venons de constater que les résultats économiques ne font que glisser, pour ainsi dire, sur le producteur pour aboutir au consommateur, et que, par conséquent, toutes les grandes questions doivent être étudiées au point de vue du consommateur, si l'on veut en saisir les conséquences générales et permanentes.” (In relation to the profit or loss that initially affect this or that class of producers, the consumer, the general public, is what earth is to electricity: the great common reservoir. Everything comes out of this reservoir, and after a few more or less long detours, after the generation of a more or less great variety of phenomena, everything returns to it. We have just noted that the economic results just flow over producers, to put it this way, before reaching consumers, and that consequently all the major questions have to be examined from the point of view of consumers if we wish to grasp their general and permanent consequences.) - Harmonies économiques, Chap. 11. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer)

2. Bastiat’s use of expressions which suggest that economic actions can have unintended consequences

Some examples of Bastiat’s use of expressions which suggest unintended bad consequences of actions which “blow back” in the faces of those who expected good consequences:

1. Q2. “le mal indirect qui, frappant leur clientèle, retombe par ricochet sur eux” (the indirect harm which, as it affected their customers, ricocheted on to them) - ES2 4 “Conseil inférieur du travail” (The Lower Council of Labor)
2. Q4. “lui imputer de nombreuses pertes accessoires, telles que : frais de surveillance, formalités dispendieuses, incertitudes commerciales, fluctuations de tarifs, opérations contrariées, chances de guerre multipliées, contrebande, répression, etc.” (to impute to it (protection) a number of ancillary losses, such as the cost of surveillance, expensive formalities, commercial uncertainty, fluctuations in duties, aborted operations, the increased likelihood of war, smuggling, repression, etc.) - ES3 IV. “Un profit contre deux pertes” (One Profit versus Two Losses)

3. Bastiat’s criticism of the sophistical use of the term “ricochet” to justify government actions

Bastiat also used the word ricochet in the vertical and sophistical (i.e., false) sense used by many of his opponents when they argued that high taxes or high tariffs would have a “trickle down effect” on ordinary consumers eventually. He was scathing in his criticism of this way of thinking about the economy. He saw it as an obvious ploy by the powerful elites to “dupe” the taxpayers and consumers into accepting their own exploitation. The following are some examples of this sophistical use of ricochet to justify government actions:

1. Q3. “Pierre. C’est précisément la cherté des produits qui amènera la cherté des salaires.” (PIERRE: It is precisely the high prices of products that will produce higher wages as a result of the ricochet or flow on effect!) - ES2 13 “La protection ou les trois Échevins” (Protection, or the Three Municipal Magistrates)
2. Q6. “vous nous promettiez que le ricochet de ces mesures élèverait notre salaire en proportion et même au delà” (You promised us that the ricochet effect of these measures (higher taxes and tariffs on food etc) would increase our wags by the same amount, and even higher)- “Cinquième discours, à Lyon” (Fifth Speech given at Lyons)
3. Q7. “On dit bien que le travail profite par ricochet de ces monopoles” (It is said that labour will profit from the ricochet effect of these monopolies) - “Réponse au journal l’Atelier” (Response to the journal The Workshop)
4. Q9. “Ce qu’il y a de pire dans ces assertions, c’est que ceux qui se les permettent n’en croient pas un mot eux-mêmes…. car, quant à cette protection par ricochet dont on berce le peuple, pourquoi les manufacturiers ne la prennent-ils pas pour eux ? pourquoi ne font-ils pas une loi qui double les salaires, en vue du bien qu’il leur en reviendra par ricochet ?" (What is worse about these claims is that those who make them don’t believe a single word themselves... because, if this protection by the ricochet effect which so soothes the people (is so good), why don’t the manufacturers apply it to themselves? why don’t they pass a law which doubles their salaries, since so much good will come to them by means of the ricochet effect?) - “Réponse à divers” (Response to various (criticisms)
5. Q10. “laissez-nous renchérir nos produits, nous nous enrichirons, nous ferons de la dépense, et il vous en reviendra de gros avantages par ricochet” (let us increase the price of our products, we will enrich ourselves, we will make up (?) the added expence, and great advantages/benefits will come to us as a result of the ricochet effect) - “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris)
6. Q11. “« Puisque vous forcez la cherté des produits par l’opération de la loi, vous devriez bien aussi, pour être justes, forcer la cherté des salaires par l’opération de la loi. » Laissez tomber l’argument aussi longtemps que possible. Quand vous ne pourrez plus vous taire, répondez : La cherté des produits nous encourage à en faire davantage ; pour cela, il nous faut plus d’ouvriers. Cet accroissement de demande de main-d’œuvre hausse vos salaires, et c’est ainsi que nos priviléges s’étendent à vous par ricochet. L’ouvrier vous répondra peut-être : « Cela serait vrai si l’excédant de production excité par la cherté se faisait au moyen de capitaux tombés de la lune. Mais si vous ne pouvez que les soutirer à d’autres industries, n’y ayant pas augmentation de capital, il ne peut y avoir augmentation de salaires. Nous en sommes pour payer plus cher les choses qui nous sont nécessaires, et votre ricochet est une déception. »" (Since you force products to be expensive by recourse to the law, you ought also, in order to be fair, to force wages to be expensive by recourse to the law.” Let the argument drop for as long as you can. When you can no longer remain silent, answer: “The high price of products encourages us to make more of them, and in order to do this we need more workers. This increase in the demand for labor raises your wages and in this way, indirectly, our privileges extend to you by the ricochet or flow on effect. Workers will perhaps then answer you: “This would be true if the excess production stimulated by high prices was achieved with capital that had fallen from the moon. But if all that you can do is to take it from other sectors of industry, there will be no increase in wages, since there has been no increase in capital. We now, accordingly, have to pay more for the things we need and your ricochet or flow on effect is a trick.) - ES3 20 “Monita secreta” (The Secret Handbook)
7. Q13. “Mais, je l’ai déjà dit, je ne discute pas aujourd’hui les conséquences économiques de la Spoliation légale. Quand MM. les protectionistes le voudront, ils me trouveront prêt à examiner le sophisme des ricochets, qui du reste peut être invoqué pour tous les genres de vols et de fraudes." (However, as I have already said, I am not discussing today the economic consequences of legal plunder. When the supporters of protectionism are ready, they will find me ready to examine the ricochet sophism which, besides, can be quoted for all sorts of theft and fraud.) - “Spoliation et loi” (Plunder and Law)
8. Q14. “L’impôt, c’est le meilleur placement ; c’est une rosée fécondante ? Voyez combien de familles il fait vivre, et suivez, par la pensée, ses ricochets sur l’industrie : c’est l’infini, c’est la vie” (Taxes are the best investment; they are a life-giving dew. See how many families gain a livelihood from them; work out their ricochet or flow on effects on industry; this is beyond measure, it is life) - WSWNS 3 “L'impôt” (Taxes)
9. Q18. “De là on tire cette conclusion: La spoliation est avantageuse à tout le monde: à la classe spoliatrice qu'elle enrichit directement, aux classes spoliées qu'elle enrichit par ricochet. En effet, la classe spoliatrice, devenue plus riche, est en mesure d'étendre le cercle de ses jouissances. Elle ne le peut sans demander, dans une plus grande proportion, les services des classes spoliées.” (The argument is made that) Plunder is advantageous for everybody: the plundering class that it enriches directly and the plundered classes that it enriches by means of the ricochet effect. Indeed, the plundering class that has become wealthier has the means of expanding the circle of its benefits. It cannot do this without requiring the services of the plundered classes to a greater extent.)- Harmonies économiques. Chap. 17 “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services)

The Distinction between “Positive Ricochet Effects” (PRE) and “Negative Ricochet Effects” (NRE)

As Bastiat worked on his theory of the ricochet effect between 1848 and 1850 he came to realize that it was a two-sided sword, that it could have both positive and negative effects on the economy. In the work he published in 1846-1848 he focussed on the "negative ricochet effects" (NRE) because they better suited his political agenda of fighting against protectionism.

The sophistical use of the ricochet effect was taken up by defenders of increased taxes or tariffs in the battle between free trade and protectionism in 1846-47 to show that their proposed measure would only have PRE for the nation and that any NRE would be minor or even non-existent. Economists like Bastiat used the ricochet effect in order to debunk this sophistry by showing firstly that there were always NRE which had to be taken into account (“the unseen”) and that these were almost always harmful to the interests of taxpayers and consumers at large. His classic example was a tax or tariff which raises the price of a particular commodity. It may have been designed to benefit a particular favoured industry and its employees (who may have been promised higher wages as a side benefit) but it has a ricochet effect in that the higher price flows though eventually to all consumers, including the protected or subsidized workers, and even other producers. If many other industries also receive benefits from the state in the form of subsidies and tariffs the cost structure of the entire economy is eventually raised as a result of similar ricochet effects. As Bastiat argues, all increased costs and taxes are eventually borne by consumers: [42]

Le consommateur, le public est donc, relativement à la perte ou au bénéfice qui affectent d'abord telle ou telle classe de producteurs, ce que la terre est à l'électricité: le grand réservoir commun. Tout en sort; et, après quelques détours plus ou moins longs, après avoir engendré des phénomènes plus ou moins variés, tout y rentre. Nous venons de constater que les résultats économiques ne font que glisser, pour ainsi dire, sur le producteur pour aboutir au consommateur, et que, par conséquent, toutes les grandes questions doivent être étudiées au point de vue du consommateur, si l'on veut en saisir les conséquences générales et permanentes.

In relation to the profit or loss that initially affect this or that class of producers, the consumer, the general public, is what earth is to electricity: the great common reservoir. Everything comes out of this reservoir, and after a few more or less long detours, after the generation of a more or less great variety of phenomena, everything returns to it. We have just noted that the economic results just flow over (glisser) producers, to put it this way, before reaching consumers, and that consequently all the major questions have to be examined from the point of view of consumers if we wish to grasp their general and permanent consequences.

As he gradually turned more to economic theory in his latter years he realised that the ricochet effect could have profound positive effects as well, but unfortunately he had less time to explore this dimension of the theory. Examples of a “Positive Ricochet Effect” include the benefits of international free trade and technological inventions such as the printing press and steam powered transport. According to Bastiat, international free trade in the medium and long term has the effect of dramatically lowering costs for consumers and increasing their choice of things to buy. These lower costs and greater choice eventually flow on to all consumers thereby improving their standard of living. Technological inventions like steam powered locomotives or ships lower the cost of transport for every consumer and industry in an economy, thus lowering the overall cost structure and having an economy-wide PRE. The invention of printing by Gutenberg likewise had a profound impact on lowering the cost of the transmission of knowledge which all consumers could benefit from as the savings worked their way through the economy.

Conclusion

The significance of Bastiat’s work on the theory of “the ricochet effect” is that it reveals some startlingly original insights into how the economy functioned and the impact of government intervention which were not fully developed by Bastiat for a number of reasons: he was busy as an elected member of the NationalAssembly, he was busy fighting a pamphlet war with the socialists, and he was trying to finish his treatise on political economy. These insights can be summarized as follows:

• the attempt to mathematically quantify the harm caused by government intervention in the economy. He began with a crude “three party” theory of “the double incidence of loss” (which were all equal in size) but came to realize this was inadequate and attempted to develop a more sophisticated theory of “the ricochet effect” which would involve taking into account many (perhaps millions) of parties and required some complex mathematics (calculus) to describe scientifically. This is interesting because at the same time he was also attempting to make economic theory more abstract with his version of the theory of human action in his “Crusoe economics” which he used in Economic Harmonies and other essays [43]
• the development of an early version of the “multiplier effect” where his idea of the “ricochet” is similar in many ways to the Keynesian notion of a “multiplier”. Bastiat was aware that defenders of protectionism believed that tariffs and subsidies had a “positive multiplier effect” in stimulating production; he initially saw this as really a “negative multiplier effect” (“divider effect” or a “multiplier of harms”). He later came to see that technological innovations could also have a “positive multiplier effect” in the economy by reducing costs for everyone.
• the interconnectedness of economic activity where an action has “ripple” or “flow on” effects which effect perhaps millions of others in an economy.
• that there are unintended consequences of economic action which can be either positive or negative. These unintended consequences are part of what Bastiat called “the unseen.”
• that economic information is transmitted to other participants in the economy by various methods. Bastiat uses a number of hydraulic or electrical analogies such as flows of water in “secret channels”, waves in a pond, and so on, but does not seem to have a clear idea of the role of prices in doing this, although he hints at it on one occasion.

Two points could be made at this juncture. The first is that, given the number of interesting and original insights he developed in the last three years of his life, it is intriguing to speculate about what he might have done with these ideas if he had had the time to explore them further. Ideas such as opportunity costs, the multiplier effect (positive and negative), the use of mathematics to quantify costs and benefits of economic actions, among others.

The second is the striking similarity of some of Bastiat’s ideas and what would later be called Austrian economics. Some of Bastiat’s ideas with strong similarities to Austrian insights include the use of thought experiments (“Crusoe economics”) to explore the nature of human action in the abstract, the interconnectedness of all economic activity, the idea of unintended consequences, the transmission of economic information to other economic actors (not the Hayekian idea of the transmission of information through prices but quite close), not to mention all the other points of similarity identified by Hülsmann, Thornton, and DiLorenzo.

Thus Bastiat’s premature death in 1850 was not only a severe blow to the classical liberal movement in Paris but also to the emergence of “Austrian” ways of thinking about economic theory.

Endnotes↩

[1] Jörg Guido Hülsmann, “Bastiat’s Legacy in Economics,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 4, no. 4, Winter 2001, pp. 55-70; Thornton, Mark, "Frédéric Bastiat as an Austrian Economist”, pp. 387-98. Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines, vol. 11, no. 2/3 (Jun 2001). Editor-in-Chief: Garello, Pierre. Special issue devoted to papers given at the Bastiat bicentennial conference. Online elsewhere; Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 5. “Frédéric Bastiat: Between the French and Marginalist Revolutions,” 15 Great Austrian Economists, edited with and Introduction by Randall G. Holcombe (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999), pp. 59-69.

[2] Condillac, Chap. VI "Comment le commerce augmente la masse des richesse", in Le Commerce et le Gouvernement, Considérés Relativement l'un à l'autre. Ouvrage Élémentaire, Par M. L'abbé de Condillac, de L'Académie Françoise, & Membre de la Société Royale d'Agriculture d'Orléans. (A Amsterdam, Et se trouve à Paris, Chez Jombert & Cellot, Libraires, rue Dauphine. M. DCC. LXXVI. (1776)), Online.

[3] See my paper on “Bastiat on the Seen and The Unseen: An Intellectual History”. An unpublished paper (June, 2022) Online.

[4] See my online editions of his OC and individual major works via "The Works of Frédéric Bastiat" which is a sortable table with links to his works online. Online.

[5] See my paper “Bastiat's Rhetoric of Liberty: The Use of Language and Literature in his Economic Writings” (2024) Online.

[6] It is very much to be regretted that Bastiat did not live to finish his next proposed book, a “History of Plunder”, in which he would have developed his ideas on plunder, its institutionalization in the form of the State, and the many sociological and historical insights he had already developed in the conclusion to ES1, the opening chapters of ES2, and in several of his anti-socialist pamphlets. Had he been able to do this I believe Bastiat might have been on the way to becoming the “Karl Marx of the Classical Liberal Movement.” See my post on the “Liberty Matters” online forum for July 2013 on Frédéric Bastiat and Political Economy, “17. David M. Hart, "What Might Bastiat Have Achieved If He Had Lived as Long as Karl Marx? Some Counterfactual Thoughts, Some What Might Have Beens, and Some Regrets" [posted: july 26, 2013]”. In Liberty Matters Forum on Frédéric Bastiat and Political Economy (July, 2013) OLL.

[7] Original edition: Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas, ou l'Économie politique en une leçon. Par M. F. Bastiat, Représentant du peuple à l'Assemblée nationale, Membre correspondant de l'Institut (Paris: Guillaumin, 1850); Online. Also Frédéric Bastiat, Selected Essays on Political Economy, trans. Seymour Cain, ed. George B. de Huszar, introduction by F.A. Hayek (Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, 1995). What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen. OLL.

[8] Frédéric Bastiat, Harmonies économiques. 2me Édition. Augmentée des manuscrits laissés par l’auteur. Publiée par la Société des amis de Bastiat. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1851). The 1st ed. contained the first 10 chapters. Manuscript in circulation by Dec. 1849, probably printed in Jan. 1850. 2nd ed. with additional 15 chapters. Published as a book in July 1851 by "The Friends of Bastiat" (Paillottet and Fontenay) after FB’s death in Dec. 1850. Online.

[9] The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: WSWNS = What is Seen and What is Not Seen; ES1 = Economic Sophisms Series I which were published in January 1846; ES2 = Economic Sophisms Series II which were published in January 1848; and ES3 = Economic Sophisms Series III which were never published in book form during Bastiat’s lifetime; OC = Oeuvres complètes is the Complete Works of Bastiat edited by Prosper Paillottet in two editions in 1854 and then in 1862; CW = The Collected Works of Frédéric Bastiat.

[10] Thomas Perronet Thompson (1783-1869). Thompson had a colorful career as a soldier, politician, polymath writer, and pamphleteer and agitator for the Anti-Corn Law League. He was a member of the Philosophical Radicals who were inspired by utilitarian and reformist ideas of Jeremy Bentham. Thompson was active in urging Catholic emancipation, the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the abolition of slavery, and played a leading role in managing the reformist journal the Westminster Review. His most significant works include The True Theory of Rent (1829), Catechism on the Corn Laws; with a List of Fallacies and Answers (1827), Contre-Enquête: par l’Homme aux Quarante Ecus (1834) a defense of free trade written in response to a French government inquiry. He published a collection of his essays as Exercises, Political and Others. In Six volumes. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1842).

[11] See Thomas Perronet Thompson, Letters of a representative to his constituents, during the session of 1836. To which is added, A running commentary on anti-commercial fallacies, reprinted from the Spectator of 1834. With additions and corrections. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1836), pp. 188-89. A larger quote from this work can be found in the Appendix.

[12] Thomas Perronet Thompson, Contre-Enquête. Par l’Homme aux Quarante Ecus. Contenant un Examen des Arguments et des Principes mis en avant dans l’Enquête Commercial (Paris: Charpentier, 1834). "Counter-Inquiry. By the Man with the Forty Crowns a Year. Containing an Examination of the Arguments and Principles advanced in the French Commercial Inquiry" published in The Westminster Review, 1 January, 1835, and in Exercises, Political and Others. In Six volumes. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1842), vol. 3, pp. 177-213.

[13] ES3.04 "Un profit contre deux pertes" (One Profit against Two Losses), Le Libre-Échange, 9 May 1847, no. 24, p. 192; OC2.57, pp. 377-84 Online; CW3 ES3.04, pp. 271-76; ES3.07 "Deux pertes contre un profit. À M. Arago, de l’Académie des Sciences" (Two Losses against One Profit), Le Libre-Échange, 30 May 1847, no. 27, pp. 215-16; OC2.58, pp. 384-91 Online; CW3 ES3.07, pp. 287-93.

[14] ES3 04 “Un profit contre deux pertes” (One Profit versus Two Losses), 9 May 1847, Le Libre-Échange; OC2, p 378 Online.

[15] François Arago (1786-1853) was the eldest of four successful Arago brothers, the youngest of which, Étienne Arago (1802-1892) may have gone to school with Bastiat in Sorèze. François was a famous astronomer and physicist who was also active in republican politics throughout the 1830s and 1840s. He is mentioned several times in Bastiat's correspondence. After the outbreak of the Revolution in February 1848 he became Minister of War, the Navy and Colonies and played an important role in the abolition of slavery in the French colonies. François also edited the works of Condorcet on the eve the 1848 Revolution.

[16] ES3.07 "Deux pertes contre un profit. À M. Arago, de l’Académie des Sciences" (Two Losses against One Profit); OC2, p. 385 Online.

[17] WS.01 "La vitre cassée" (The Broken Window), CQV (July 1850), chap. 1, pp. 5-8; Online; CW3, pp. 405-7.

[18] CQV 1, p. 8 Online.

[19] ES3.04 "Un profit contre deux pertes" (One Profit against Two Losses), OC2, p. 378 Online.

[20] ES3.07 "Deux pertes contre un profit. À M. Arago, de l’Académie des Sciences" (Two Losses against One Profit); OC2, p. 389 Online.

[21] ES3.20 "Monita secreta" (The Secret Handbook), Le Libre-Échange, 20 Feb. 1848, no. 13 (2nd year), pp. 75-76l; OC2.67, pp. 452-58 Online; CW3 ES3.20, pp. 371-77.

[22] ES2.04 "Conseil inférieur du travail)" (The Lower Council of Labor); SE2 4, pp. 44-48 Online; CW3 ES2.04, pp. 142-46. "par ricochet", p. 48 Online.

[23] "ses ricochets", CQV 3, p. 13 [online] (FrenchClassicalLiberals/Bastiat/Books/1850-CeQuonVoit/index.html#CQV-p129).

[24] See HE 17, pp. 487-88 Online.

[25] Spoliation et Loi (Plunder and Law) (Paris: Guillaumin, 1850), OC5, pp. 1-15; "le sophisme des ricochets" OC5, p. 13 Online.

[26] There is 1 reference in Chap. XI. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer) pp. 348-49 Online and 4 in Chap. XVII. “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services) pp. 486-88 Online with an explicit reference to “the Sophism of the Ricochet Effect.”

[27] “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris) (7 Jan 1848); OC2, pp. 320-21 Online.

[28] A Series III of the Economic Sophisms never appeared in Bastiat’s lifetime in spite of the fact that he expressed a wish to do so several times but his untimely death on 24 December 1850 prevented this from happening. His literary executor and editor Prosper Paillottet collected what he considered to be a Series III in OC, vol. 2 but Liberty Fund’s edition of his Collected Works is the first time they have been brought together in a way Bastiat might have wished. They are certainly the first time these essays have been translated into English.

[29] “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris) (7 Jan 1848); OC2, pp. 320-21 Online.

[30] See the definition of "Ricochet" in Vocabulaire de la langue française: extrait de la dernière édition du Dictionnaire de l'Académie publié en 1835, ed. Charles Nodier, Paul Ackermann (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1836). See also the online dictionaries at Centre National de Resources Textuelles et Lexicales (CNRTL) Online elsewhere.

[31] Œuvres complètes de Ch Fourier. Tome sixième. Le Nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire (Paris: La Société pour la propagation et pour la réalisation de la théorie de Fourier, 1841), Section V. De l'équilibre général des passions, Chap. XXXVI "Des accords transcendants, ou ralliements de seize antipathies naturelles," p. 324-25. See Appendix 3 for the full passage from which this quotation comes.

[32] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la propriété?: ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement. Premier mémoire (Paris: Prévot, 1841), p. 203. The full passage is: “Si, dans toutes les professions, le salaire de l’ouvrier était le même, le déficit occasionné par le prélèvement du propriétaire se ferait sentir également partout; mais aussi la cause du mal serait tellement évidente, qu’elle eût été dès longtemps aperçue et réprimée. Mais comme entre les salaires, depuis celui de balayeur jusqu’à celui de ministre, il règne la même inégalité qu’entre les propriétés, il se fait un ricochet de spoliation du plus fort au plus faible, si bien que le travailleur éprouvant d’autant plus de privations qu’il est placé plus bas dans l’échelle sociale, la dernière classe du peuple est littéralement mise à nu et mangée vive par les autres.”

[33] Louis Reybaud, Jérôme Paturot à la recherche d'une position sociale. Édition illustrée par J. J. Grandville (Paris: J.J. Dubochet, 1846), Chap. XIII. "Paturot publiciste officiel. - Son ami l'homme de lettres," pp. 126-27.

[34] See my essay on "Disturbing and Restorative Factors".

[35] See my essay “Bastiat on the Seen and The Unseen: An Intellectual History” (June, 2022) Online.

[36] ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw Materials) (c. 1845); ES1 21, p. 151 Online..

[37] Other words one could use for "ricochet" include the following: ripples, trickle down, flow on, knock on, cascading (Bastiat uses the word "rejaillir" or splashing), bouncing, indirect, repercussions, reverberations, concatenation, and so on. The translator of the FEE edition and our original translator valiantly attempted to find synonyms like these to translate the rather awkward word “ricochet” or phrase “par ricochet” (ricochet effect) without recognizing that Bastiat was using it in a specific, technical way to describe certain economic phenomenon which he wanted to understand and explain.

[38] ES3.12 "L’indiscret. - Questions sur les effets des restrictions" (The Man who asked Embarrassing Questions) (12 December 1847); OC2, p. 445 Online.

[39] ES1.04 "Egaliser les conditions de production" (Economic Sophisms (cont): IV Equalizing the Conditions of Production), Journal des Économistes, July 1845, T.11, no. 44, p. 345-56; SE1 4, pp. 35-57 Online; CW3 ES1.04, pp. 25-39. "glisser" ES1, p. 46 Online.

[40] "canaux secrets" in WSWNS 8 "Les machines", p. 55 Online

[41] ES3.07 “Deux pertes contre un profit” (Two Losses versus One Profit) (30 May 1847); OC2 59, p. 390 Online.

[42] Harmonies économiques. Chap. XI. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer), p. 349 Online.

[43] See my discussion of his invention of "Crusoe Economics" in "Bastiat's Rhetoric of Liberty: the Use of Language and Literature in his Economic Writings" (2024) Online.

APPENDICES↩

Appendix 1: Chronological List of Bastiat’s use of the Term “Ricochet” and related Expressions↩

A Chronological List of Works using these Expressions

A list of occurrences of key words and phrases:

1. (c. 1845) - ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw Materials) (1 ricocher)
2. (c.1847) - ES2 4“Conseil inférieur du travail” (The Lower Council of Labor) (1 ricochet)
3. (c.1847) - ES2 13 “La protection ou les trois Échevins” (Protection, or the Three Municipal Magistrates) (implied use with reference to trickle down effect)
4. (9 May 1847) - ES3 4 “Un profit contre deux pertes” (One Profit versus Two Losses) (DIL - imputed ancillary losses)
5. (30 May 1847) - ES3 7 “Deux pertes contre un profit” (Two Losses versus One Profit) (DIL - infinite trajectories)
6. (August 1847) - “Cinquième discours, à Lyon” (Fifth Speech given at Lyons) (1 ricochet)
7. (12 Sept. 1847) - “Réponse au journal l’Atelier” (Response to the journal The Workshop) (1 ricochet)
8. (12 December 1847) - ES3 12 “L'indiscret” (The Man who asked Embarrassing Questions) (rejaillir, 1 ricochet)
9. (1 Jan. 1848) - “Réponse à divers” (Response to various (criticisms) ( 2 ricochet)
10. (7 Jan 1848) - “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris) (4 ricochet - specific reference to Sophisms of Ricochet)
11. (20 Feb 1848) - ES3 20 “Monita secreta” (Monita secreta) (rejaillir, 5 ricochet, moon money)
12. (February 1849) - “Paix et liberté ou le budget républicain” (Peace and Freedom or the Republican Budget) (1 ricochet)
13. (15 May 1850) - “Spoliation et loi” (Plunder and Law) (1 ricochet - explicit reference to sophism of ricochet)
14. (July 1850) - WSWNS 3 “L'impôt” (Taxes) (1 ricochet)
15. (July 1850) - WSWNS 12 “The Right to Work and the Right to Profit” (PP published note by FB: dispersed harm, benefit concentrated at single point)
16. (July 1850) - WSWNS 7 “Restriction” (Trade Restrictions) (2 stone thrown in lake and concentric circles, moon money)
17. (late 1850 - not 1st ed. but 1851 ed.) - Harmonies économiques. Chap. XI. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer) (5 ricochet in total, 1 ricochet in this chap, glisser, electricity, reservoir)
18. (late 1850 - not 1st ed. but 1851 ed.) - Harmonies économiques. Chap. XVII. “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services) (4 ricochet, explicit reference to sophism of ricochet)

⠀ ⠀

Passages in which Bastiat mentions the Ricochet Effect and Related Ideas

1. (c. 1845) - ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw materials)

Source: ES1 21 “Matières premières” (Raw Materials). No date given but c. 1845. 1st published in book early 1846. Sophismes économiques. Par M. Frédéric Bastiat, Membre du Conseil général des Landes (Paris: Guillaumin, 1846) Online; OC4, pp. 105-15; OC3, pp. 92-100.

This first use is the entirely literal and negative sense of a flat stone being bounced across a body of water. He does this in a discussion where he talks about trade restrictions which encourage cargo ships to carry “useless refuse” on their return journeys because Navigation Laws restrict what cargoes can be carried by what nations from port to port. Bastiat describes this as as wasteful of human energy as paying sailors “to make pebbles skim across the surface of the water.” (pour faire ricocher des cailloux sur la surface de l’eau). Quote ES1 21, p. 151 Online.

L’industrie, les forces navales, le travail ont pour but le bien général, le bien public ; créer des industries inutiles, favoriser des transports superflus, alimenter un travail surnuméraire, non pour le bien du public, mais aux dépens du public, c’est réaliser une véritable pétition de principe. Ce n’est pas le travail qui est en soi-même une chose désirable, c’est la consommation : tout travail sans résultat est une perte. Payer des marins pour porter à travers les mers d’inutiles résidus, c’est comme les payer pour faire ricocher des cailloux sur la surface de l’eau. Ainsi nous arrivons à ce résultat, que tous les sophismes économiques, malgré leur infinie variété, ont cela de commun qu’ils confondent le moyen avec le but, et développent l’un aux dépens de l’autre.

The purpose of manufacturing, of shipping, and of labor is the general good, the public good. Creating industries that serve no purpose, encouraging superfluous transport and supporting unnecessary labor, not for the public good but at public expense, is to achieve a genuine contradiction in terms. It is not labor that is intrinsically desirable but consumption. Any labor that yields no output represents a loss. To pay sailors to carry useless refuse across the sea is as though they were being paid to make pebbles skim across the surface of the water. We therefore come to the conclusion that all economic sophisms, in spite of their infinite variety, have this in common: they confuse the means with the end and develop one at the expense of the other.” (FEE trans. “ricocher” trans. “skimming”)

2. (c.1847) - ES2 4 “Conseil inférieur du travail” (The Lower Council of Labor)

Source: ES2.04 "Conseil inférieur du travail)" (The Lower Council of Labor); SE2 4, pp. 44-48 Online; OC4, pp. 160-63; CW3, pp. 142-46.

In this discussion Bastiat is contrasting the right of large producers to form associations of all kinds but smaller and poorer groups are denied permission to do things such as form self-help groups. He then notes that the small produces realize what is going on and that the costs of protection harm their customers and that this eventually “ricochets” back on to them. Quote SE2 4, p. 47-48 Online.

Mais, hélas ! dans notre pays des Landes, les pauvres laboureurs, tout protégés qu’ils sont, n’ont pas le sou, et, après y avoir mis leurs bestiaux, ils ne peuvent entrer eux-mêmes dans des sociétés de secours mutuels. Les prétendues faveurs de la protection ne les empêchent pas d’être les parias de notre ordre social. Que dirai-je des vignerons ?	But alas! In our region of the Landes, the poor farm laborers, as protected as they are, do not have a sou, and, after they have seen to the welfare of their own cattle, they themselves cannot join any mutual aid societies. The [146] alleged favors of protection do not stop them from being the pariahs of our social order. What shall I say about vine growers?
Ce que je remarquai surtout, c’est le bon sens avec lequel nos villageois avaient aperçu non-seulement le mal direct que leur fait le régime protecteur, mais aussi le mal indirect qui, frappant leur clientèle, retombe par ricochet sur eux.	What I noted above all was the common sense with which our villagers saw not only the direct harm that the protectionist regime was doing them but also the indirect harm which, as it affected their customers, ricocheted on to them. (FEE trans. “par ricochet” trans. “rebounds”)
C’est ce que ne paraissent pas comprendre, me dis-je, les économistes du Moniteur industriel.	This is what, I said to myself, the economists of Le Moniteur industriel appear not to understand.

3. (c.1847) - ES2 13 “La protection ou les trois Échevins” (Protection, or the Three Municipal Magistrates)

Source: ES2 13 “La protection ou les trois Échevins” (Protection, or the Three Municipal Magistrates) (c.1847). 1st published ES2 1848 Online; OC4, pp. 229-41; CW3, pp. 214-34.

In this quite elaborate play about the impact of domestic tolls and trade restrictions Jacques Bonhomme is trying to persuade the people of Paris that they have been harmed by these restrictions but they are not responsive to his arguments, merely chanting in support for whatever measure they last heard put to them. We have added the phrase “the ricochet or flow on effect” because it fits the context here and is very similar to other passages where Bastiat does use it. Quote ES2, pp. 147-48 Online.

Jacques. Faites servir l’octroi, si vous pouvez, à hausser les salaires, ou ne le faites pas servir à renchérir les produits. Les Parisiens ne demandent pas la charité, mais la justice.	JACQUES: Use city tolls, if you can, to raise wages but not to make products more expensive. The people of Paris are not asking for charity, but justice!
Le Peuple. Vive, vive la justice !	THE PEOPLE: Long live JUSTICE!
Pierre. C’est précisément la cherté des produits qui amènera la cherté des salaires.	PIERRE: It is precisely the high prices of products that will produce higher wages as a result of the ricochet or flow on effect! (this reference was inserted by the FEE translator)
Le Peuple. Vive, vive la cherté !	THE PEOPLE: Long live HIGH PRICES!

4. (9 May 1847) - ES3 4 “Un profit contre deux pertes” (One Profit versus Two Losses)

Source: ES3.04 "Un profit contre deux pertes" (One Profit against Two Losses), Le Libre-Échange, 9 May 1847, no. 24, p. 192; OC2.57, pp. 377-84 Online; CW3 ES3.04, pp. 271-76.

This is the first of 2 early statements of Bastiat’s theory of “the double incidence of loss” which he write in May 1847. He is coyly referring to his source for the idea, Perronet Tompson, whose mathematical equations has won him some notoriety for over complexity, and repeats his “one profit” and “two losses” equation. However he does hint that there might be more factors to take into account, namely the numerous “ancillary losses” which can be imputed from the imposition of the tariff. He makes no attempt to calculate these at this stage. Quote OC2 57, pp. 378-79 Online.

Supprimant donc le nom de l’auteur et la forme algébrique, je reproduirai l’argument qui se borne à établir que toute faveur du tarif entraîne nécessairement :	I will therefore suppress the name of the author and the algebraic form and reproduce the argument, which is limited to establishing that any advantage flowing from tariffs will of necessity bring about the following:
1° Un profit pour une industrie ;	1.) A profit for one industry;
2° Une perte égale pour une autre industrie ;	2.) An equal loss for another industry
3° Une perte égale pour le consommateur.	3.) An equal loss for the consumer.
Ce sont là les effets directs et nécessaires de la protection. En bonne justice, et pour compléter le bilan, il faudrait encore lui imputer de nombreuses pertes accessoires, telles que : frais de surveillance, formalités dispendieuses, incertitudes commerciales, fluctuations de tarifs, opérations contrariées, chances de guerre multipliées, contrebande, répression, etc.	These are the direct and necessary effects of protection. In all justice, and to complete the assessment, we ought in addition to impute to it a number of ancillary losses, such as the cost of surveillance, expensive formalities, commercial uncertainty, fluctuations in duties, aborted operations, the increased likelihood of war, smuggling, repression, etc.

5. (30 May 1847) - ES3 7 “Deux pertes contre un profit” (Two Losses versus One Profit)

Source: ES3.07 "Deux pertes contre un profit. À M. Arago, de l’Académie des Sciences" (Two Losses against One Profit), Le Libre-Échange, 30 May 1847, no. 27, pp. 215-16; OC2.58, pp. 384-91 Online; CW3 ES3.07, pp. 287-93.

This is the second article written in May 1847 in which Bastiat discusses the theory of “the double incidence of loss.” He goes into some detail as he is appealing to the mathematician and astronomer François Arago for assistance with the mathematics to better describe what he believes is going on in the economy when there are interventions. In this passage “ricochet” is not mentioned explicitly but he refers to a related concept, namely "suite des parallèles infinies" (circulation of money which follows infinite trajectories). Quote OC2 59, p. 390 Online.

On dira encore ceci : Le franc que le coutelier reçoit en plus, grâce à la protection, il le fait gagner à des travailleurs. — Je réponds  : Le franc que le libraire recevrait en plus, grâce à la liberté, il le ferait gagner aussi à d’autres travailleurs ; en sorte que, de ce côté, la compensation n’est pas détruite, et il reste toujours que, sous un régime vous avez un livre, et sous l’autre vous n’en avez pas. — Pour éviter la confusion volontaire ou non qu’on ne manquera pas de faire à ce sujet, il faut bien distinguer la distribution originaire de vos 3 francs d’avec leur circulation ultérieure, laquelle, dans l’une et dans l’autre hypothèse, suit des parallèles infinies, et ne peut jamais affecter notre calcul.

The following is also said: the franc that the cutler receives as a supplement, thanks to trade protection, he pays to his workers. My reply is this : the franc that the bookseller would receive in addition, thanks to free trade, he would also pay to other workers, so that in this respect the balance is not upset, and it remains true that under one regime you have a book and on the other you do not. To avoid the confusion, intentional or not, that will not fail to be cast over this subject, you have to make a clear distinction between the original distribution of your 3 francs and their subsequent circulation which, in both hypotheses, follows infinite trajectories and can never affect our calculation

6. (August 1847) - “Cinquième discours, à Lyon” (Fifth Speech given at Lyons)

Source: “Cinquième discours, à Lyon” (Fifth Speech given at Lyons) (August 1847); OC2. 46, pp. 273-93 Online.

In this speech Bastiat imagines an ordinary worker speaking before the Chamber and denouncing them for having deceived him about the beneficial effects of the “flow on effect” of taxes and tariffs which have raised the costs of goods. Quote OC2, pp. 282-83 Online.

Aux entrepreneurs d’industrie, le régime restrictif offre des compensations. S’ils payent plus cher ce qu’ils achètent, ils font payer plus cher ce qu’ils vendent ; non qu’ils ne perdent, en définitive, mais enfin leur perte est atténuée ; pour l’ouvrir, il n’y a aucune atténuation possible.	To industrial entrepreneurs the regime of trade restrictions offers some compensation, If they pay more for what they buy, they get paid more for what they sell; it is not that they don't lose when all is said and done, but in the end their loss is mitigated ; for the worker no mitigation is possible.
Aussi, je me représente quelquefois un simple ouvrier, trouvant, je ne sais par quelle issue, accès dans l’enceinte législative. Ce serait certainement un spectacle curieux et même imposant, s’il se présentait à la barre de l’assemblée étonnée, — calme, modéré, mais résolu, et si, au milieu du silence universel, il disait :	So imagine if I am a simple worker, who finds himself, I don't know how, standing in the legislative chamber. This would certainly be a curious and even imposing spectacle if, presenting himself at the speaker's bar before the astonished assembly, standing calm, moderate but determined, and said in the middle of total silence:
« Vous avez élevé, par la loi, le prix des aliments, des vêtements, du fer, du combustible ; vous nous promettiez que le ricochet de ces mesures élèverait notre salaire en proportion et même au delà. Nous vous croyions, car l’appât d’un profit, fût-il illégitime, hélas ! rend toujours crédule. Mais votre promesse a failli. Il est bien constaté maintenant que votre loi, n’ayant pu que déplacer le capital et non l’accroître, n’a eu d’autre résultat que de faire peser sur nous, sans compensation, le poids de la cherté. Nous venons vous demander d’élever législativement le taux des salaires, au moins dans la même mesure que vous avez élevé législativement le prix de la subsistance. »	“You have increased by means of the law the prices of food, clothing, iron goods, and fuel. You promised us that the ricochet effect of these measures would increase our wags by the same amount, and even higher. We believed you because, alas!, the lure of profit however illegitimate, made us credulous. But you failed to keep your promise. It is now being stated that your law, having only been able to displace/distort the (investment of) capital and not to increase it, has had no other result than to increase the burden of higher prices on us. We have come to you to ask that you increase our wages by law , at lweast to the same degree that you have increased the price of food by law."
Je sais bien ce qu’on répondrait à ce malencontreux pétitionnaire. On lui dirait, et avec raison :	I know very well how they would reply to this unfortunate petityioner. They would say to him, and with reason:
« Il nous est impossible d’élever par la loi le taux du salaire ; car la loi ne peut pas faire qu’on tire d’un capital donné plus de salaires qu’il n’en renferme. »	"It is impossible for us to increase your wages by law; because the law cannot make a given quantity of capital pay out more in wages than it has set aside for it.

7. (12 Sept. 1847) - “Réponse au journal l’Atelier” (Response to the journal The Workshop)

Source: "Réponse au journal l’Atelier” (Response to the journal The Workshop) (12 Sept. 1847); OC2. 23, pp. 124-31 Online.

Bastiat argues in this response to something written in the socialist journal l’Atelier that society is divided into two classes, one of which uses law to create monopolies for itself. It was often argued that these monopolies were beneficial to ordinary workers and consumes because of the ricochet effect these monopolies had. Quote OC2. 23, p. 129 Online.

La distinction entre classes riches et classes pauvres donne lieu, de nos jours, à tant de déclamations que nous croyons devoir nous expliquer à ce sujet.	The difference between rich classes and poor classes gives rise in our time to more public comment than we believe we can explain.
Dans l’état actuel de la société, et pour nous en tenir à notre sujet, sous l’empire du régime restrictif, nous croyons qu’il y a une classe privilégiée et une classe opprimée. La loi confère à certaines natures de propriété des monopoles qu’elle ne confère pas au travail, qui est aussi une propriété.	In the current state of society, and in order for us to keep to the subject, under the empire of the regime of trade restrictions, we believe that there is a privileged class and an oppressed class. The law bestows monopolies on certain kinds of property, but not on labour which is also a kind of property.
On dit bien que le travail profite par ricochet de ces monopoles, et la société qui s’est formée pour les maintenir a été jusqu’à prendre ce titre : Association pour la défense du travail national, titre dont le mensonge éclatera bientôt à tous les yeux.	It is said that labour will profit from the ricochet effect of these monopolies, and that the organization which has been formed to maintain them has even taken the name “the Association for the Defense of National Employment”, a name which is a lie which everyone will soon see for what it is
Une circonstance aggravante de cet ordre de choses, c’est que la propriété privilégiée par la loi est entre les mains de ceux qui font la loi. C’est même une condition, pour être admis à faire la loi, qu’on ait une certaine mesure de propriété de cette espèce. La propriété opprimée au contraire, celle du travail, n’a voix ni délibérative ni consultative. On pourrait conclure de là que le privilége dont nous parlons est tout simplement la loi du plus fort.	An aggravating circumsatance of this order of things is that proprerty which is privileged by law is in the hands of those who make the law. It is even a condition that, in order to be able to make the law, one (already) have a certain amount of this kind of propety. On the contrary, property which is oppressed by the law, such as that of labour, has neither a deliberative nor a consultative voice (in the matter). One could conclude from that, that the privilege of which we speak is quite simply the law of the strongest.

8. (12 December 1847) - ES3 12 “L'indiscret” (The Man who asked Embarrassing Questions)

Source: ES3.12 "L’indiscret. - Questions sur les effets des restrictions" (The Man who asked Embarrassing Questions), Le Libre-Échange, 12 Dec. 1847, no. 3 (2nd year), p. 20; OC2.65, pp. 435-46 Online; CW3 ES3.12, pp. 309-18.

Continuing the water metaphor Bastiat uses the word “rejaillir” (spill over or splash back) to describe the effects of interventions. If the incomes of consumers goes down because of a tariff this will eventually have a spill over effect on the very producers who are being protected. Like water, these bad consequences will spread to everybody. Quote OC2, p. 445 Online.

L’ouvrier. Est-ce que ces chiffres sont exacts ?	The worker: “Are these figures accurate?”
— Je ne les donne pas pour tels ; je veux seulement vous faire comprendre que, si sur un tout plus petit, les protégés prennent une part plus grande, les non-protégés portent tout le poids non-seulement de la diminution totale, mais encore de l’excédant que les protégés s’attribuent.	“I do not claim they are, all I want is to make you understand that if out of a total that is smaller, those protected take a larger share, those not protected bear all the weight not only of the total decrease but also of the excess amount that those protected allocate to themselves.”
L’ouvrier. S’il en est ainsi, ne doit-il pas arriver que la détresse des non-protégés rejaillisse sur les protégés ?	The worker: “If this is so, should the distress of those not protected not spill over [rejaillir] on to those protected?”
— Je le crois. Je suis convaincu qu’à la longue la perte tend à se répartir sur tout le monde. J’ai essayé de le faire comprendre aux protégés, mais je n’ai pas réussi.	“I think so. I am convinced that in the long run the loss tends to spread over everyone. I have tried to make those protected understand this but have not succeeded in doing so.”
Un autre ouvrier. Quoique la protection ne nous soit pas accordée directement, on assure qu’elle nous arrive par ricochet.	Another worker: “Although protection is not directly given to us, we are told that it reaches us, so to speak, by the ricochet or flow on effect.”
— Alors il faut renverser tout notre raisonnement en partant toujours de ce point fixe et avoué, que la restriction amoindrit le total de la richesse nationale. Si, néanmoins, votre part est plus grande, celle des protégés est doublement ébréchée. En ce cas, pourquoi réclamez-vous le droit de suffrage ? Assurément, vous devez laisser à des hommes si désintéressés le soin de faire les lois.	“Then all our arguments have to be turned upside down, though they must continue to start from this fixed and acknowledged point, that restriction reduces total national wealth. If, nevertheless, your share is larger, the share of those protected is all the more undermined. In this case, why are you demanding the right to vote? It is quite clear that you ought to leave to such disinterested men the burden of making the laws.”

9. (1 Jan. 1848) - “Réponse à divers” (Response to various (criticisms)

Source: “Réponse à divers” (Response to various (criticisms) (1 Jan. 1848) ; OC2. 24, pp. 131-33 Online.

Bastiat argues that free trade is in the interests of the people. He has a worker mock the protectionists for not believing the truth of their own words - if high prices caused by tariffs are good for the workers via the trickle down or ricochet effect, then why don’t the protected manufacturers just double the salaries of their workers and see the beneficial results of the ricochet effect as these better paid workers spend their money in the economy. Quote OC2, pp. 132-33 Online.

Ce qu’il y a de pire dans ces assertions, c’est que ceux qui se les permettent n’en croient pas un mot eux-mêmes. Ils savent bien, et Bayonne en fournit de nombreux exemples, que l’on peut être partisan de la liberté sans être nécessairement ministériel, sans recevoir l’impulsion de haut lieu. Ils savent bien que la liberté commerciale, comme les autres, est la cause du peuple, et le sera toujours jusqu’à ce qu’on nous montre un article du tarif qui protége directement le travail des bras ; car, quant à cette protection par ricochet dont on berce le peuple, pourquoi les manufacturiers ne la prennent-ils pas pour eux ? pourquoi ne font-ils pas une loi qui double les salaires, en vue du bien qu’il leur en reviendra par ricochet ? Les journaux, auxquels nous répondons ici, savent bien que toutes les démocraties du monde sont pour le libre-échange ; qu’en Angleterre la lutte est entre l’aristocratie et la démocratie ; que la Suisse démocratique n’a pas de douanes ; que l’Italie révolutionnaire proclame la liberté ; que le triomphe de la démocratie aux États-Unis a fait tomber la protection ; que 89 et 93 décrétèrent le droit d’échanger, et que la Chambre du double vote le confisqua. Ils savent cela, et ce sera l’éternelle honte de nos journaux indépendants d’avoir déserté la cause du peuple. Un jour viendra, et il n’est pas loin, où on leur demandera compte de leur alliance avec le privilége, surtout à ceux d’entre eux qui ont commencé par déclarer que la cause du Libre-Échange était vraie, juste et sainte en principe.

What is worse about these claims is that those who make them don’t believe a single word themselves. They know very well, and Bayonne provides numerous examples of it, that one can be a supporter of liberty without necessarily having the support of the Minister, without receiving encouragement from those in high places. They know very well that free trade, like other liberties, is a cause supported by the people, and this will always be the case until someone can show us a single item subject to tariffs which directly protects manual labour. As for this protection by the ricochet effect which is used to soothe the people, why don’t the manufacturers apply it to themselves? why don’t they pass a law which doubles their salaries, since so much good will come to them by means of the ricochet effect? The newspapers, to which we are responding here, know very well that all the democracies in the world are in favour of free trade; that in England the struggle is between aristrocracy and democracy; that democratic Switzerland does not have tariffs; that revolutionary Italy declares itself in favour of liberty; that the triumph of democracy in the United States has led to the fall of protection; that (the constitutions of) 1789 and 1793 decreed the right of free exhange, and that the Chamber of the Double Vote took away this right. They know that, and this will be the eternal shame of our independent newspapers to have deserted the cause of the people. The day will come, and it is not far off, when they (the people) will demand an accounting for their (the newspapers) alliance with privilege, especially for those of them who began by declaring that the cause of Free Trade was true, just, and sacred in principle.

10. (7 Jan 1848) - “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris)

Source: “Septième Discours, à Paris, Salle Montesquieu” (Seventh Speech at the Salle Montesquieu in Paris) (7 Jan 1848) OC2. 48, pp. 311-28 Online

In a speech on free trade in the Salle Montesquieu used for public activities by the French Free Trade Association in Paris, Bastiat talks about the Swiss who refuse to impose tariffs. He argues that ordinary Swiss voters reject the arguments of landowners about the beneficial effects of "de gros avantages par ricochet." He mocks the idea that an expensive court is justified on the grounds that their expenditure on luxury goods will have a positive trickle down effect on the broader economy. Bastiat regrets that he never wrote more on the topic and promises to write an entire article on “The Sophism of Ricochets” for the next edition. Quote OC2, pp. 320-21 Online.

Voici d’abord la Suisse : c’est le pays le plus démocratique de l’Europe. Là, l’ouvrier a un suffrage qui pèse autant que celui de son chef. Et la Suisse n’a pas voulu de douane même fiscale.	Firstly, there is Switzerland. It is the most democratic country in Europe. There, workers have a vote which is worth just as much as that of their boss. And Switzerland does not want to have even a fiscal tariff.
Ce n’est pas qu’il ait manqué de gros propriétaires de champs et de forêts, de gros entrepreneurs qui aient essayé d’implanter en Suisse la restriction. Ces hommes qui vendent des produits disaient à ceux qui vendent leur travail : Soyez bonnes gens ; laissez-nous renchérir nos produits, nous nous enrichirons, nous ferons de la dépense, et il vous en reviendra de gros avantages par ricochet. (Hilarité.) Mais jamais ils n’ont pu persuader au peuple suisse qu’il fût de son avantage de payer cher ce qu’il peut avoir à bon marché. La doctrine des ricochets n’a pas fait fortune dans ce pays. Et, en effet, il n’y a pas d’abus qu’on ne puisse justifier par elle. Avant 1830, on pouvait dire aussi : C’est un grand bonheur que le peuple paye une liste civile de 36 millions. La cour mène grand train, et l’industrie profite par ricochet…	It is not that Switzerland lacks large proprietors of agricultural land and forests, or large entrepreneurs who would attempt to introduce trade restrictions. These men who sell products said to those who sell their labour: Be good chaps; let us raise the price of our products and we will enrich ourselves, we will spend it, and it will come back to you by the ricochet effect to your great advantage. (Great mirth). But they were never able to persuade the Swiss people that it would be be to their advantage to pay a high price for something that could be got cheaply. The theory of the ricochet effect has not sold well in this country. And indeed, there is no abuse which couldn’t be justified by the is idea. Before 1830 one could also have said: It is a very great honor for the people to pay 36 million francs for the Civil List. The Royal Court lives lavishly and industry profits from the ricochet effect…
En vérité, je crois que, dans certain petit volume, j’ai négligé d’introduire un article intitulé : Sophisme des ricochets.	Truthfully, I believe that I neglected to include in a certain small volume an article entitled “the Sophism of the Ricochet Effect.”
Je réparerai cet oubli à la prochaine édition. (Hilarité prolongée.)	I will repair this oversight in the next edition (prolonged hilarity from the audience).
Nos adversaires disent que l’exemple de la Suisse ne conclut pas, parce que c’est un pays de montagnes. (Rires.)	Our adversaries claim that the example provided by the Swiss doesn’t count because it is a mountainous country. (Laughter)

11. (20 Feb 1848) - ES3 20 “Monita secreta” (The Secret Handbook)

Source: ES3.20 "Monita secreta" (The Secret Handbook), Le Libre-Échange, 20 Feb. 1848, no. 13 (2nd year), pp. 75-76l; OC2.67, pp. 452-58 Online; CW3 ES3.20, pp. 371-77.

This late sophism written on the eve of the February Revolution in 1848 contains Bastiat’s largest number of references to “the ricochet effect” before the appearance of the second part of the Economic harmonies (posthumously published in 1851). There are 5 references to “ricochet effects” in this essay, as well as to "rejaillir" (splash back). There is also a reference to “helicopter money” or “capital that had fallen from the moon”. Quote OC2, pp. 455-56 Online.

Il se peut qu’un beau jour les ouvriers, ouvrant les yeux, disent :	It might happen that one fine day the workers will open their eyes and say:
« Puisque vous forcez la cherté des produits par l’opération de la loi, vous devriez bien aussi, pour être justes, forcer la cherté des salaires par l’opération de la loi. »	“Since you force products to be expensive by recourse to the law, you ought also, in order to be fair, to force wages to be expensive by recourse to the law.”
Laissez tomber l’argument aussi longtemps que possible. Quand vous ne pourrez plus vous taire, répondez :	Let the argument drop for as long as you can. When you can no longer remain silent, answer:
La cherté des produits nous encourage à en faire davantage ; pour cela, il nous faut plus d’ouvriers. Cet accroissement de demande de main-d’œuvre hausse vos salaires, et c’est ainsi que nos priviléges s’étendent à vous par ricochet.	“The high price of products encourages us to make more of them, and in order to do this we need more workers. This increase in the demand for labor raises your wages and in this way, indirectly, our privileges extend to you by the ricochet or flow on effect.
L’ouvrier vous répondra peut-être : « Cela serait vrai si l’excédant de production excité par la cherté se faisait au moyen de capitaux tombés de la lune. Mais si vous ne pouvez que les soutirer à d’autres industries, n’y ayant pas augmentation de capital, il ne peut y avoir augmentation de salaires. Nous en sommes pour payer plus cher les choses qui nous sont nécessaires, et votre ricochet est une déception. »	Workers will perhaps then answer you: “This would be true if the excess production stimulated by high prices was achieved with capital that had fallen from the moon. But if all that you can do is to take it from other sectors of industry, there will be no increase in wages, since there has been no increase in capital. We now, accordingly, have to pay more for the things we need and your ricochet or flow on effect is a trick.”
Donnez-vous alors beaucoup de mal pour expliquer et embrouiller le mécanisme du ricochet.	At this point, take a great deal of trouble to explain and confuse the mechanism of the ricochet effect.
L’ouvrier pourra insister et vous dire :	Workers may insist and say to you:
« Puisque vous avez tant de confiance dans les ricochets, changeons de rôle. Ne protégez plus les produits, mais protégez les salaires. Fixez-les législativement à un taux élevé. Tous les prolétaires deviendront riches ; ils achèteront beaucoup de vos produits, et vous vous enrichirez par ricochet.  »	“Since you have so much confidence in these ricochet or flow on effects, let us change our roles. Do not protect products any more but protect wages. Set them by law at a high rate. All the proletarians will become wealthy; they will purchase a great many of your products and you will become wealthy by the ricochet or flow on effect.”

12. (February 1849) - “Paix et liberté ou le budget républicain” (Peace and Freedom or the Republican Budget)

Source: “Paix et liberté ou le budget républicain” (Peace and Freedom or the Republican Budget) (February 1849); OC5 9, pp. 407-64 Online; CW, vol. 2, pp. 282-327.

This was a report written to urge the French government to drastically cut the budget since tax receipts had dropped alarmingly because of the economic downturn brought about by the revolution and by massive increases in government expenditure. Here he talks about the impact that taxation (especially the new English income tax) has on the economy with all their “ricochets and counter-blows” suggesting that taxes on one group also has a bad influence on other groups who are not taxed the same way. Whereas Peel wanted to solve the budget problem by introducing new taxes, Bastiat wanted “a reduction in expenditure or the pure and simple abolition of taxes is more in harmony with this thinking than shifting the tax.” Quote OC5, pp. 426-27 Online.

Or, puisque les deux systèmes, dans la première partie, se confondent en ce qu’ils aspirent à fonder à la longue la prospérité du trésor public sur le soulagement des classes travailleuses, n’est il pas évident que la réduction des dépenses ou le dégrèvement pur et simple est plus en harmonie avec cette pensée que le déplacement de la taxe ?	However, since the first part of these two systems merge in that they aim to establish the ample funding of the public treasury over the long term by relieving the working classes, is it not obvious that a reduction in expenditure or the pure and simple abolition of taxes is more in harmony with this thinking than shifting the tax?
Je ne puis m’empêcher de croire que le second membre du système de Peel était de nature à contrarier le premier. C’est sans doute un bien immense que de mieux répartir les taxes. Mais enfin, quand on connaît un peu ces matières, quand on a étudié le mécanisme naturel des impôts, leurs ricochets, leurs contre-coups, on sait bien que ce que le fisc demande à une classe est payé en grande partie par une autre. Il n’est pas possible que les travailleurs anglais n’aient été atteints directement ou indirectement par l’income-tax. Ainsi, en les soulageant d’un côté, on les a, dans une mesure quelconque, frappés de l’autre.	I cannot help thinking that the second element of Peel’s plan was such as to contradict the first. Doubtless it did a great deal of good to spread the tax burden better. But when all is said and done, when you know a little about this subject, when you have studied the natural mechanism of taxes, their rebounds (ricochets) and repercussions, you know full well that what the tax authorities require from one class is paid for the most part by another. It is not possible for English workers not to have been affected, either directly or indirectly, by income tax. Thus though they were relieved on the one hand, they were to a certain extent afflicted on the other.
Mais laissons de côté ces considérations, et examinons s’il est possible, en présence des faits éclatants qui expliquent d’une manière si naturelle la crise anglaise, de l’attribuer à la réforme. L’éternel sophisme des gens décidés à incriminer une chose, c’est de lui attribuer tous les maux qui surviennent dans le monde. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. L’idée préconçue est et sera toujours le fléau du raisonnement, car, par sa nature, elle fuit la vérité quand elle a la douleur de l’entrevoir.	But let us leave these considerations aside and examine whether, in the face of the clear facts that explain the English crisis so naturally, it is possible to attribute it to the reform. The eternal false reasoning of those who are determined to incriminate something involves them in attributing to it all the evils that happen in the world. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The preconceived idea is and always will be the scourge of reason since, by its very nature, it flees the truth when it has the misfortune of glimpsing it.

13. (15 May 1850) - “Spoliation et loi” (Plunder and Law)

Source: “Spoliation et loi” (Plunder and Law), JDE 15 mai 1850; OC5, pp. 1-15 Online; CW2, pp. 266-76.

In this pamphlet, which was one of many he wrote during the Revolution and the Second Republic and only 6 months he died, Bastiat merely warns the protectionists that he is ready to counter their arguments with a more detailed explanation of the “sophism of ricochets”. he also hints that this approach can also be used in the analysis of the effects of theft and fraud. Quote OC5, p. 13 Online.

Mais, je l’ai déjà dit, je ne discute pas aujourd’hui les conséquences économiques de la Spoliation légale. Quand MM. les protectionistes le voudront, ils me trouveront prêt à examiner le sophisme des ricochets [8], qui du reste peut être invoqué pour tous les genres de vols et de fraudes.	However, as I have already said, I am not discussing today the economic consequences of legal plunder. When the supporters of protectionism are ready, they will find me ready to examine the ricochet sophism which, besides, can be quoted for all sorts of theft and fraud.” (FEE trans. “Le sophisme des ricochets” as “”the sophism of chain reactions”)
Bornons-nous aux effets politiques et moraux de l’échange législativement privé de liberté.	Let us limit ourselves (here) to the political and moral effects on exchange which has been deprived of liberty by law.

14. (July 1850) - WSWNS 3 “L'impôt” (Taxes)

Source: WSWNS 3 “L'impôt” (Taxes) (July 1850), pp. 13-18 Online; OC5, pp. 343-47; CW3, pp. 410-13.

WSWNS is the last major work Bastiat completed before his death in December. In it he provides an extended discussion of “the seen” and “the unseen” with occasional references to the ricochet effect. In the first passage he mocks the idea that taxes “are a live giving dew” because of the positive flow on effects they have when families dependent on tax money for their income spend their earnings in the economy. In the second passage he emphasizes the importance of examining all consequences of a tax or tariff in their entirety, especially those that seem to be invisible. Since the harm is broadly diffused it is hard to see, while the benefits are focused on a singly, very visible “point”. Quote WSWNS 3, p. 13 Online.

Ne vous est-il jamais arrivé d’entendre dire :	Haven't you ever heard the following said:
« L’impôt, c’est le meilleur placement ; c’est une rosée fécondante ? Voyez combien de familles il fait vivre, et suivez, par la pensée, ses ricochets sur l’industrie : c’est l’infini, c’est la vie ».	“Taxes are the best investment; they are a life-giving dew. See how many families gain a livelihood from them; work out their ricochet or flow on effects on industry; this is beyond measure, it is life.”
Pour combattre cette doctrine, je suis obligé de reproduire la réfutation précédente. L’économie politique sait bien que ses arguments ne sont pas assez divertissants pour qu’on en puisse dire : Repetita placent. Aussi, comme Basile, elle a arrangé le proverbe à son usage, bien convaincue que dans sa bouche, Repetita docent.	To combat this doctrine, I am obliged to repeat the preceding refutation. Political economy knows full well that its arguments are not amusing enough for people to say of them: Repetita placent. Repetitions are pleasing. For this reason, like Basile, it has arranged the proverb to suit itself, fully convinced that in its mouth Repetita docent. Repetitions teach.
Les avantages que les fonctionnaires trouvent à émarger, c’est ce qu’on voit. Le bien qui en résulte pour leurs fournisseurs, c’est ce qu’on voit encore. Cela crève les yeux du corps.	The advantages that civil servants find in drawing their salaries are what is seen. The benefit that results for their suppliers is again what is seen. It is blindingly obvious to the eyes.
Mais le désavantage que les contribuables éprouvent à se libérer, c’est ce qu’on ne voit pas, et le dommage qui en résulte pour leurs fournisseurs, c’est ce qu’on ne voit pas davantage, bien que cela dût sauter aux yeux de l’esprit.	However, the disadvantage felt by taxpayers in trying to free themselves is what is not seen and the damage that results for their suppliers is what is not seen either, although it is blindingly obvious to the mind. (FEE trans. “ses ricochets sur l’industrie” as “their indirect effects on industry”)

15. (July 1850) - WSWNS 12 “Droit au Travail, droit au Profit" (The Right to Work and the Right to Profit)

Source: WSWNS 12 "Droit au Travail, droit au Profit" (The Right to Work and the Right to Profit) (July 1850); pp. 76-79 Online ; OC5, pp. 390-92 Online; CW3, pp. 449-52..

The editor Paillottet added this note to the OC edition which was not in the published book. Quote OC5, p. 391 Online.

La société qui écoute ce sophiste, qui se charge d’impôts pour le satisfaire, qui ne s’aperçoit pas que la perte essuyée par une industrie n’en est pas moins une perte, parce qu’on force les autres à la combler, cette société, dis-je, mérite le fardeau qu’on lui inflige.	A society which listens to this sophist, which imposes taxes on itself in order to satisfy him, who doesn't see that the losses sustained by an industry is no less a loss because others are forced to make up for them; this society I say deserves the burden whicxh is inlfiected upon it.
Ainsi, on le voit par les nombreux sujets que j’ai parcourus : Ne pas savoir l’Économie politique, c’est se laisser éblouir par l’effet immédiat d’un phénomène ; la savoir, c’est embrasser dans sa pensée et dans sa prévision l’ensemble des effets (Note 11).	So one sees this in the numerous subjects which I have covered: not knowing about political economy lets one be blinded by the immediate effect of a phenomenon; knowing about it means accepting its ideas and accepting its foresight/forecast about the totality of these effects.
Note 11: Si toutes les conséquences d’une action retombaient sur son auteur, notre éducation serait prompte. Mais il n’en est pas ainsi. Quelquefois les bonnes conséquences visibles sont pour nous, et les mauvaises conséquences invisibles sont pour autrui, ce qui nous les rend plus invisibles encore. Il faut alors attendre que la réaction vienne de ceux qui ont à supporter les mauvaises conséquences de l’acte. C’est quelquefois fort long, et voici ce qui prolonge le règne de l’erreur.	Note 11: If all the consequences of an action were visited on its author, our education would be swift. But this does not happen. Sometimes the beneficial and visible consequences are in our favor and the harmful and invisible ones are for others to face, which makes them even more invisible. We then have to wait for a reaction from those who have had to bear the harmful consequences of the act. Sometimes this takes a long time and this is what preserves the reign of the error.
Un homme fait un acte qui produit de bonnes conséquences égales à 10, à son profit, et de mauvaises conséquences égales à 15, réparties sur 30 de ses semblables, de manière qu’il n’en retombe sur chacun d’eux que 1/2. — Au total, il y a perte et la réaction doit nécessairement arriver. On conçoit cependant qu’elle se fasse d’autant plus attendre que le mal sera plus disséminé dans la masse et le bien plus concentré en un point.(Ébauche inédite de l’auteur.)	A man carries out an action that produces beneficial consequences worth 10 in his favor and harmful consequences worth 15 spread over 30 of his fellow men, so that what was borne by each of them was just ½. In all, there was a loss and the reaction was bound to come. We can see, however, that it will be all the slower since the harm is more widely spread over the mass and the benefit more concentrated on a single point.

16. (July 1850) - WSWNS 7 “Restriction” (Trade Restrictions)

Source: WSWNS (July 1850) 7 “Restriction” (Trade Restrictions) ; pp. 40-47 Online.

Quote 1: Quote pp. 42-43 Online.

« Pour chaque quintal de fer que je livrerai au public, au lieu de recevoir dix francs, j’en toucherai quinze, je m’enrichirai plus vite, je donnerai plus d’étendue à mon exploitation, j’occuperai plus d’ouvriers.

"For each quintal of iron which I will supply to the public, instead of receiving 10 francs, I will get 15; I will get rich much more quickly, it will increase the extent of my exploitation (of the market), and I will employ more workers.

Mes ouvriers et moi ferons plus de dépense, au grand avantage de nos fournisseurs à plusieurs lieues à la ronde. Ceux-ci, ayant plus de débouchés, feront plus de commandes à l’industrie et, de proche en proche, l’activité gagnera tout le pays. Cette bienheureuse pièce de cent sous, que vous ferez tomber dans mon coffre-fort, comme une pierre qu’on jette dans un lac, fera rayonner au loin un nombre infini de cercles concentriques. »

My workers and I will spend more money to the great benefit of our suppliers for several leagues around. As these suppliers will have more markets, they will give more orders to various other producers, and from one sector to another the entire country will increase its activity. This fortunate hundred sou coin that you drop into my coffer will radiate outwards to the far corners of the country an infinite number of concentric circles, just like a stone thrown into a lake".

Quote 2: "La Restriction," pp. 43; Online.

Oui, l’écu détourné ainsi législativement vers le coffre-fort de M. Prohibant, constitue un avantage pour lui et pour ceux dont il doit encourager le travail. — Et si le décret avait fait descendre cet écu de la lune, ces bons effets ne seraient contrebalancés par aucuns mauvais effets compensateurs. Malheureusement, ce n’est pas de la lune que sort la mystérieuse pièce de cent sous, mais bien de la poche d’un forgeron, cloutier, charron, maréchal, laboureur, constructeur, en un mot, de Jacques Bonhomme, qui la donne aujourd’hui, sans recevoir un milligramme de fer de plus que du temps où il le payait dix francs. Au premier coup d’œil, on doit bien s’apercevoir que ceci change bien la question, car, bien évidemment, le Profit de M. Prohibant est compensé par la Perte de Jacques Bonhomme, et tout ce que M. Prohibant pourra faire de cet écu pour l’encouragement du travail national, Jacques Bonhomme l’eût fait de même. La pierre n’est jetée sur un point du lac que parce qu’elle a été législativement empêchée d’être jetée sur un autre.

Yes, the écu thus diverted by law to the coffers of Mr. Prohibant constitutes a benefit for him and for those whose work he is bound to stimulate. And if the decree had caused this écu to come down from the moon, these beneficial effects would not be counterbalanced by any compensating bad effects. Unfortunately, it is not from the moon that the mysterious hundred sou coin comes, but rather from the pockets of a blacksmith, nail-maker, wheelwright, farrier, ploughman or builder, in short from the pocket of Jacques Bonhomme, who will now pay it without receiving one milligram more of iron than he did at the time when he paid ten francs. At first sight you have to see that this changes the question considerably, since very clearly the Profit made by Mr. Prohibant is offset by the Loss made by Jacques Bonhomme, and everything that Mr. Prohibant is able to do with this écu to encourage national production, Jacques Bonhomme could also have done. The stone is merely cast into a particular point on the lake because it has been prevented by law from being cast into another.

17. (late 1850 - not 1st ed. but 1851 ed.) - Harmonies économiques, Chap. 11. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer)

Source: (late 1850 - not 1st ed. but 1851 ed.) - Harmonies économiques. Chap. XI. Producteur. - Consommateur (Producer, Consumer), pp. 336-54 Online.

Bastiat uses another word which has a connection to water, “glisser” (to slip or slide, or flow over) in this passage. Quote pp. 348-49 Online.

Ainsi, en France, on a soumis le vin à une foule d'impôts et d'entraves. Ensuite on a inventé pour lui un régime qui l'empêche de se vendre au dehors.	Thus in France wine industry has been subjected to a multitude of taxes and restrictions.Then they have created for it a regime which prevents it from selling (its products) abroad.
Voici par quels ricochets le mal tend à passer du producteur au consommateur. Immédiatement après que l'impôt et l'entrave sont mis en œuvre, le producteur tend à se faire dédommager. Mais la demande des consommateurs, ainsi que la quantité de vin, restant la même, il ne peut en hausser le prix. Il n'en tire d'abord pas plus après la taxe qu'avant. Et comme, avant la taxe, il n'en obtenait qu'une rémunération normale, déterminée par la valeur des services librement échangés, il se trouve en perte de tout le montant de la taxe. Pour que les prix s'élèvent, il faut qu'il y ait diminution dans la quantité de vin produite …..	It is by way of such ricochet that the harmful effects tend to pass from the producer to the consumer. Immediately after the tax and the obstruction come into force, the producer tends to have himself compensated. However, since consumer demand as well as the quantity of wine remain the same, he cannot raise the price. Initially, he does not make more after the tax than before. And since before the tax he obtained only a normal reward for it, determined by the value of the services exchanged freely, he finds himself losing by the total amount of the tax. In order for prices to rise, there has to be a reduction in the quantity of wine produced…
Le consommateur, le public est donc, relativement à la perte ou au bénéfice qui affectent d'abord telle ou telle classe de producteurs, ce que la terre est à l'électricité: le grand réservoir commun. Tout en sort; et, après quelques détours plus ou moins longs, après avoir engendré des phénomènes plus ou moins variés, tout y rentre.	In relation to the profit or loss that initially affect this or that class of producers, the consumer, the general public, is what earth is to electricity: the great common reservoir. Everything comes out of this reservoir, and after a few more or less long detours, after the generation of a more or less great variety of phenomena, everything returns to it.
Nous venons de constater que les résultats économiques ne font que glisser, pour ainsi dire, sur le producteur pour aboutir au consommateur, et que, par conséquent, toutes les grandes questions doivent être étudiées au point de vue du consommateur, si l'on veut en saisir les conséquences générales et permanentes.	We have just noted that the economic results just flow over producers, to put it this way, before reaching consumers, and that consequently all the major questions have to be examined from the point of view of consumers if we wish to grasp their general and permanent consequences. (p. 344 FEE edition electronic - only use of ricochet in entire book; “glisser” translated as “slip away”)

18. (late 1850 - not 1st ed. but 1851 ed.) - Harmonies économiques. Chap. 17 “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services)

Source: (late 1850 - not 1st ed. but 1851 ed.) - Harmonies économiques. Chap. 17 “Services privés, service public” (Private Services, Public Services), pp. 465-88 Online.

There are four uses of the word “ricochet” in this passage which indicates the important role it could play in criticizing the argument that even plunder might have PRE for ordinary taxpayers and consumers. Quote pp. 486-88 Online.

Ce qu'il y a de plus déplorable, c'est que la spoliation, quand elle s'exerce ainsi à l'aide de la loi, sans qu'aucun scrupule individuel lui fasse obstacle, finit par devenir toute une savante théorie qui a ses professeurs, ses journaux, ses docteurs, ses législateurs, ses sophismes, ses subtilités. Parmi les arguties traditionnelles qu'on fait valoir en sa faveur, il est bon de discerner celle-ci: Toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, un accroissement de demande est un bien pour ceux qui ont un service à offrir; puisque ce nouveau rapport entre une demande plus active et une offre stationnaire est ce qui augmente la valeur du service. De là on tire cette conclusion: La spoliation est avantageuse à tout le monde: à la classe spoliatrice qu'elle enrichit directement, aux classes spoliées qu'elle enrichit par ricochet. En effet, la classe spoliatrice, devenue plus riche, est en mesure d'étendre le cercle de ses jouissances. Elle ne le peut sans demander, dans une plus grande proportion, les services des classes spoliées. Or, relativement à tout service, accroissement de demande, c'est accroissement de valeur. Donc les classes légèrement volées sont trop heureuses de l'être, puisque le produit du vol concourt à les faire travailler.	What is even more appalling is that plunder, when it is exercised in this way with the aid of the law, without any scruple about sparing any individual who might oppose it, ends up becoming a completely scientific theory with its professors, newspapers, , doctors, legisalators, its own sophisms and subtle arguments. Among the traditional foolish arguments which have been put forward in its support, I want to mention this one in particular: "all things being equal" an increase in demand is good for those who havve a service to offer; since this new relationship between an increase in demand and an unchanged supply is what increases the value of the servioce. From this one draws the following conclusion: Plunder is advantageous for everybody: the plundering class that it enriches directly and the plundered classes that it enriches by means of the ricochet effect. Indeed, the plundering class that has become wealthier has the means of expanding the circle of its benefits. It cannot do this without demanding the services of the plundered classes to a greater extent. Now, relative to all services, an increase in demand leads to an increase in value. Thus the classes which have been stolen from only a little are very happly to be in this situation, since the product of the theft contributes to providing them with work.
Tant que la loi s'est bornée à spolier le grand nombre au profit du petit nombre, cette argutie a paru fort spécieuse et a toujours été invoquée avec succès. «Livrons aux riches des taxes mises sur les pauvres, disait-on; par là nous augmenterons le capital des riches. Les riches s'adonneront au luxe, et le luxe donnera du travail aux pauvres.» Et chacun, les pauvres compris, de trouver le procédé infaillible. Pour avoir essayé d'en signaler le vice, J'ai passé longtemps, je passe encore pour un ennemi des classes laborieuses	As long as the law limits itself to plundering the majority for the benefit of the minority, this foolish argument has seemed to be very plausible and has always been invoked with success. “Let us hand over to the wealthy the taxes levied on the poor,” it was said, “In this way we will increase the capital of the wealthy. The wealthy willa dornment themselves with luxury and the production of luxury goods provides work for the poor.” And everyone, including the poor, is ready to find the process foolproof. Because I endeavored to point out its error, I was and still am considered to be an enemy of the working classes.
Mais, après la Révolution de Février, les pauvres ont eu voix au chapitre quand il s'est agi de faire la loi. Ont-ils demandé qu'elle cessât d'être spoliatrice? Pas le moins du monde; le sophisme des ricochets était trop enraciné dans leur tête. Qu'ont-ils donc demandé? Que la loi, devenue impartiale, voulῦt bien spolier les classes riches à leur tour. Ils ont réclamé l'instruction gratuite, des avances gratuites de capitaux, des caisses de retraite fondées par l'État, l'impôt progressif, etc., etc…. Les riches se sont mis à crier: «O scandale! Tout est perdu! De nouveaux barbares font irruption dans la société!» Ils ont opposé aux prétentions des pauvres une résistance désespérée. On s'est battu d'abord à coups de fusil; on se bat à présent à coups de scrutin. Mais les riches ont-ils renoncé pour cela à la spoliation? Ils n'y ont pas seulement songé. l'argument des ricochets continue à leur servir de prétexte.	But following the February Revolution the poor had a voice in the chapter when the law was being drafted. Did they request that it should stop being a plunderer? Not at all; the sophism of ricochets was too deep-rooted in their minds. What did they ask for, then? That the law, that had now become impartial, should agree to plunder the wealthy in their turn. They demanded free education, the free advance of capital, retirement funds established by the State, progressive taxation etc. etc. … The wealthy began to howl: “How scandalous! All is lost! A new set of barbarians has burst into society!” They resisted the claims of the poor desperately. They once fought with guns but now with the ballot box. But have the wealthy abandoned plunder for all that? The thought has not even crossed their mind. They continue to use the argument of the ricochet effect as a pretext.” (FEE trans. “ricochet” trans. as “indirect effect of spending”p. 467)
On pourrait cependant leur faire observer que si, au lieu d'exercer la spoliation par l'intermédiaire de la loi, ils l'exerçaient directement, leur sophisme s'évanouirait; Si, de votre autorité privée, vous preniez dans la poche d'un ouvrier un franc qui facilitât votre entrée au théâtre, seriez-vous bien venu à dire à cet ouvrier: «Mon ami, ce franc va circuler et va donner du travail à toi et à tes frères?» Et l'ouvrier ne serait-il pas fondé à répondre: «Ce franc «circulera de même si vous ne me le volez pas; il ira au «boulanger au lieu d'aller au machiniste; il me procurera «du pain au lieu de vous procurer des spectacles?»	However, it might be pointed out to them that if, instead of carrying out plunder using the law as an intermediary, they exercised it directly, their sophism would vanish: “If on your individual authority you took from the pockets of a workman one franc to help to pay for your ticket to the theatre, would you be in any position to say to this workman: ‘My friend, this franc will be put into circulation and will give work to you and your brethren.”? And would the workman not be entitled to reply: “This franc would circulate even if you did not steal it from me. It would go to the baker instead of the stagehand; it would provide me with bread instead of entertainment for you.”
Il faut remarquer, en outre, que le sophisme des ricochets pourrait être aussi bien invoqué par les pauvres. Ils pourraient dire aux riches: «Que la loi nous aide à vous voler. Nous consommerons plus de drap, cela profitera à vos manufactures; nous consommerons plus de viande, cela profitera à vos terres; nous consommerons plus de sucre, cela profitera à vos armements.»	What is more, it should be noted that the sophism of the ricochet effect might also be invoked by the poor. They might say to the wealthy: “Let the law help us to rob you. We will consume more woolen cloth, and that will provide profits for your factories. We will consume more meat, and that will provide profits for your land. We will consume more sugar, and that will provide profits for your shipping.”
Malheureuse, trois fois malheureuse la nation où les questions se posent ainsi; où nul ne songe à faire de la loi la règle de la justice; où chacun n'y cherche qu'un instrument de vol à son profit, et où toutes les forces intellectuelles s'appliquent à trouver des excuses dans les effets éloignés et compliqués de la spoliation!	How unfortunate, how very, very unfortunate is the nation in which the question is put in this way, in which nobody dreams of making the law the rule of justice, in which each person seeks only a tool in order to steal for his own profit and in which all the intellectual effort is devoted to finding excuses for plunder in its distant and complex effects.

 

---

 

Appendix 2: Fuller Quotation on “ricochets” from Fourier’s Le Nouveau monde industriel (1829)↩

Source: Œuvres complètes de Ch Fourier. Tome sixième. Le Nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire (Paris: La Société pour la propagation et pour la réalisation de la théorie de Fourier, 1841), Section V. De l'équilibre général des passions, Chap. XXXVI "Des accords transcendants, ou ralliements de seize antipathies naturelles," p. 324-25.

Ambition. Traitons d'abord de l'ambition et de ses caractères haineux. Il existe en civilisation seize classes, non compris l'esclavage (IV, 388); on voit régner parmi toutes ces classes des haines corporatives; l'ordre civilisé, avec ses verbiages de douce fraternité du commerce et de la morale, n'engendre qu'un labyrinthe de discordes qu'on peut distinguer,	Ambition. Firstly, let us deal with ambition and its hateful charateristics. In our civilised world there exists sixteen classes, not counting slavery (IV, 388); there one sees collective hatred the rule among all the claases ; the civilised order, with all its talk of the sweet/soft fraternity of commerce, and of morality, gives rise only to a labyrinth of disharmony, of which we can distinguish the following:
en échelle ascendante de haines, en échelle descendante de mépris.	an ascending ladder of hatred and a descending ladder of contempt.
Observons cette échelle dans les cinq classes nommées la cour, la noblesse, la bourgeoisie, le peuple et la populace; les cinq castes se haïssent, et chacune des cinq est subdivisée en trois sous-castes, comme haute, moyenne et basse noblesse; haute, moyenne et basse bourgeoisie, etc.: la haute méprise la moyenne qui, à son tour, méprise la basse; puis, la basse hait la moyenne qui, réciproquement, hait la haute.	Lets us examine this ladder in the five classes called the court, the nobility, the bourgeoisie, the people, and the (broader) population; the five castes hate each other, and each of the five is subdivided into three under-castes, as in high, middle, and low nobility; high, middle, and low bourgoisie, etc. : the high caste has contempt for the middle caste which, in turn, has contempt for the low caste; then, the low caste hates the middle caste which, in turn, hates the high caste.
Examinons plus en détail ce ricochet de haines en échelle ascendante, et de mépris en échelle descendante. La noblesse de cour méprise la noblesse non présentée; la noblesse d'épée méprise celle de robe; les seigneurs à clocher méprisent les gentil-lâtres ; ceux-ci méprisent les parvenus anoblis, qui méprisent les castes bourgeoises. On retrouve dans la bourgeoisie pareille échelle de mépris; les banquiers et financiers méprisés des nobles, s'en consolent en méprisant les gros marchands et gros propriétaires; ceux-ci tout fiers de leur rangc d'éligibles, méprisent le petit marchand et le petit propriétaire qui ne sont qu'électeurs, mais qui, à ce titre, méprisent les savants et autres castes moins pécunieuses. Ensuite la basse bourgeoisie méprise les 3 castes de peuple dont elle se pique d'éviter les manières; enfin parmi le peuple et la populace, combien de subdivisions haineuses, telles que les compagnons du devoir et du gavot!	Let us examine in more detail this ricochet of hatred in the ascending ladder, and of contempt in the descending ladder. The nobility at court has contempt for the nobility which is absent; the nobility of the sword has contempt for that of the robe; the seigneurs of the parish have contempt for the lordlings (lesser seigneurs); the latter have contempt for the recently ennobled, who have contempt for the bourgeois castes. One finds in the bourgeoisie the same ladder of contempt: the bankers and financiers have contempt for the nobles who console themselves by having contempt for the large merchants and landowners; the latter who are very proud of their acquired rank (to stand for election) have contempt for the small merchants and landowners who are only voters, but who, because of this, have contempt for the intellectuals and other less well-off castes (who are not). Then the low bourgeoisie has contempt for the three castes of the people, whose manners they find offensive and try to avoid. Finally, among the people and the general population there are so many hateful divisions such as those between craftsmen/journeymen and their rivals "les compagnons du gavot"!
Telle est la douce fraternité du commerce et de la morale; tel est le savoir-faire de nos sciences philanthropiques; ricochet de mépris des supérieurs aux inférieurs, et ricochet de haines des inférieurs aux supérieurs.	This is the sweet fraternity of commerce and of morality; this is the "savoir-faire" of our philanthropic sciences; the ricochet of contempt of superiors to their inferiors; and the ricochet of hatred of inferiors to their superiors.
Lorsqu'on voit en civilisation quelques lueurs de ralliement entre castes, comme à Naples où la noblesse protège les lazzarones, en Espagne où le clergé riche protège les mendiants, cette alliance de castes extrêmes n'est qu'une source de vices, l'état civilisé ne créant que des ralliements subversifs et malfaisants, soit en amour, où les rapprochements entre les grands et les femmes du peuple ne sont que des germes de désordre, par la naissance d'enfants bâtards, ou par des mariages disparates qui brouillent les familles; soit en ambition, où la classe opulente ne se rapproche du peuple que pour machiner des intrigues funestes au repos public, des affaires de parti, des lignes d'oppression.	When one sees in our civilisation some glimmers of unity between the castes, as in Naples where the nobility protects the lazzarones/beggars, in Spain where the rich clergy protects the beggars, this alliance between the extremes of caste is only a source of vice; the civilsed state is only creating some subversive and harmful forms of unity, whether it be in (the area of) love where the coming together of the powerful and women of the people are only seeds of disorder by means of the birth of bastard children, or by disparate marriages which tears apart families; or whether it be in (the field of) ambition where the opulent class only comes close to the people in order to manufacture intrigues which are harmful to public tranquility, affairs of (rival) parties, and policies which lead to oppression.

 

---

 

Appendix 3: Perronet Thompson and the “Double Incidence of Loss” (1834)↩

Contre-Enquête: “two gains”

Source

Contre-Enquête. Par l’Homme aux Quarante Ecus. Contenant un Examen des Arguments et des Principes mis en avant dans l’Enquête Commercial (Paris: Charpentier, 1834). [counter-inquiry. by the man with the forty crowns a year. containing an examination of the arguments and principles advanced in the french commercial inquiry]. Published in The Westminster Review, 1 January, 1835 and in Exercises (1842), vol. 3, pp. 177-213. Exercises, Political and Others. In Six volumes. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1842).

*40.) A. We are exceedingly sorry that the persons who, in their writings, have attacked the existing system, have not come before the council to defend their opinion there. If instead of a system founded on probabilities and surmises, they had opposed to us facts, we could have answered them. But what astonishes us more than all, is that the press which calls itself so liberal proves it so ill in the present case; for it refuses to note our observations. |Answer of M. Barbet).— Ib.

40.) There is no difficulty about having facts. Why has nobody asked the witness under examination, “If there was liberty of trade, do you think that supplying the goods to be given for the foreign cloths would make a gain [un gain] to anybody, and to what amount? Do you think that the expenditure of the difference of price by the consumer [la différence du prix pa la consommateur] would make a gain to anybody, and to what amount? Do you think that these two gains put together might equal what you ould lose [deux gains ensemble pussent égaler vos pertes]? Do you think that after this, the gain of consumers, who are France, would stand out as nett gain?” It is pity there should be any scarcity of facts. (p. 211)

41.) If the removal of the prohibition could open us new channels for our industry, or increase the total of consumption which our manufactories supply, I could imagine some use in the measure. But if, as is my belief, it would have no effect but to bring the productions of foreigners into our market to share in our consumption, I am bound to regard the measure as ruinous, and I protest against it in the name of the general interest of my country.—Ib.

41.) The liberty of commerce would increase the aggregate total of consumption [la masse de la consommation collective], by all the difference of prices; in the same manner as the quantity of wood a man cuts, would be increased by the liberty of using a sharp hatchet instead of a blunt one. [p. 213]*

Letters of a representative to his constituents: lose the difference of price twice over

Source

Thomas Perronet Thompson, Letters of a representative to his constituents, during the session of 1836. To which is added, A running commentary on anti-commercial fallacies, reprinted from the Spectator of 1834. With additions and corrections. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1836), pp. 188-89.

(“A Running Commentary on Anti-Commercial Fallacies” . Reprinted from The Spectator, 15 February to 28 June 1834, in Letters of a Representative (1836), pp. 135-209.)

[187]

*165.) No one has ever denied cheapness to be an advantage ; but it would be attained more safely, more usefully, by the concurrence of national labour, than by an unseasonable rivalry of foreign labour.—Ib.

A. Here the Commission let out the cloven foot. They recommend the French public to believe, that it is advisable to go on paying unnecessary prices with a national loss, in hopes that at some undefined and undefinable time the French monopolist will offer the article as cheaply as the French free trader. Their argument is of the same calibre as if they said to the owner of land, "Do not lay out your capital on [188] the portion of your land you know will pay; but lay it out on the portion you know will not, in hopes that it will do by-and-by." This is what M.Thiers would call making a conquest of the land.

166.) Your Commission preferring the light of experience to the arguments of theory, has devoted its time to the investigation of facts; and convinced that there can be no general maxim applicable to the numerous interests embraced by a customs' system, has called before it the different branches of Industry; it has studied their situation, in order to fix the degree of protection that should be granted to them; and, in fixing each of the articles of the tariff, it has diminished or augmented them, according as that fixation seemed necessary and profitable to the interest which they regulate. -Ib.

A. The meaning of the Commission is this. “That the monopolists gain," they say, "we will call experience. That other people lose the difference of price twice over, we will call theory. And then we will say that your Commission prefers the light of experience to the arguments of theory." The truth being all the time, that the fact of other people losing the difference twice over, is just as much matter of experience as the other, if the Commission will only take the experience of the proper persons.

The Commission, however, think they have settled the point to all eternity; and they proceed without hesitation to avow, that in fixing the articles of the tariff, they pay not the slightest attention to the fact that France is the loser by each and every act of robbery, but confine themselves entirely to the question whether the several robbers declare their respective robberies to be "profitable" to themselves.

167.) Consequently, the basis of the decisions of the Commission has been the known utility of the object, and a comparison with the sum paid as a smuggling insurance. -Ib.

A. That is to say, the basis of the decisions of the Commission has been the magnitude of the sum gained to the monopolists and lost twice over by the rest of France,-(viz. once by a corresponding diminution of business to some other French traders, and once more by the loss to the consumers, who are the nation), - combined with a due and direct reference to the check arising from the smuggler.

The understanding of the misery of this basis, depends upon a clear comprehension of the way in which the gain to the [189] monopolist is lost twice over by other parties; or what in England has been called the double incidence of the loss. If the loss only fell once, or to its simple amount, there would be a balance, and all that was lost through the foolery would be the expense of maintaining custom-houses. But it is because the loss falls twice over, that the law literally says to the unhappy Frenchman, (to parody the Parisian's description of the Veto), "Throw that franc into the sea; and thou must throw it."

168.) Such a state of things is highly detrimental to morality; it excites, it encourages, disobedience to the laws; it is ruinous to regular trade, it is a burden on those paying taxes, and without any advantage to the trader, who degrades himself by employing it. —lb.

A. Oddly enough, this is not a description of the system of throwing the third franc into the sea, but of smuggling. Nations will probably continue to be obliged to throw away the third franc, till they come to a united opinion, on what has been openly avowed in England, — that "the smuggler is God Almighty's knight-errant, in defence of honest people against knaves and blockheads."

169.) The above, gentlemen, are the principles which have directed the Commission in its labours. You will judge whether it has properly performed the task you confided to it.—lb.

A. The principles are, that any French trader shall be allowed to injure other French traders and the nation to double the amount of his own gain, to any extent he may declare he finds convenient and the smuggler will allow. And for this boon, the 200,000 electors are to return a Chamber that will adhere to the existing order of things. It is very probable, that the Commission "has properly performed the task confided to it."*

————————

[204]

*205.) He thought that the difference was in no point more plainly shown than in the disregard which had been manifested towards the adoption of any one of the safe and ingenious plans for the suppression of smuggling in foreign silks which were suggested in evidence before the House of Commons.—Ib.

A. Can he not discern, that the Government is met by the opinion everywhere gaining ground, that smuggling is the natural way of letting down an enormous wrong; that the smuggler is in fact a meritorious member of society, toiling, and with considerable risk, in neutralizing the absurdity of governments, and saving thousands upon thousands annually to the community?*

————————

[207]

*212.) Ribbon Trade. Morning Post. House of Commons. June 20, 1834. —What he intended to do was to promote the general interests without sacrificing in the least any particular interest.

A. What he intended to do, was to take from some other trade or trades an amount exactly equal to what he wants to give to the maker of ribbons, and to saddle the community in the persons of the wearers of ribbons, with a gratuitous loss equal to the difference of price besides.

213.) By giving the particular protection he required, no interest would be injured, whilst one—the interest of those engaged in the manufacture of ribbons —would be materially benefited.— Ib.

A. "No interest would be injured," means no interest that can be got to bawl all together. Raise a sum for the ribbon-weavers, by taking double the amount from somebody else; only take care that the loss is divided among a greater number, and then the weavers will be easiest collected to make a noise.

214.) The only possible means by which these unfortunate people could be relieved from their distress consisted in what he meant to propose.—Ib.

A. There are two or three very possible ways. If it can be proved they want it as charity, give them 50,000l. But do not do it by a course so superhumanly unreasonable, as giving them 50,000l. through the process of taking 100,000l. from somebody else and throwing half of it away by the road. This is one way. But another way would be, to let the community at large buy food; and then the ribbon-weavers, if not instantly, yet by as quick a process as is practicable, would be in part absorbed and the rest relieved. There will always be some ribbon-weaving that can be better done at home than abroad. Remember, too, that this process would have taken place gradually in time past, if it had not been prevented by the system of cockering up the useless trades by prohibitions.*

Bibliography↩

Abbreviations

• ES1: Economic Sophisms Series I (1846)
• ES2: Economic Sophisms Series II (1848)
• ES3: a third series which the editors have constructed from FB's OC
• WSWNS: What is Seen and What is Not Seen (1850)
• OC: Oeuvres complètes de Frédéric Bastiat (1855, 1864), ed. Prosper Paillottet.
• CW: Liberty Fund's edition of The Collected Works of Frédéric Bastiat (2011-)
• JDE: Journal des économistes (1841-)
• LE: Le Libre-Échange (1846-48)
• JB: Jacques Bonhomme (June 1848)
• SEP: Société d'économie politique (Political Economy Society)
• LF: Liberty Fund
• FEE: Foundation for Economic Education

Papers by David M. Hart on Bastiat and French Political Economy

On French Political Economy in general

David M. Hart, “The Paris School of Liberal Political Economy” in The Cambridge History of French Thought, ed. Michael Moriarty and Jeremy Jennings (Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 301-12.

• a longer version is “The Paris School of Liberal Political Economy, 1803-1853”. A Paper given at the History of Economic Thought Society of Australia Annual Conference, Melbourne VIC, 22 Sept. 2022. Online.

David M. Hart, "For Whom the Bell Tolls: The School of Liberty and the Rise of Interventionism in French Political Economy in the Late 19thC," and a translation of Frédéric Passy, “The School of Liberty” in Journal of Markets and Morality, vol. 20, Number 2 (Fall 2017), pp. 383-412. JMM website and JMM website.

• my online version "Frédéric Passy and ‘The School of Liberty’ (April, 1890)" (Dec. 2017) Online.

On Bastiat in particular

David M. Hart, "A Reader's Guide to the Works of Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)" (Jan. 2018) OLL.

David M. Hart, “Bastiat on the Seen and The Unseen: An Intellectual History” (June, 2022) Online.

David M. Hart, “Bastiat's Theory of Harmony and Disharmony: An Intellectual History” (December, 2023). online.

David M. Hart, “Negative Railways, Turtle Soup, talking Pencils, and House owning Dogs: ‘The French Connection’ and the Popularization of Economics from Say to Jasay" (Sept. 2014; June 2024) Online.

• a paper originally written for a Symposium on Tony de Jasay following his death in 2014. A shorter version was published as: David M. Hart, "Broken Windows and House-Owning Dogs: The French Connection and the Popularization of Economics from Bastiat to Jasay," Symposium on Anthony de Jasay, The Independent Review (Summer 2015), vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 61-84. IR Website.

David M. Hart, “On Ricochets, Hidden Channels, and Negative Multipliers: Bastiat on calculating the Economic Costs of ‘The Unseen’ ” (June, 2024). Online.

David M. Hart, “Reassessing Frédéric Bastiat as an Economic Theorist”. A paper presented to the Free Market Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (October, 2015). Online.

David M. Hart, et al. Liberty Matters online discussion at the OLL website:

• Robert Leroux, “Bastiat and Political Economy” Liberty Matters (July 1, 2013), with response essays by Donald J. Boudreaux, Michael C. Munger, and David M. Hart. OLL.
• David M. Hart, "Reassessing Bastiat's Economic Harmonies after 160 Years" Liberty Matters (May 2019), with response essays by Donald J. Boudreaux, Jörg Guido Hülsmann, and Joseph T. Salerno. OLL.

David M. Hart, “Frédéric Bastiat's Economic Harmonies: A Reassessment after 170 Years” (Dec., 2019). Online.

David M. Hart, "Frédéric Bastiat’s Distinction between Legal and Illegal Plunder". A Paper given at the Molinari Society Session “Explorations in Philosophical Anarchy” at the Pacific Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, Seattle WA (April, 2012). Online.

David M. Hart, "The Liberal Roots of American Conservatism: Bastiat and the French Connection". A paper given to the Philadelphia Society meeting on “The Roots of American Conservatism - and its Future”. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (March, 2015 ). Online.

David M. Hart, "Vocabulary Clusters in the Thought of Frédéric Bastiat" (July, 2024). Online.

David M. Hart, "Frédéric Bastiat on Plunder, Class, and the State" (Jan. 2024). Online. This essay was written to accompany an anthology of Bastiat's writings on plunder, class, and the state: Frédéric Bastiat, La Spoliation, la Classe, et l’État (Plunder, Class, and State): An Anthology of Texts (1845-1851). Edited and with an Introduction by David M. Hart (Sydney: The Pittwater Free Press, 2023). The anthology is in French Online.

Works by Bastiat

Works by Bastiat online

At my website (an overview):

• A List of the Collected Works of Bastiat
  • old version: "The Collected Works of Frédéric Bastiat in Chronological Order" Online
  • new version: "The Works of Frédéric Bastiat" - a sortable table with links to his works online. Online.
• "Bastiat's Collected Sophisms: Economic and Political" Online

The Collected Works:

• Oeuvres complètes de Frédéric Bastiat, mises en ordre, revues et annotées d’après les manuscrits de l’auteur. Ed. Prosper Paillottet and biographical essay by Roger de Fontenay. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1st ed. 1854-55, 6 vols; 2nd ed. 1862-64, 7 vols).
  • Tome Premier, Correspondance, Mélanges (1862) PDF; online
  • Tome Deuxième. Le Libre-Échange (1862) PDF; Online
  • Tome troisième. Cobden et la Ligue ou L'agitation anglaise pour la Liberté des Échange (1864) PDF; Bastiat's Introduction only Online
  • Tome Quatrième. Sophismes Économiques, Petits Pamphlets (1863) PDF; Online
  • Tome Cinquième. Sophismes Économiques Petits Pamphlets II (1854) Facs.; Online
  • *Tome sixième. Harmonies économiques (1864) PDF. For the HTML version, see the 1851 edition Online.
  • Tome Septième. Essais - Ébauches - Correspondance (1864) PDF; Online.

French editions of his major published works:

• Frédéric Bastiat, Cobden et la ligue, ou l’Agitation anglaise pour la liberté du commerce (Paris: Guillaumin, 1845). Whole book in PDF; “Introduction,” pp. i-xcvi. Online.
• Frédéric Bastiat, Sophismes économiques (Paris: Guillaumin, 1846). Published Dec. 1845 or Jan. 1846. PDF; Online; my 2 vols. in 1 version (1846 and 1848 ed). Online; CW3 ES1, pp. 3-110.
• Frédéric Bastiat, Sophismes économiques. Deuxième série. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1848). Published Jan. 1848. PDF; Online; my 2 vols. in 1 version (1846 and 1848 ed). Online; CW3 ES2, pp. 113-253.
• Frédéric Bastiat, La Loi. Par M. F. Bastiat. Membre correspondent de l'Institut. représentant du peuple a l'assemblée nationale. (Paris: Librairie de Guillaumin et Cie, 1850). PDF; Online.
• Frédéric Bastiat, Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas, ou l’Économie politique en une leçon. Par M. F. Bastiat. Représentant du Peuple à l’Assemblée Nationale, Membre correspondant de l’Institut (Paris: Guillaumin, 1850). PDF; Online.
• Frédéric Bastiat, Harmonies économiques. 2me Édition. Augmentée des manuscrits laissés par l’auteur. Publiée par la Société des amis de Bastiat. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1851). PDF; Online. The first edition appeared in 1850 and contained the first 10 chapters. PDF.

Liberty Fund's Edition of his Books

Liberty Fund's edition of Bastiat's The Collected Works of Frédéric Bastiat, Jacques de Guenin, General Editor; Dennis O’Keeffe, Translation Editor; David M. Hart, Academic Editor, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2011-).

• Vol. 1: The Man and the Statesman: The Correspondence and Articles on Politics (2011) OLL.
• Vol. 2: The Law, The State, and Other Political Writings, 1843-1850 (2012) OLL
• Vol. 3: Economic Sophisms and What is Seen and What is Not Seen (2017) OLL

The editions by FEE:

• Bastiat, The Law, trans. Dean Russell (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1950). OLL
• Economic Sophisms (First and Second Series), trans from the French and Edited by Arthur Goddard (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1968) (1st edition D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 1964. Copyright William Volker Fund). OLL
• Selected Essays on Political Economy, translated from the French by Seymour Cain. Edited by George B. de Huszar (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1968) (1st edition D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 1964. Copyright William Volker Fund). OLL.
  • “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” in Selected Essays on Political Economy (above). OLL.
• Economic Harmonies, translated from the French by W. Hayden Boyers. Edited by George B. de Huszar (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1964) (1st edition D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 1964. Copyright William Volker Fund). OLL.

Bastiat's journals and magazines:

• Le Libre-échange: Journal du travail agricole, industriel et commercial. The weekly journal of the Association pour la liberté des échanges. It began on 29 November 1846 as Le Libre-échange: Journal du travail agricole, industriel et commercial but changed its name to the simpler Libre échange at the start of its second year of publication. It closed on 16 April 1848 as a result of the revolution. See also a compilation of the first 2 year’s issues Le Libre-échange, journal de l’association pour la liberté des échanges (Paris: Guillaumin, 1847). PDFs via this link page
• La République française. Daily journal. Signed: the editors: F. Bastiat, Hippolyte Castille, Molinari. Appeared 26 February to 28 March. 30 issues. PDFs via this link opage.
• Jacques Bonhomme. Editor J. Lobet. Founded by Bastiat with Gustave de Molinari, Charles Coquelin, Alcide Fonteyraud, and Joseph Garnier. It appeared approximately weekly with 4 issues between 11 June to 13 July; with a break between 24 June and 9 July. See the complete set as images Online; and transcription of the French text: no. 1 Online; no. 2 Online; no. 3 Online; no. 4 Online.
  • New edition: Jacques Bonhomme. L'éphémère journal de Frédéric Bastiat and Gustave de Molinari (11 juin - 13 juillet 1848). Receuil de tous les articles, augmenté d'une introduction, par Benoît Malbranque (Paris: Institut Coppet, octobre 2014).

Other Primary Sources

Charles Fourier, Œuvres complètes de Ch. Fourier. Tome sixième. Le Nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire (Paris: La Société pour la propagation et pour la réalisation de la théorie de Fourier, 1841).

Charles Nodier, Paul Ackermann, Vocabulaire de la langue française: extrait de la dernière édition du Dictionnaire de l'Académie publié en 1835, ed. Charles Nodier, Paul Ackermann (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1836). See also the online dictionaries at Centre National de Resources Textuelles et Lexicales (CNRTL) Online elsewhere.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la propriété?: ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement. Premier mémoire (Paris: Prévot, 1841).

Louis Reybaud, Jérôme Paturot à la recherche d'une position sociale. Édition illustrée par J. J. Grandville (Paris: J.J. Dubochet, 1846.

Thomas Perronet Thompson, Letters of a representative to his constituents, during the session of 1836. To which is added, A running commentary on anti-commercial fallacies, reprinted from the Spectator of 1834. With additions and corrections. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1836), pp. 188-89.

Thomas Perronet Thompson, Contre-Enquête. Par l’Homme aux Quarante Ecus. Contenant un Examen des Arguments et des Principes mis en avant dans l’Enquête Commercial (Paris: Charpentier, 1834).

Thomas Perronet Thompson, "Counter-Inquiry. By the Man with the Forty Crowns a Year. Containing an Examination of the Arguments and Principles advanced in the French Commercial Inquiry" published in The Westminster Review, 1 January, 1835, and in Exercises, Political and Others. In Six volumes. (London: Effingham Wilson, 1842).

Secondary Sources

Baslé, Maurice and Alain Gélédan. “Frédéric Bastiat, théoricien et militant du libre-échange,” in Breton, Yves and Michel Lutfalla, eds. L’Économie politique en France au XIXe siècle (Paris: Economica, 1991), pp. 83-110.

Breton, Yves. “The Société d’économie politique of Paris (1842–1914).” In The Spread of Political Economy and the Professionalisation of Economists: Economic Societies in Europe, America and Japan in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Massimo M. Augello and Marco E. L. Guidi. London: Routledge, 2001.

Breton, Yves and Michel Lutfalla, eds. L’Économie politique en France au XIXe siècle (Paris: Economica, 1991).

Demier, Francis. “Les économistes libéraux et la crise de 1848,” in Pierre Dockès et al., eds. Les Traditions économiques françaises, 1848-1939 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2000), pp. 773-84.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 5. “Frédéric Bastiat: Between the French and Marginalist Revolutions,” 15 Great Austrian Economists, edited with and Introduction by Randall G. Holcombe (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999), pp. 59-69.

Frédéric Bastiat, Œuvres économiques, textes présentés par Florin Aftalion. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, Collection Libre Échange, 1983).

French Liberalism in the 19th Century: An anthology. Edited by Robert Leroux and David M. Hart (London: Routledge, 2012).

Hayek, Friedrich August von. “Introduction”, Selected Essays on Political Economy, trans. Seymour Cain, ed. George B. de Huszar (Irvington-on-Hudsnon: Foundation for Economic Education, 1975).

Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946).

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido (JGH). “Bastiat, Frédéric (1801-1850)”, in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, eds. Ronald Hamowy et al. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), pp. 25-27.

Jörg Guido Hülsmann, “Bastiat’s Legacy in Economics,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 4, no. 4, Winter 2001, pp. 55-70.

Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines, vol. 11, no. 2/3 (Jun 2001). Editor-in-Chief: Garello, Pierre. Special issue devoted to papers given at the Bastiat bicentennial conference. Online elsewhere.

• (1.) Hebert, Robert F., "Frederic Bastiat - "A Man for All Reasons"."
• (2.) Barry, Norman, "Frédéric Bastiat: The Economics and Philosophy of Freedom."
• (3.) Arnaud Pellissier Tanon, "The Labour Theory of Value and Social Justice. The Teachings of Social Catholic Criticisms of Bastiat's Doctrine"
• (4.) Tanon, Arnaud Pellissier, "The Labour Theory of Value and Social Justice. The Teachings of Social Catholic Criticisms of Bastiat's Doctrine"
• (5.) Cubeddu, Raimondo and Masala, Antonio, " Right, Providence, and Order: Frédéric Bastiat's Laissez-Faire"
• (6.) Rasmussen, Douglas B., "Natural Law and Natural Rights: Bastiat Vindicated"
• (7.) Alvarado, Eduardo Mayora, "In Honor and Memory of Frédéric Bastiat´s The Law"
• (8.) Bramoullé, Gérard, "Frédéric Bastiat: Praxeologist Theoretician"
• (9.) Garello, Jacques, "To Err is Human: Bastiat on Value and Progress"
• (10.) Thornton, Mark, "Frédéric Bastiat as an Austrian Economist”, pp. 387-98.
• (11.) Dorn, James A., "Bastiat: A Pioneer in Constitutional Political Economy"
• (12.) Lane, Georges, ""Bastiat's Law""
• (13.) Salerno, Joseph T., "The Neglect of Bastiat's School by English-Speaking Economists: A Puzzle Resolved"
• (14.) Liggio, Leonard, "Bastiat and the French School of Laissez-Faire"

Leroux, Robert. Political Economy and Liberalism in France: The Contributions of Frédéric Bastiat (London: Routledge, 2011). This book contains the best bibliography on Bastiat to date.

Leter, Michel. “Éléments pour une étude de l’École de Paris (1803-1852), in Histoire du libéralisme en Europe, eds. Philippe Nemo and Jean Petitot (Pais: Presses Universitaires de France, 2006), pp. 429-509.

Minart, Gérard. Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850). Le croisé de libre-échange (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2004).

Minart, Gérard. Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), Pour un gouvernement à bon marché dans un milieu libre (Paris: Éditions de l'Institut Charles Coquelin, 2012).

Nataf, Philippe. “La vie et l’oeuvre de Charles Coquelin (1802-1852),” in Histoire du libéralisme en Europe, eds. Philippe Nemo and Jean Petitot (Pais: Presses Universitaires de France, 2006), pp.511-30.

Roche, George Charles, III. Frédéric Bastiat: A Man Alone. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1971.

Rothbard, Murray N. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. 2 vols. Vol. 1: Economic Thought before Adam Smith. Vol. 2: Classical Economics. (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006).

Russell, Dean. Frédéric Bastiat: Ideas and Influence. Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1969.