[Created: 24 September, 2024]
[Revised: 30 September, 2024] |
This paper was presented at the History of Economic Thought Society of Australia Annual Conference 26-27 September, 2024, at Alphacrucis University College, Parramatta, Sydney NSW.
The study of the term "ceteris paribus" (CP) is complicated by the variety of spellings of the Latin phrase and the different equivalent expressions or translations which were used in English, French, and German language works of political economy.
I will show some screen snapshots of the frequency of the occurrence of key phrases in Google Books between 1600 and 2020 to show its fluctuating use.
The essence of the term is that, given the existence of economic phenomena which are complex in nature and which have many possible causes or factors which influence them and their outcomes, in order for economists to understand what is going on it is necessary to hold all of these causes/factors constant (the "other things" which are equal) (at least in one's own mind in a kind of "thought experiment") except for one cause/factor which is "allowed" to change. The outcome is then attributed to the one cause/factor which was allowed to change, and not the other causes which were held constant.
A key assumption behind the notion of CP was that the same cause would have the same effect regardless of the time or place of its occurrence. It was sometimes expressed as being a "chain of cause and effect". It was "considered to be universal" and, in the language of the late 18th century when economic ideas were being developed, was a kind of "natural law of economics" comparable to the "natural laws of physics. I examine what political economists in the late 18th and early 19th century thought about the "natural laws of economics," since in their view, only if causes and their effects were fixed by natural laws did it make sense to predict what might happen if one cause was changed while the others were held constant.
For most political economists who used the expression CP this was enough in their minds. They used the term in a fairly perfunctory fashion and then moved on to make their main point. However, a handful of economists were not satisfied to do only this but went on to ponder some of the complexities and problems of using a "thought experiment" like CP, most notably J.S. Mill and Frédéric Bastiat in the 1840s. These two theorists have provided me with the framework within which to trace the history of this concept
The standard account of its history is that the modern use of CP began with Alfred Marshall in his Principles of Economics (1890), with his notion of "the pound", but this is very incomplete as the term (or its variants) was used a great deal in the early and mid-19th century.
In this paper I want to examine the intellectual history of the idea of CP over the 100 odd years before Marshall by looking at the two streams of thought in which it emerged and was developed most fully, namely the French tradition of J.B. Say and Frédéric Bastiat, and the English tradition of Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill.
Mill and Say both saw some of the concept's weaknesses and gaps in its capacity to explain complex economic phenomena, or in other words when "ceteris non paribus" (when other things were not equal") and the "chain of cause and effect" seemed to be broken. They both came up with interesting ideas about 1.) "disturbing causes" / "des causes perturbatrices" and 2.) "fallacies of misobservation" / "ce qu'on ne voit pas" (the unseen) which they believed needed to be taken into account by economists so they could become "good observers" (Mill) or "good economists" (Bastiat).
The paper includes an Appendix in which I list the key passages in the works of Mill and Bastiat where these terms are used.
I conclude the paper with an "economic poem".
In the article on "Ceteris paribus" in the New Palgrave John K. Whittaker makes the rather dismissive remark that: [1]
The term ‘ceteris paribus’ has no clearly settled technical meaning among economists, so that an attempt to chronicle its usage would be both difficult and unrewarding.
To someone interested in the history of economic thought this statement by Whittaker is like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull. It is precisely because its meaning is unclear today that it is important for us to see when and why the term appeared, how it was used by economists in the past, what its strengths and weaknesses are as an analytical and explanatory tool, and when (if at all) the concept should be used or modified in order to better understand the economic world in which we live.
The study of the term "ceteris paribus" (henceforth "CP") is complicated by the variety of spellings of the Latin phrase and the different equivalent expressions or translations which were used in English, French, and German language works of political economy.
In Latin the term was spelled "ceteris paribus", "coeteris paribus", and "caeteris paribus".
If the Latin phrase was not used the equivalent term in the three languages I am familiar with are the following:
In my discussion below when I refer to "the term" I mean either the original Latin expression or its other language equivalents as listed above.
Note: the time frame is from 1600 to 2020.
Editor: Note the slump beginning after 1850 and then the sudden rise after the end of World War Two.
Editor: Note the slump between 1790 and 1870 and then the sudden rise after the end of World War Two. I have no explanation for the "crash" after 2000.
Editor: Note the rise after 1850. I cannot explain the "rise and fall" since 1900.
Note: I have included "ceteris paribus" as well for the purposes of comparison.
Editor: Note the steady rise after 1800 reaching a peak in 1880s and 1890s and then the sudden rise after the end of World War Two. There is a falling away around 1920 and a rise in CP after 1950.
Note: I have included "ceteris paribus" as well for the purposes of comparison.
Editor: Note the sharp rise in about 1790, the plateau from 1800-1920 and its sudden drop off after 1950.
The essence of the term is that, given the existence of economic phenomena which are complex in nature and which have many possible causes or factors which influence them and their outcomes, in order for economists to understand what is going on it is necessary to hold all of these causes/factors constant (the other things which are equal) (at least in one's own mind in a kind of "thought experiment" (Gedankenexperiment)) [2] except for one factor or cause which is "allowed" to change. The results which eventuate are then attributed to the one variable or cause which was allowed to change, and not the other causes which were held constant.
For most political economists who used the expression this was enough in their minds. They used the term and then moved on to make their main point. In the case of Marshall this involved the price of fish and the weather; for other classical economists it was usually the impact of changing prices of food ("corn") or wages as they went up or down, or the diminished purchasing power of money when the supply was increased.
However, a handful of economists were not satisfied to do only this but went on to ponder about some of the complexities and problems of using a "thought experiment" like CP, most notably J.S. Mill and Frédéric Bastiat in the 1840s who will be discussed below, and John Elliot Cairnes (1861) in a couple of footnotes.
For reasons of space, time, and lack of knowledge on my part, I haven't explored the opposite and related term of "mutatis mutandi" - the idea that other things (variables and causes) also need to be changed and not left unchanged. It is variously translated as "allowing other things to change accordingly", "the necessary changes having been made", and "with things changed that should be changed". [3]
However, I did do an Ngram search and found a surprising result:
The standard account of its history is that the modern use of CP began with Alfred Marshall in his Principles of Economics (1890) (3 instances spelt "coeteris paribus") but this is very incomplete as the term (or its variants) was used a great deal in the early and mid-19th century.
To remind ourselves, Marshall linked CP to the rather quaint notion of "the pound" which was a kind of holding pen for troublesome causal factors or variables which could be "held" unchanged while other causal factors or variables were allowed to change in order to help the observing economist understand what was happening "out in the field". His first use was explanatory (which I quote below) and the second and third uses were applied to the problem of explaining "the day to day oscillations of the price of fish resulting from uncertainties of the weather" . [4]
In his explanatory use of the term, Marshall stresses its use in trying to understand complex economic questions by breaking them down into their component parts, studying these pieces one by one, and then putting them back together again in order to understand the bigger picture, or as he put it "the whole riddle". He is also aware of the problem of "disturbing causes" and "other tendencies" which further complicate the matter but did not go into any detail concerning them. The mental trick of the "pound" is to enable the economist to temporarily isolate the individual causes /factors one by one in order to get a better grasp of the bigger picture. As understanding improves, each individual cause can be "let out of the pound" so the economist can focus their attention on the next one. However, he realizes that there is a trade off between understanding each individual cause ("that narrow issue") more "exactly", and understanding "the broader issue" which often remains too complex to fully and "exactly" comprehend. As Marshal describes the matter: [5]
The element of time is a chief cause of those difficulties in economic investigations which make it necessary for man with his limited powers to go step by step; breaking up a complex question, studying one bit at a time, and at last combining his partial solutions into a more or less complete solution of the whole riddle. In breaking it up, he segregates those disturbing causes, whose wanderings happen to be inconvenient, for the time in a pound called Cœteris Paribus. The study of some group of tendencies is isolated by the assumption other things being equal: the existence of other tendencies is not denied, but their disturbing effect is neglected for a time. The more the issue is thus narrowed, the more exactly can it be handled: but also the less closely does it correspond to real life. Each exact and firm handling of a narrow issue, however, helps towards treating broader issues, in which that narrow issue is contained, more exactly than would otherwise have been possible. With each step more things can be let out of the pound; exact discussions can be made less abstract, realistic discussions can be made less inexact than was possible at an earlier stage.
In this paper I want to examine the intellectual history of the idea of "ceteris paribus" over the 100 odd years before Marshall wrote these lines by looking at the two streams of thought in which it emerged and was developed most fully, namely the French tradition of Say and Bastiat, and the English tradition of Bentham and J.S. Mill. In addition, I want to examine something that Marshall hints at but does not explore at any length, namely the problem of "disturbing factors" and factors which are "unseen" (Bastiat) or "misperceived" (Mill) and how they effect "the chain of cause and effect" and thus the economic tool of analysis, which is CP.
Marshall was definitely not the originator or populariser of this term. If we go back to the "founding fathers" of political economy in the 18th century we see that in 1776 Adam Smith used the term "other things being equal" only once in Wealth of Nations; [6] while Condillac used the term "toutes choses d'ailleurs égale" 3 times in Le commerce et le gouvernement (1776). [7] Just for the record here is Smith's use of the phrase "other things being equal":
FIFTHLY and lastly, though the revenue of the inhabitants of every country was supposed to consist altogether, as this system [agricultural system] seems to suppose, in the quantity of subsistence which their industry could procure to them; yet, even upon this supposition, the revenue of a trading and manufacturing country must, other things being equal, always be much greater than that of one without trade or manufactures. By means of trade and manufactures, a greater quantity of subsistence can be annually imported into a particular country than what its own lands, in the actual state of their cultivation, could afford. The inhabitants of a town, though they frequently possess no lands of their own, yet draw to themselves by their industry such a quantity of the rude produce of the lands of other people as supplies them, not only with the materials of their work, but with the fund of their subsistence. What a town always is with regard to the country in its neighbourhood, one independent state or country may frequently be with regard to other independent states or countries.
During the 19th century, within the French tradition of political economy we see that Jean-Baptiste Say used it (the French language equivalent "toutes choses d'ailleurs égales" (all things being equal)) frequently - 3 instances in the 1st edition of the Traité d'Économie politique (1803) [8] which rose to 6 in later editions; and 11 instances in his Cours complet d'économie politique (1828). Interestingly, in the American translation of TEP of 1822 the translator Princep substituted the Latin phrase ceteris paribus (which Say did not use) for the French equivalent of which there were 6 instances.
Other important French economists who used the term include:
When we turn to the English tradition of political economy in the 19th century we see widespread use of the term, with a particular interest being shown by J.S. Mill. He used it 3 times in several newspaper articles written in 1823, 6 times in various papers and articles written between 1826 and 1844, 4 times in A System of Logic (1843), 3 instances in the essays collected in J.S. Mill, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (1844), once in On Liberty (1859), and 17 times in Principles of Political Economy (1848, 1871).
A summary of other English language users of the term is (See the Appendix for the actual quotes.):
It should be noted here that a handful of political economists went beyond the rather perfunctory, standard use of the term in order to explore some of its weaknesses and gaps in its capacity to explain complex economic phenomena, or in other words when "ceteris non paribus" (when other things were not equal"). For example, J.S. Mill made some very important observations about the occasions when ceteris paribus did not work as expected because of the existence of "disturbing causes/effects" but without mentioning it by name, in “On the Definition of Political Economy" (1836, revised and republished in 1844); or in A System of Logic (1843) where he discusses at length the "fallacies of misobservation" which prevented people from seeing all the factors involved in economic phenomena.
This concern with "disturbing factors" or "things which were not seen or foreseen" was also shared by J.B. Say (Cours, 1828) and particularly Bastiat who made it an important part of his theory of "economic harmony" (or in this case lack thereof) in his treatise of 1850.
This will be explored in more detail in this paper below.
Side note: Just for a joke I did an Ngram search for "ceteris non paribus" in English language texts and came up with this surprising result:
A key assumption behind the notion of CP was that the same cause would have the same effect regardless of the time or place of its occurrence. It was sometimes expressed as a "chain of cause and effect". Thus it was "universal" and, in the language of the late 18th century when economic ideas were being developed, was a kind of "natural law of economics" comparable to the "natural laws of physics" such as the law of gravitation as elaborated by Isaac Newton and Laplace.
Note: However a distinction needs to be made here between "natural law IN economics" and the "natural laws OF economics." The former is the application of natural law and natural rights theory to economic affairs, namely the idea that property rights, the respect for individual rights to self and person, and respect for contracts etc. be applied and upheld in economic activity as in other fields; whereas the latter is the notion that natural laws govern the operation of economic activity which can either be deduced from first principles or are the result of observation of economic activity. In this paper the latter is the subject of my discussion, although it must be kept in mind that many late 18th and early 19th century political economists believed in both kinds of "natural law".
To return to the idea that there was a universally true "chain of cause and effect" which was observable in economic activity, this was expressed quite clearly by both Say and Mill.
For example, J.B. Say in Cours complet d'économie politique (1828) [9] notes that "des causes toujours suivies des mêmes effets" (causes always followed by the same effects) and "la chaîne des événemens, qui nous montre que nous considérons les événemens comme des chaînons qui se rattachent les uns aux autres" (a chain of events which demonstrates that we (should) consider events as links of a chain which are attached one to another). [10] And "Il y a encore ici des lois qui veulent que les mêmes causes, dans des circonstances pareilles, soient suivies des mêmes effets." (Here there are also laws which require that the same causes, in similar circumstances, be followed by the same effects). [11]
J.S. Mill argues similarly but in much greater depth in A System of Logic (1843) where he talks about "links in the chain of causation" [12] the study of which can result in what he calls a "law of nature": [13]
It is the nature of casual combinations to produce a repetition of the same event, as often and no oftener than any other series of events. But it is the nature of general causes to reproduce, in the same circumstances, always the same event. Common sense and science alike dictate that, all other things being the same, we should rather attribute the effect to a cause which if real would be very likely to produce it, than to a cause which would be very unlikely to produce it.
And: [14]
We have it, for example, in a case of causation in which there has been an experimentum crucis. If an antecedent A, superadded to a set of antecedents in all other respects unaltered, is followed by an effect B which did not exist before, A is, in that instance at least, the cause of B, or an indispensable part of its cause; and if A be tried again with many totally different sets of antecedents and B still follows, then it is the whole cause. If these observations or experiments have been repeated so often, and by so many persons, as to exclude all supposition of error in the observer, a law of nature is established;
Mill also has extended discussions of "the law of cause and effect" (4 instances), "the law of causation" (52), and "the law of causality" (6) which I cannot go into here. What is relevant for a discussion of "ceteris paribus" is where these "laws" of cause and effect break down into mere "tendencies" or apparent contradictions of what were considered to be "laws". This is the result, Mill believes, of the "complexity" introduced when there are on the one hand a "plurality of causes" or a "composition of causes" (one cause layered above another) or "concurrent causes", or on the other hand "the mutual interference of causes".
A special category of causes which both Mill and Bastiat discussed were "disturbing causes" / "des causes perturbatrices" which weakened the effectiveness of CP as an analytical tool because they were not taken into account by economists and thus broke the "chain of cause and effect".
Another category of missing causes were those which were literally "not seen" by the observer. Mill organised these missing causes under the category of "fallacies of non-observation" (also termed "misobservation, mal-observation" or just things "overlooked") to which he devoted a 100 page section of A System of Logic to this problem. [15] Similarly for Bastiat. He made a distinction between "ce qu'on voit" ("what is seen" or "the seen") and "ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("what is not seen" or "the unseen") to which he devoted an entire book Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas in 1850. [16]
Mill's System of Logic consists of much Benthamite categorization of the different types of "causes" and their effects, and the different kinds of laws which are the result. In brief Mill distinguished between "laws of nature" (such as temperature, pressure, gravitation, tides, chemical reactions); "laws of human nature", "laws of mind", and "laws of human action" concerning how people think, react to the world around them, and are often mislead by false thinking or observation; and "laws of the social science" of which economics was only one part.
Mill is more explicit about what laws specifically applied to political economy in his treatise Principles of Political Economy (1848, 7th edition. 1871). Here he talks about "laws of value", "laws of price", "laws of production and distribution", "laws of rent", and "laws of interchange / exchanges". More general laws of economics (or perhaps sociology) included "the economical laws of a stationary and unchanging society" and "the laws of the movement (of society)." These "laws" are well known so I will not discuss them here.
Less well known are the ideas of his French contemporaries Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) and Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912).
Like most economists writing in the mid-nineteenth century, Bastiat believed that the economic world was governed by economic laws which were just as obligatory to follow as Newton’s famous “law of gravitation.” This belief was a lynch-pin of the Physiocratic school as articulated by François Quesnay whom both Bastiat and Molinari quoted, sometimes on the title page of their books. In his essay “Le droit naturel” (Natural Law) (1765) Quesnay stated that : [17]
Il faut bien se garder d’attribuer aux lois physiques les maux qui sont la juste et inévitable punition de la violation de l’order même de ces lois, instituées pour opérer le bien. |
It is necessary to refrain from attributing to the physical laws which have been instituted in order to produce good, the evils which are the just and inevitable punishment for the violation of this very order of laws. |
The most explicit advocate of this point of view was Bastiat’s close friend and colleague Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912) who wrote a book in mid-1849 (while Bastiat was writing the first volume of HE) called Les Soirées de la rue Saint-Lazare: Entretiens sur les lois économiques et défense de la propriété, the sub-title of which reads “discussions about the laws of economics and the defense of property rights.” [18] Forty years later Molinari would return to this topic and published two more books: one entirely devoted to the topic Les Lois naturelles de l’économie politique (The Natural Laws of Political Economy) (1887) and another with a substantial section dealing with the topic La Morale économique (Economic Moral Philosophy) (1888). [19]
Molinari thought the world was governed by three sets of interlocking natural laws, the natural laws of the physical world, such as “la loi de la gravitation” (the law of gravitation), “les lois naturelles” (the natural laws) of the moral and social world, such as justice, property, and utility, and six “lois économiques” (economic laws). These “natural laws of economics” governed the operation of the economy and which could not be ignored with impunity by individuals or by governments. They were:
Bastiat shared Molinari’s view about the existence and importance of these economic laws, especially the idea that one of the great injustices the economists had to face was the blame socialists and others placed on the free market for causing problems which were in fact the result of people not heeding these economic laws or ignoring the fact that various “des causes perturbatrices” (disturbing factors) prevented the laws of economics from functioning as they should.
More specifically Bastiat thought there were several sets of "les grandes lois" (great laws) which governed the world, and half a dozen of so laws which were more relevant to political economy. In the "great law" category were:
Under the category of "great economic laws" were :
The relevance of the existence of Natural Laws of Economics to these 19th century economists was that they were a "codification" if you like of their understanding of the "chain of cause and effect" which made sense of economic activity and made it possible to use CP as any analytical tool. Only if causes and their effects were fixed by law did it make sense to predict what might happen if one cause was changed while the others were held constant.
See the Appendix for details.
It seems appropriate before looking at J.S. Mill's use of CP to look at how those who had the most influence on him, Jeremy Bentham and his father James Mill, used the term.
To begin with Bentham, in Manual of Political Economy (written 1790-95, 1st published 1838?? but probably known to both James and John Stuart Mill) in the chapter on Wealth he states: [20]
§ 5.: Axioms applying to Equality,* in respect of wealth.
I. Case or state of things the first.—The quantities of wealth in question, considered as being in a quiescent state, actually in the hands of the two parties in question: neither entering into, nor going out of the hands of either.
1.) Cæteris paribus,—to every particle of the matter of wealth corresponds a particle of the matter of happiness. Accordingly, thence,
2.) So far as depends upon wealth,—of [229] two persons having unequal fortunes, he who has most wealth must by a legislator be regarded as having most happiness.
In his "Essay on Logic" (1838??) in a discussion of general well-being he states: [21]
The field of art and science is capable of extension, and is continually receiving it; and the greater the extension it receives, the greater, there seems reason to believe—the greater cæteris paribus—is the quantity of well-being possessed by the aggregate of mankind. Of no such property as extension in particular parts is a sphere susceptible;—if it be so extended it ceases to be spherical.
Turning to his father, James Mill, in his article on "Beggar" for the Supplement of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1824) he discusses the impact on employment by war expenditure: [22]
Of all the causes of beggary, war may undoubtedly be assumed as one of the most extraordinary. We have already seen in what manner the people converted by it into soldiers swell the ranks of mendicity; but this is only a small part of the deplorable effects. It brings the condition of the whole of the labouring mass down nearer to the mendicant level; and, of course, a new and additional portion down to it altogether. This it does by the consumption which it produces. Exactly in proportion as money is spent upon war, exactly in that proportion is the means of employing labour, that is, of buoying up the condition of the people, destroyed; exactly in that proportion must the people, cæteris paribus, sink. These are conclusions which may be regarded as scientific, and which will never be called in dispute except by those who are ignorant of the subject. It is not impossible for war to be accidentally accompanied with circumstances which counter-balance this tendency, even in respect to wealth; but this is exceedingly rare. The great men very often gain by war: the little almost always lose.
In comparison to his father J.S. Mill used the term many times, some early references were not strictly economic but they became increasingly so later in his career. He used it 3 times in several newspaper articles written in 1823, 6 times in various papers and articles written between 1826 and 1844, 4 times in A System of Logic (1843), 3 instances in the essays collected in J.S. Mill, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (1844), once in On Liberty (1859), and 17 times in Principles of Political Economy (1848, 1871).
In some newspapers articles written early in his career in 1823 he used the term in relation to the quality of evidence given in court after having taken an oath: [23]
"Yet we do not find that, ceteris paribus, [15] less reliance is to be placed on the oaths of one set of religionists, than of another."
Or the quality of a judge regarding abuses of judicial power: [24]
And if there is no particular reason for removing him, there is always this reason against it, that the experience which he has acquired in the exercise of his office, gives him (ceteris paribus) an advantage over any unpractised candidate.”
Yet there are also references with an economic connection which are a foretaste of what was to come later, such ass the connection between the amount of labour expended producing it and its price ("value"): [25]
When we say that value depends upon labour, we mean, that according as the quantity of labour expended in producing a commodity is increased or diminished, ceteris paribus, its value rises or falls .
And the relationship between the skill of artisans and the wealth of a nation from an essay written 1829-30: [26]
Further, if we adopted the above definition, we should be obliged to say that a nation whose artisans were twice as skilful as those of another nation, was not, ceteris paribus, more wealthy; although it is evident that every one of the results of wealth, and everything for the sake of which wealth is desired, would be possessed by the former country in a higher degree than by the latter.
And on the economic benefits of having commodities produced close to where the consumers live, in “Of the Influence of Consumption on Production”, Essay II in Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy:
The reason why towns exist, is that ceteris paribus it is convenient, in order to save cost of carriage, that the production of commodities should take place as far as practicable in the immediate vicinity of the consumer.
In an essay on "The Currency Juggle" (1833) he uses the term in a discussion of the depreciation of currency by overissue, especially in order to lower the amount of state debt: [27]
Several times, indeed, since paper credit existed, governments or public bodies have got into their hands the power of issuing a paper currency, without the restraint of convertibility, or any limitation of the amount. The most memorable cases are those of Law’s Mississippi scheme, the Assignats, and the Bank Restriction in 1797. On these various occasions a depreciation did in fact take place; but the intention was not professed of producing one, nor were its authors in the slightest degree aware that such would be the effect. The important truth, that currency is lowered (cæteris paribus) in value, by being augmented in quantity, was known solely to speculative philosophers, to Locke and Hume. The Practicals had never heard of it; or if they had, disdained it as visionary theory.
In his large, two volume work on A Spirit of Logic (1843) there are only 4 direct references to CP but several more where the concept is discussed but the term not used. Two references are to the formation of dew (thus a scientific use of the term), [28] and two are references to more general matters, such as this one on how best to study certain phenomena: [29]
For every phenomenon is best studied (cæteris paribus) where it exists in the greatest intensity. It is there that the effects which either depend on it, or depend on the same causes with it, will also exist in the greatest degree. It is there, consequently, and only there, that those effects of it, or joint effects with it, can become fully known to us, so that we may learn to recognise their smaller degrees, or even their mere rudiments, in cases in which the direct study would have been difficult or even impossible.
A good example of his discussion of the concept of CP but not mentioning it by name is the following passage which refers explicitly to economic matters: [30]
Political Economy, as I have said on another occasion, concerns itself only with "such of the phenomena of the social state as take place in consequence of the pursuit of wealth. … The science then proceeds to investigate the laws which govern these several operations … When an effect [ii-495] depends on a concurrence of causes, these causes must be studied one at a time, and their laws separately investigated, if we wish, through the causes, to obtain the power of either predicting or controlling the effect; since the law of the effect is compounded of the laws of all the causes which determine it. … In order to judge how he will act under the variety of desires and aversions which are concurrently operating upon him, we must know how he would act under the exclusive influence of each one in particular. … The political economist inquires, what are the actions which would be produced by this desire, if within the departments in question it were unimpeded by any other. In this way a nearer approximation is obtained than would otherwise be practicable to the real order of human affairs in those departments. This approximation has then to be corrected by making proper allowance for the effects of any impulses of a different description, which can be shown to interfere with the result in any particular case.
Both the 1848 and 1871 editions of PPE have 17 references to CP. They range from:
The full paragraph in which these references were made can be found in the Appendix.
Two of the examples in particular caught my eye, which I quote at greater length:
1.) on the difference in productivity of grass vs. stall-feeding of animals [48]
But when natural pasture is fit for the plough, a greater number of cattle than were supported on the whole, may be supported on a part, by laying it out in roots and artificial grasses ; and it is well known that on the stall-feeding system there is much greater preservation of manure. The question of petite culture, in relation to cattle, is, in fact, one and the same with the question of stall-feeding. The two things must stand or fall together. Stall-feeding produces, ceteris paribus, a greater quantity of provisions, but in the opinion of most judges a lower quality. Experience must decide.
2.) on the relative productiveness of clergymen and missionaries and "agriculturalists and manufacturers" [49]
To a religious person the saving of a soul must appear a far more important service than the saving of a life ; but he will not therefore call a missionary or a [**i-62**] clergyman productive labourers, unless they teach, as the South Sea Missionaries have in some cases done, the arts of civilization in addition to the doctrines of their religion. It is, on the contrary, evident that the greater number of missionaries or clergymen a nation maintains, the less it has to expend on other things; while the more it expends judiciously in keeping agriculturists and manufacturers at work, the more it will have for every other purpose. By the former it diminishes, cæteris paribus, its stock of material products ; by the latter, it increases them.
There is only one reference to CP in On Liberty (1859) and it occurs in a discussion of free trade. [50] Since "trade is a social act" it does not, in Mill's view, rest on the same grounds as "the principle of individual liberty" where "restraints" on individual activity are considered to be wrong in principle and thus to be avoided by the state. This passage is a good illustration of the quite moderate liberalism of J.S. Mill, compared to the more radical (and I would say more consistent liberalism of his contemporaries Frédéric Bastiat and Herbert Spencer). He cloaks his justification for state restrictions on trade in CP terms:
Such questions involve considerations of liberty, only in so far as leaving people to themselves is always better, cæteris paribus, than controlling them: but that they may be legitimately controlled for these ends, is in principle undeniable.
The full quotation from which this quote is taken can be found in the Appendix.
J.B. Say's uses of term CP (25 instances):
Other important French economists who used the term include:
See the Appendix for the full quotes of these usages.
Bastiat used the term CP 5 times and its French equivalent "toutes choses égales d’ailleurs" (TCED) 12 times, for a total of 17 instances (in one passages he used both terms). His first use of "toutes choses égales d'ailleurs" occurred in April 1834 in a memo on the Customs Service in a discussion criticizing regulations and discriminatory taxes (octroi) concerning where the distillation of wine should take place, whether in the countryside where the wine was produced or in Paris where it is consumed; [51] and his first use of "ceteris paribus" occurred in November 1846 in a letter to the editors of La National newspaper concerning the impact of "good" and "bad" taxes on the economy. [52] There are half a dozen uses of the term in Economic Harmonies (1850, 1851).
A typical example is from his article on "Competition" from May 1846 which also appeared as a chapter in his treatise Harmonies économiques in early 1850: [53]
Toutes choses égales d’ailleurs. il y a plus de profits aux travaux dangereux qu’à ceux qui ne le sont pas; aux états qui exigent un long apprentissage et des déboursés longtemps improductifs, ce qui suppose, dans la famille, le long exercice de certaines vertus, qu’à ceux où suffit la force musculaire; aux professions qui réclament la culture de l’esprit et font naître des goûts délicats, qu’aux métiers où il ne faut que des bras. Tout cela n’est-il pas juste? Or la concurrence établit nécessairement ces distinctions : la société n’a pas besoin qu’un Fourier ou un père Enfantin en décident. |
All other things being equal. moreover, there is more profit in dangerous projects than in ones that are not, in trades that require long apprenticeships, and outlays that are unproductive for long periods of time, which assumes the long-term exercise within the family of certain virtues, than in trades where physical strength is all that is needed, or in occupations that require development of the mind and give rise to refined tastes than in those that just require manual labor. Is all this not just? Well, competition of necessity establishes these distinctions; society does not need a Fourier or a father-figure like Enfantin to decide this. |
A full list of Bastiat's use of the terms follows:
See the Appendix for the full quotes.
Those handful of economists who thought more deeply about CP realized that the "chain of cause and effect" which existed because of the the operation of the numerous "natural laws of economics" listed above sometimes did not seem to work as predicted. This could be the result of an incomplete understanding of what NLEs existed and how they operated (in other words that there were more NLEs to be discovered and understood), or that there were so many causes / factors at work that it was too complex for the CP "pound" to isolate each one so that its effects could be understood, or that there were "disturbing factors" at work which temporarily interfered with the operation of the NLEs, or the economists had been mislead by their false understanding of how the economy works due to their acceptance of economic "fallacies".
The two economists who took the most interest in these problems were J.S. Mill and Frédéric Bastiat.
Mill addressed this problem in some detail in his early essay “On the Definition of Political Economy" (1836, 1844) in which there were 14 references to "disturbing" and 12 references to "complex". [70] He returned to the problem in A System of Logic (1843) in which there were 7 explicit references to "disturbing" but, just as important, many references to complexity, the "plurality of causes" (19), "concurrent causes" (8), "composition of causes" (25), "opposing causes" (1), and "the mutual interference of causes" (2). [see above for a discussion of complexity.] In his treatise Principles of Political Economy (1848) he is less interested in methodological problems and his references to "disturbing" factors and complexity in this sense fall away as a result. He discusses some "complex" cases such as trade and money, but only passing references to "the complexity of concrete phenomena" [71] and "the complex entanglement of circumstances" [72] but does not take the matter any further. The same is true for "disturbing" where there are 2 references to "disturbing causes" [73] and [74] and 2 to "disturbing influence" [75] and [76] which are mentioned only in passing with no further analysis.
Mill's most detailed discussion of "disturbing causes" occurs in a 5 page section of his essay “On the Definition of Political Economy" (1836). [77] Just previous to this (pp. 145-49) he had been discussing the limitations of the à posteriori or experimental method (also what he called "the chemical method" in A System of Logic [78] ) for the "philosophical investigation in the moral sciences" given the difficulty perhaps impossibility of conducting experiments in one's laboratory as one can in chemistry and physics (natural philosophy). This is due he believes to "the immense multitude of the influencing circumstances" (in other words, the complexity of social and economic events) and "our very scanty means of varying the experiment" (i.e. we have limited access to a "pound"). The solution to the problem he argues is for the economist to adopt the à priori method or what he also terms "abstract speculation", of which CP was an important tool.
In the passage mentioned above (pp. 150-52) [79] he details how the political economist might go about analyzing "a particular case". First, one has to understand the relevant "law" which governs that case; secondly, to investigate "what other circumstances may exist in that case", what he calls "disturbing causes", which may or may not be governed by a recognized "law"; and thirdly, to be "quite sure" that one has not "overlooked" other pertinent facts or been mislead by "fallacious thinking". The end result of this method of investigation is that the economist might come to realize that "disturbing causes have their (own) laws" which then need to be incorporated into the bigger "abstract science" which is political economy and which now, with this "supplementary theorem", will be able to understand and explain a " more complex combination of circumstances".
It should be noted here that Mill has a very similar concept to that of Marshall's "pound", namely "the pale" of economic science. New "causes" which have certain "effects" are first understood by being placed in temporary isolation outside the fence or "pale", studied carefully, and then "brought within the pale of the abstract science" as a "supplementary theorem" or even a new "law".
Here is the full quote of this important section:
When the principles of Political Economy are to be applied to a particular case, then it is necessary to take into account all the individual circumstances of that case; not only examining to which of the sets of circumstances contemplated by the abstract science the circumstances of the case in question correspond, but likewise what other circumstances may exist in that case, which not being common to it with any large and strongly-marked class of cases, have not fallen under the cognizance of the science. These circumstances have been called disturbing causes. And here only it is that an element of uncertainty enters into the process—an uncertainty inherent in the nature of these complex phenomena, and arising from the impossibility of being quite sure that all the circumstances of the particular case are known to us sufficiently in detail, and that our attention is not unduly diverted from any of them.
This constitutes the only uncertainty of Political Economy; and not of it alone, but of the moral sciences in general. When the disturbing causes are known, the allowance necessary to be made for them detracts in no way from scientific precision, nor constitutes any deviation from the à priori method. The disturbing causes are not handed over to be dealt with by mere conjecture. Like friction in mechanics, to which they have been often compared, they may at first have been [151] considered merely as a non-assignable deduction to be made by guess from the result given by the general principles of science; but in time many of them are brought within the pale of the abstract science itself, and their effect is found to admit of as accurate an estimation as those more striking effects which they modify. The disturbing causes have their laws, as the causes which are thereby disturbed have theirs; and from the laws of the disturbing causes, the nature and amount of the disturbance may be predicted à priori, like the operation of the more general laws which they are said to modify or disturb, but with which they might more properly be said to be concurrent. The effect of the special causes is then to be added to, or subtracted from, the effect of the general ones.
These disturbing causes are sometimes circumstances which operate upon human conduct through the same principle of human nature with which Political Economy is conversant, namely, the desire of wealth, but which are not general enough to be taken into account in the abstract science. Of disturbances of this description every political economist can produce many examples. In other instances the disturbing cause is some other law of human nature. In the latter case it never can fall within the province of Political Economy; it belongs to some other science; and here the mere political economist, he who has studied no science but Political Economy, if he attempt to apply his science to practice, will fail. [11]
[152]
As for the other kind of disturbing causes, namely those which operate through the same law of human nature out of which the general principles of the science arise, these might always be brought within the pale of the abstract science if it were worth while; and when we make the necessary allowances for them in practice, if we are doing anything but guess, we are following out the method of the abstract science into minuter details; inserting among its hypotheses a fresh and still more complex combination of circumstances, and so adding pro hác vice a supplementary chapter or appendix, or at least a supplementary theorem, to the abstract science.
There were 7 explicit references to "disturbing" ("disturbing cause" (2), "disturbing force" (2), and "disturbing effect" (2)) but, just as important, many references to complexity, the "plurality of causes" (19), "concurrent causes" (8), "composition of causes" (25), "opposing causes" (1), and "the mutual interference of causes" (2). See above for a discussion of Mill's thoughts on the complexity of causes.
For both Mill and Bastiat the work of astronomers like La Place stimulated them to think about "disturbing forces" in economics. [80] Laplace observed "distrurbances" in the orbit of the planets which forced them to move out of their perfect elliptical paths. He was able to explain these disturbances mathematically which suggested that the law of gravitation was not being "violated" but that additional factors had to be taken into account (such as the existence of other massive objects in addition to the sun) in order to explain their motion through space. In other words, there were more complex forces at work and these forces also operated under "laws" which could be observed and described. Similarly they thought in the complex realm of political economy with its "plurality", "concurrent", "opposing", and "interfering" causes.
A key passage occurs in a discussion of the fact that "laws of causation" can at times be "counteracted" by other forces, which suggests to Mill that a better word to use is "tendency", that there is "a tendency to the particular effect with which the science is conversant" and not an inevitable effect. By neglecting the concept of "tendency" theorists were mislead into believing that these "laws" had "exceptions." Mill's alternative explanation was that here were in fact "two laws" which operated together in order to bring about "a common effect", one law was "conspicuous" and thus more studied and better known, the other was "less conspicuous". Mill called the latter "the disturbing force" which acted as "a modifying cause" of the end result or effect. As he put it: [81]
There are not a law and an exception to that law, the law acting in ninety-nine cases, and the exception in one. There are two laws, each possibly acting in the whole hundred cases, and bringing about a common effect by their conjunct operation. If the force which, being the less conspicuous of the two, is called the disturbing force, prevails sufficiently over the other force in some one case, to constitute that case what is commonly called an exception, the same disturbing force probably acts as a modifying cause in many other cases which no one will call exceptions.
The result of the existence of "disturbing causes" was that the principle of CP had to be used with some caution. Theorists could not necessarily assume that they knew all the causes or laws that were at work, the the "chain of cause and effect" was not broken, and that they would be able to put one or two of them into "the pound" where they would remain unchanged "while all about them" things would change. This method might work for simple cases but it was a less reliable tool to use where complexity and changing circumstances were more the rule.
Central to Bastiat's economic theory is the idea that, if left unmolested by government intervention or violence by other individuals, human societies have a tendency to follow a path towards economic development which was "pacifique, régulier et progressif" (peaceful, steady, and progressive). [82] He believed that society would reach a "just" and "harmonious" state of equilibrium as a result of the operation of the natural economic laws, which the economists had identified and studied (his are listed above), as well as the behaviour of human beings who had a common and observable nature. Of course, he was aware that societies rarely pursued the peaceful, steady, and progressive path towards economic development without interruption, and this is where his theory of "les causes/forces perturbatrices" (disturbing causes or forces) came into play to explain these deviations from peace and prosperity. Also related to this was his countervailing theory of "les causes/forces réparatrices" (restorative factors or forces) which gradually took effect to move the world back towards its "just" and "harmonious" state.
One source for Bastiat's thinking on this topic came from the mathematical work of Laplace [83] in accounting for the perturbations in the orbits of Saturn, Jupiter, and the moon which seemed to violate the idea of some presumed "l'harmonie céleste" (celestial harmony). In the gravitational tug of war between the planetary giants of Jupiter and Saturn and the smaller objects in space it appeared that the disturbing forces exerted by the giants would pluck the smaller objects from their course and send them crashing into the sun. Laplace's mathematical analysis of these "celestial mechanics" showed that the perturbations oscillated in a predicable way and that "restorative forces" were at work to keep them in orbit. Bastiat applied these Laplacian ideas for the first time to economics in his "Letter to Lamartine" written in February 1845. [84]
Among "les causes/forces perturbatrices" (disturbing causes/forces) which upset the harmony of the free market Bastiat included fallacious and erroneous economic thinking ("l’action perturbatrice de l’ignorance et de l’erreur" (the disturbing action of ignorance and error) [85] as well as several political institutions and economic policies such as war, slavery, theocratic plunder, high and unequal taxes, government regulations, economic privileges, industrial subsidies, and tariffs. As he said in HE chap XVI Population, the disturbing causes which were currently at work in the world had become "vast": [86]
La guerre, l’esclavage, les impostures théocratiques, les priviléges, les monopoles, les restrictions, les abus de l’impôt, voilà les manifestations les plus saillantes de la spoliation. On comprend quelle influence des forces perturbatrices d’une aussi vaste étendue ont dû avoir et ont encore, par leur présence ou leurs traces profondes, sur l’inégalité des conditions ; nous essayerons plus tard d’en mesurer l’énorme portée.
This idea of "disrupting causes" was so important that Bastiat intended to devote a chapter to it in his treatise Economic Harmonies which was never completed, [87] and an entire volume to follow it on "A History of Plunder" or what have also been entitled with some justification "Economic Disharmonies." [88]
In Bastiat's writings I have found the following uses of the term "perturbation" in its several variations:
The most importance of these references for our purposes here are the various versions of "cause perturbatrice" - singular (1), "causes perturbatrices" (15), and "causes artificielles perturbatrices" (1)
There are also references to its opposite - "la force réparatrice" (2) or "la force curative" (6) and "vis medicatrix" (8) which I will not discuss here in any detail.
He first began talking about "forces perturbatrices" (disturbing forces) and their opposite "forces réparatrices" or "force curative" (restoring or repairing forces) in the seminal article he wrote in response to Lamartine's defence of the idea of the "right to a job" in February 1845 on the eve of his visit to Paris to meet with the Economists. Bastiat's reply to the charge that workers were unemployed and poor through no fault of their own and "society" had an obligation to assist them, was to argue that they were poor because of the disturbing forces previously introduced by the state into the smooth functioning of the free market through war, tariffs and taxes on food, and restrictions which hampered the growth of industry. Increasing taxes and regulations to help some of the poor would be at the expence of the broader society of workers and consumers and would not solve the original problem caused by high taxes and too many regulations. If these taxes and regulations were cut, Bastiat believed, there were self-correcting mechanisms within the free market system, what he called "les forces réparatrices" (repairing or restorative forces) or "la force curative" (the curative or healing force, often paired with the Latin phrase "vix medicatrix)"), [89] driven ultimately by the motive of self-interest, whereby the market would begin to restore economic equilibrium after it had been upset by "les forces perturbatrices" (disturbing forces). As he pointed out to Lamartine: [90]
L’économie des sociétés a eu aussi ses Laplace. S’il y a des perturbations sociales, ils ont aussi constaté l’existence de forces providentielles qui ramènent tout à l’équilibre, et ils ont trouvé que ces forces réparatrices se proportionnent aux forces perturbatrices, parce qu’elles en proviennent. Ravis d’admiration devant cette harmonie du monde moral, ils ont dû se passionner pour l’œuvre divine et répugner plus que les autres hommes à tout ce qui peut la troubler. Aussi n’a-t-on jamais vu, que je sache, les séductions de l’intérêt privé balancer dans leur cœur cet éternel objet de leur admiration et de leur amour. |
Political economy also has its Laplaces. They have observed that, when social disturbances appear, there also exist providential forces that bring everything back into equilibrium. They have discovered that these restorative forces are proportional to the disturbing forces because the one gives rise to the other. In delighted admiration for this harmony in the moral world, they have conceived a passion for the divine work and they, more than other people, reject everything that might disrupt it. For this reason, as far as I know, there has never been an instance when the attraction of private interest has come to rival in their hearts this eternal object of their admiration and love. |
These "forces pertubatrices" (disturbing forces) soon became "causes perturbatrices" in the treatise Harmonies économiques. Here he made clear the connection between the introduction of "causes perturbatrices" (disturbing causes" which interfered with the operation of the natural laws of economics, in several chapters of Harmonies économiques (1850, 1851) such as this one from chapter XIV Des salaires (On Wages): [91]
Les lois générales du monde social sont harmoniques, elles tendent dans tous les sens au perfectionnement de l’humanité. |
[to add] |
Car enfin, puisque, après une période de cent ans, pendant laquelle elles ont été si fréquemment et si profondément violées, l’Humanité se trouve plus avancée, il faut que leur action soit bienfaisante, et même assez pour compenser encore l’action des causes perturbatrices. |
|
Comment, d’ailleurs, en pourrait-il être autrement? N’y a-t-il pas une sorte d’équivoque ou plutôt de pléonasme sous ces expressions : Lois générales bienfaisantes ? Peuvent-elles ne pas l’être?… Quand Dieu a mis dans chaque homme une impulsion irrésistible vers le bien, et, pour le discerner, une lumière susceptible de se rectifier, dès cet instant il a été décidé que l’Humanité était perfectible et qu’à travers beaucoup de tâtonnements, d’erreurs, de déceptions, d’oppressions, d’oscillations, elle marcherait vers le mieux indéfini. Cette marche de l’Humanité, en tant que les erreurs, les déceptions, les oppressions en sont absentes, c’est justement ce qu’on appelle les lois générales de l’ordre social. Les erreurs, les oppressions, c’est ce que je nomme la violation de ces lois ou les causes perturbatrices. Il n’est donc pas possible que les unes ne soient bienfaisantes et les autres funestes, à moins qu’on n’aille jusqu’à mettre en doute si les causes perturbatrices ne peuvent agir d’une manière plus permanente que les lois générales. Or cela est contradictoire à ces prémisses : notre intelligence, qui peut se tromper, est susceptible de se rectifier. Il est clair que le monde social étant constitué comme il l’est, l’erreur rencontre tôt ou tard pour limite la Responsabilité, l’oppression se brise tôt ou tard à la Solidarité ; d’où il suit que les causes perturbatrices ne sont pas d’une nature permanente, et c’est pour cela que ce qu’elles troublent mérite le nom de lois générales. |
Thus he was firmly convinced that economic "liberty tended to restore equilibrium" only if it were allowed to function. As he stated in HE1 Chapter VIII "Private Property and Communal Property" the pursuit of individual self-interest and the operation of natural economic laws was like a form of internal "gravitation" which would counteract the disturbing causes and propel society towards greater equality, economic progress, and harmony in only it were left free to do so: [92]
Quand nous admirons la loi providentielle des transactions, quand nous disons que les intérêts concordent, quand nous en concluons que leur gravitation naturelle tend à réaliser l’égalité relative et le progrès général, apparemment c’est de l’action de ces lois et non de leur perturbation que nous attendons l’harmonie. Quand nous disons : laissez faire, apparemment nous entendons dire : laissez agir ces lois, et non pas : laissez troubler ces lois. |
When we admire the providential law governing transactions, when we say that interests are in agreement, when we conclude from this that their natural gravitation tends to achieve relative equality and general progress, it is clearly from the action of these laws and not from their disruption that we expect harmony. When we say: laissez faire, we clearly mean to say: let these laws act, and not let these laws be disrupted. |
And again in HE Chap. 10 Competition: [93]
J’expose maintenant des lois générales que je crois harmoniques, et j’ai la confiance que le lecteur commence à se douter aussi que ces lois existent, qu’elles agissent dans le sens de la communauté et par conséquent de l’égalité. Mais je n’ai pas nié que l’action de ces lois ne fût profondément troublée par des causes perturbatrices. Si donc nous rencontrons en ce moment un fait choquant d’inégalité, comment le pourrions-nous juger avant de connaître et les lois régulières de l’ordre social et les causes perturbatrices de ces lois ? |
I will now set out general laws that I believe to be harmonious, and I am confident that the reader also will begin to guess at the existence of these laws, that they act in favor of the community and consequently of equality. However, I have not denied that the action of these laws has been profoundly disrupted by disturbing factors. Therefore, if we now find some shocking example of inequality, how can we judge it without being conversant with both the regular laws of social order and the disturbing factors which distort these laws? |
According to his theory of "economic harmony" the disturbing causes which upset "harmony" were "contingent", that is not inherent in the natural laws of economics but upon the actions of individuals (plunder and privilege) and governments war and economic policies). Thus, the disturbances could be rectified and the harm undone if the policies were halted or radically modified. As he put it in the unfinished chapter "Causes perturbatrices" in HE2: [94]
La Justice et la Liberté auraient-elles produit fatalement l’Inégalité et le Monopole ? |
|
Pour le savoir, il fallait, ce me semble, étudier la nature même des transactions humaines, leur origine, leur raison, leurs conséquences et les conséquences de ces conséquences jusqu’à l’effet définitif ; et cela, abstraction faite des perturbations contingentes que peut engendrer l’injustice ; — car on conviendra bien que l’Injustice n’est pas l’essence des transactions libres et volontaires. |
|
Que l’injustice se soit fatalement introduite dans le monde, que la société n’ait pas pu y échapper, on peut le soutenir ; et, l’homme étant donné avec ses passions, son égoïsme, son ignorance et son imprévoyance primitives, je le crois. — Nous aurons à étudier aussi la nature, l’origine et les effets de l’Injustice. |
|
Mais il n’en est pas moins vrai que la science économique doit commencer par exposer la théorie des transactions humaines supposées libres et volontaires, comme la physiologie expose la nature et les rapports des organes, abstraction faite des causes perturbatrices qui modifient ces rapports. |
See the Appendix for this list and the accompanying quotations.
There are also some other related usages of "la perturbation" which concern disturbances in the natural laws of economics or society in general. For example, in HE Chap. IV Échange:
1st instance: [95]
Elles devraient rechercher avec soin si elles ne jouissent pas de quelque monopole, pour y renoncer ; — si elles ne profitent pas de quelques inégalités factices, pour les effacer ; — si le Paupérisme ne peut pas être attribué, en partie du moins, à quelque perturbation des lois sociales naturelles, pour la faire cesser, — afin de pouvoir dire en montrant leurs mains au peuple : Elles sont pleines, mais elles sont pures.
2nd instance: [96]
Il est bien évident que la solution de ces questions est subordonnée à l’étude et à la connaissance des lois sociales naturelles. On ne peut se prononcer raisonnablement avant de savoir si la propriété, la liberté, les combinaisons des services volontairement échangés poussent les hommes vers leur amélioration, comme le croient les économistes, ou vers leur dégradation, comme l’affirment les socialistes. — Dans le premier cas, le mal social doit être attribué aux perturbations des lois naturelles, aux violations légales de la propriété et de la liberté. Ce sont ces perturbations et ces violations qu’il faut faire cesser, et l’Économie politique a raison.
And in HE chap. V De la value [97]
Le diamant joue un grand rôle dans les livres des économistes. Il s’en servent pour élucider les lois de la valeur ou pour signaler les prétendues perturbations de ces lois.
There was another kind of distortion or disturbance which Bastiat talked about which took place in capital and labor markets as a result of government intervention in the economy, namely when "la population et le travail (sont) législativement déplacés" (people and labour are displaced or dislocated as a result of government policy). [98] As a consequence of prohibiting or taxing foreign imports entire industries are built behind the protection of the tariff wall drawing in capital and labour where they would not have gone if the wall were not there. Capital for the protected industries like woollen manufacturers is diverted from other industries such as farming. There has been no increase in the amount of productive capital. Some workers in the new industries might benefit from wages (the seen) but others lose out because they have to pay higher prices for clothes (the unseen). As he stated in a speech for the Free Trade Association in Lyon in August 1847: [99]
Donc, d’où sort ce capital ? Le soleil ou la lune l’ont-ils envoyé mêlé à leurs rayons, et ces rayons ont-ils fourni au creuset l’or et l’argent, emblèmes de ces astres ? ou bien l’a-t-on trouvé au fond de l’urne d’où est sortie la loi restrictive ? Rien de semblable. Ce capital n’a pas une origine mystérieuse ou miraculeuse. Il a déserté d’autres industries, par exemple, la fabrication des soieries. N’importe d’où il soit sorti, et il est positivement sorti de quelque part, de l’agriculture, du commerce et des chemins de fer, là, il a certainement découragé l’industrie, le travail et les salaires, justement dans la même proportion où il les a encouragés dans la fabrication du drap. — En sorte que vous voyez, Messieurs, que le capital ou une certaine portion de capital ayant été simplement déplacé, sans accroissement quelconque, la part du salaire reste parfaitement la même. Il est impossible de voir, dans ce pur remue-ménage (passez-moi la vulgarité du mot), aucun profit pour la classe ouvrière. Mais, a-t-elle perdu ? Non, elle n’a pas perdu du côté des salaires (si ce n’est par les inconvénients qu’entraîne la perturbation, inconvénients qu’on ne remarque pas quand il s’agit d’établir un abus, mais dont on fait grand bruit et auxquels les protectionnistes s’attachent avec des dents de boule-dogues quand il est question de l’extirper) ; la classe ouvrière n’a rien perdu ni gagné du côté du salaire, puisque le capital n’a été augmenté ni diminué, mais seulement déplacé. Mais reste toujours cette cherté du drap que j’ai constatée tout à l’heure, que je vous ai signalée comme l’effet immédiat, inévitable, incontestable de la mesure ; et à présent, je vous le demande, à cette perte, à cette injustice qui frappe l’ouvrier, où est la compensation ? Si quelqu’un en sait une, qu’il me la signale. |
So where does this capital come from? Have the sun and moon sent it down mixed with their rays and have these rays poured gold and silver, the symbols of these two heavenly bodies, into the crucible? … It has been taken from other industries, silk manufacture, for example. No matter where it has come from, it has definitely come from somewhere, from farming, commerce, or the railways, where it has certainly discouraged industry, labor, and rates of pay. in exactly the same proportion that it has encouraged these things in woolen cloth manufacture. So that you see, Gentlemen, that since capital or a certain proportion of capital has simply been displaced. without any increase whatever, the share of pay remains exactly the same. It is impossible to see in this pure jiggery-pokery (forgive me this homely expression) any benefit for the working class. But has it lost anything? No, it has lost nothing from the point of view of pay (other than the disadvantages produced by the upheaval, which are not noticed when it is a question of establishing an abuse but which are trumpeted far and wide and to which protectionists cling like bulldogs when it is a question of eliminating one); the working class has neither gained nor lost with regard to pay since capital has neither been increased nor decreased, but merely displaced. But there still remains the high price of woolen cloth that I noted just now and that I pointed out as being the immediate, inevitable and indisputable effect of the measure, and now I put the question to you, where is the compensation for this loss and injustice inflicted on workers? If anyone has the answer, please let me know. |
Not taking into account "disturbing causes" when trying to understand the "chain of cause and effect" in economic matters was one important way in which the CP method of analysis was either weakened or made ineffective. Another was not taking into account causes which were "mis-observed" (Mill) or "unseen" (Bastiat) because of the ignorance, inexperience, incompetence, or erroneous beliefs of the observer.
Whereas a handful of other economists before Mill or Bastiat had inklings of the problem which "disturbing causes" might pose for sound economic analysis, none before Mill or Bastiat seemed aware of the problem which would be posed by "the mis-observed" and "the unseen" (ce qu'on ne voit pas). This seems to have been a problem which was only recognised in the mid-1840s with Mill's A System of Logic (1843) and Bastiat's essays written between 1845 and 1850. Why that is the case is not clear to me.
It could be because economic relations and activities are so complex, involving hundreds of millions perhaps billions of actors (producers and consumers and entrepreneurs), and a "plurality of causes" that it is too difficult for ordinary people to understand. It may be that sound economic analysis is counter-intuitive for many people, who often think that if a price is too high then the government should impose price controls to bring the price down to "normal" or "just" levels. The finer points of price theory be damned.
Mill first confronted the problem in his essay on “On the Definition of Political Economy" (1836). The question arose because, as he lamented, economists were unable to conduct true "experiments" or an "actual trial" [100] to test their theories as their scientific colleagues could in chemistry and physics laboratories - "We cannot try forms of government and systems of national policy on a diminutive scale in our laboratories". [101] Economists were thus limited to just "observation" ("we can only observe") which meant that, given the complexity of human behaviour and the fallibility of human observers, many causes and "processes" which might have been revealed in a laboratory experiment were "concealed from our observation" and went undetected. This meant that there was a "great danger" of economists and other social theorists only seeing "a portion only of the causes which are actually at work". [102]
In his words: [103]
There is a property common to almost all the moral sciences, and by which they are distinguished from many of the physical; this is, that it is seldom in our power to make experiments in them. In chemistry and natural philosophy, we can not only observe what happens under all the combinations of circumstances which nature brings together, but we may also try an indefinite number of new combinations. This we can seldom do in ethical, and scarcely ever in political science. We cannot try forms of government and systems of national policy on a diminutive scale in our laboratories, shaping our experiments as we think they may most conduce to the advancement of knowledge. We therefore study nature under circumstances of great disadvantage in these sciences; being confined [147] to the limited number of experiments which take place (if we may so speak) of their own accord, without any preparation or management of ours; in circumstances, moreover, of great complexity, and never perfectly known to us; and with the far greater part of the processes concealed from our observation.
This was a special problem with "disturbing causes" which were liable to be "overlooked", omitted", "not seen at all", or only "partially" seen. The problem was not just that some of the causes were "absolutely hidden" from the observer's eye but that could only be seen as if "through a mist" - the "mist" being the "fallacies of observation" (those of "mis-observation", "mal-observation", and "non-observation") which he would discuss at some length in A System of Logic. Even if the observer had "contemplated (them) with his mind's eye" this was no guarantee that their effects would be seen in the real world, or as Mill put it in "the limited number of experiments which take place (if we may so speak) of their own accord, without any preparation or management of ours". [104]
A close approximation to an actual "experiment" concerning economic policy would be to "find two nations alike in every other respect", one of which adopted a policy of free trade while the other retained commercial restrictions. He was sceptical that this could be achieved and that it would provide a definitive answer. But as Mill was republishing these lines in 1844 England was on the verge of repealing the Corn Laws (1846) which would provide exactly the kind of "experiment" Mill had in mind. The relevant passage is this: [105]
How, for example, can we obtain a crucial experiment on the effect of a restrictive commercial policy upon national wealth? We must find two nations alike in every other respect, or at least possessed, in a degree exactly equal, of everything which conduces to national opulence, and adopting exactly the same policy in all their other affairs, but differing in this only, that one of them adopts a system of commercial restrictions, and the other adopts free trade. This would be a decisive experiment, similar to those which we can almost always obtain in experimental physics. Doubtless this would be the most conclusive evidence of all if we could get it. But let any one consider how infinitely numerous and various are the circumstances which either directly or indirectly do or may influence the amount of the national wealth, and then ask himself what are the probabilities that in the longest revolution of ages two nations will be found, which agree, and can be shown to agree, in all those circumstances except one?
Since, therefore, it is vain to hope that truth can be arrived at, either in Political Economy or in any other department of the social science, while we look at the facts in the concrete, clothed in all the complexity with which nature has surrounded them, and [149] endeavour to elicit a general law by a process of induction from a comparison of details; there remains no other method than the à priori one, or that of "abstract speculation."
Until a definitive "experiment" arrived to prove things one way or the other economists were forced to resort to more piecemeal observation of the events actually taking place around them, usually one a small scale. If economists looked at carefully and in the right place that might gradually arrive at the truth:
But the causes are not so revealed (by infallible authority) : they are to be collected by observation; and observation in circumstances of complexity is apt to be imperfect. Some of the causes may lie beyond observation; many are apt to escape it, unless we are on the look-out for them; and it is only the habit of long and accurate observation which can give us so correct a preconception what causes we are likely to find, as shall induce us to look for them in the right quarter. But such is the nature of the human understanding, that the very fact of attending with intensity to one part of a thing, has a tendency to withdraw the attention from the other parts. We are consequently in great danger of adverting to a portion only [154] of the causes which are actually at work.
However, Mill was fairly confident that there would emerge that "rare class" of economists who were "good observers" who would be "on the look-out" for those causes which would normally be "overlooked", "escape" observation, or be only "partially seen", by "look(ing) for them in the right quarter". [106]
If economists wanted to be "good observers" Mill thought that they needed a toolkit to help them avoid the many "fallacies of observation" which would mislead them in their efforts to discover all the relevant causes and their effects, and their related economic laws, which governed the operation of the economic realm. This he attempted to do in a 115 page discussion which was Book V "On Fallacies" in A System of Logic (1843). [107] There were many categories of "fallacy" but the ones dealing with "not seeing properly" were grouped under the general heading of "fallacies of observation", and included "the fallacy of misobservation", "the fallacy of mal-observation", "the fallacy of non-observation", and "the fallacy of overlooking".
Some of the other terms and concepts he used in his analysis were to "escape the notice" (2) of the observer, seeing only a "part" of a greater whole, "not seeing" (3) things at all, accepting what one sees "at first sight" (15), and seeing what is "immediate" and "obvious to all eyes" and neglecting the things which were "diffused" and "deeper". References to "eyes" were very common in these pages (15).
A good summary of his theory of "fallacies of observation" is this passage: [108]
A fallacy of misobservation may be either negative or positive; either Non-observation or Mal-observation. It is non-observation, when all the error consists in overlooking, or neglecting, facts or particulars which ought to have been observed. It is mal-observation, when something is not simply unseen, but seen wrong; when the fact or phenomenon, instead of being recognised for what it is in reality, is mistaken for something else.
§ 2. Non-observation may either take place by overlooking instances, or by overlooking some of the circumstances of a given instance. If we were to conclude that a fortune-teller was a true prophet, from not adverting to the cases in which his predictions had been falsified by the event, this would be non-observation of instances; but if we overlooked or remained ignorant of the fact that in cases where the predictions had been fulfilled, he had been in collusion with some one who had given him the information on which they were grounded, this would be non-observation of circumstances.
Some of his other important insights are:
Fallacies of this description (overlooking or of non-observation) are the great stumbling-block to correct thinking in political economy. The economical workings of society afford numerous cases in which the effects of a cause consist of two sets of phenomena: the one immediate, concentrated, obvious to all eyes, and passing, in common apprehension, for the whole effect; the other widely diffused, or lying deeper under the surface, and which is exactly contrary to the former. Take, for instance, the common notion so plausible at the first glance, of the encouragement given to industry by lavish expenditure …
Mill has little to say on methodological issues in this work and does not expand on what he had written previously. He does however use some relevant terms in his general discussion but only in a descriptive way, terms such as "at first sight" (13 instances), to "overlook" things (16), "seeing only one-half of the matter" (1), and "fallacy" (8) but not with respect to the "fallacy of observation" which had much concerned him in 1843.
Mill wrote 100 pages on the problem of "mis-observation" in 1843. Bastiat wrote 80 pages on the problem of "not seeing" in 1850. [112] I don't think the two have ever been connected before but I think they should be. There is no evidence ce either of them knew about the existence of the other but the similarity in their thinking on this matter is striking. Both seem to have come to the same conclusion that the "chain of cause and effect" based upon the certainties of the "natural laws of economics" was not as strong as they had thought because of the existence of additional "disturbing causes" on the one hand and "mis-observations" or "non-observations" of economic activities on the other. This meant that the apparent simplicity of "ceteris paribus" assumptions had to be modified as it had become more difficult for political economists to discover "the truth" "at first sight" and that economists had to become more perceptive in their analysis of economics events/processes and had to go looking for "the unseen".
Bastiat summarized his approach in the opening paragraph and in the chapter on "Algeria" in his 1850 work: [113]
Dans la sphère économique, un acte, une habitude, une institution, une loi, n’engendrent pas seulement un effet, mais une série d’effets. De ces effets, le premier seul est immédiat; il se manifeste simultanément avec sa cause, on le voit. Les autres ne se déroulent que successivement, on ne les voit pas, heureux si on les prévoit! |
In the sphere of economics an action, a habit, an institution, or a law engenders not just one effect but a series of effects. Of these effects only the first is immediate; it is revealed simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The others merely occur successively; they are not seen; we are lucky if we foresee them. |
Entre un mauvais et un bon Économiste, voici toute la différence: l’un s’en tient à l’effet visible; l’autre tient compte et de l’effet qu’on voit et de ceux qu’il faut prévoir. |
The entire difference between a good economists and a bad economist is the following: the latter sticks to the visible effects, while the former takes into account both the effect which one can see and those whioch it is necesary to foresee. |
Le seul but que j’ai en vue, c’est de faire comprendre au lecteur que, dans toute dépense publique, derrière le bien apparent il y a un mal plus difficile à discerner. Autant qu’il est en moi, je voudrais lui faire prendre l’habitude de voir l’un et l’autre et de tenir compte de tous deux |
The sole object which I have in mind is to get the reader to understand that in all public expenditure behind the apparent good there is harm which is much more difficult to see. To the extent that I can I would like to get him/her into the habit of seeing the one (as well as) the other and to take both of them into account. |
The essence of his theory of "the seen and the unseen" can be summarized as follows:
The vocabulary Bastiat developed to describe his key insights was very rich, carefully chosen, and was often unique to him, but as we will see bore some striking similarities to what J.S. Mill had written in 1843 in A System of Logic. He regularly used what I call a “vocabulary cluster” of terms around some of his key insights. He did this with his theory of "causes perturbatrices" (disturbing causes) (which I have discussed above) and with “the seen” and “the unseen” for which I have created another graphical depiction of his “vocabulary cluster” and which I will briefly outline here.
As he liked to do, Bastiat uses pairs of opposing words and concepts to make his arguments, such as the seen and the unseen, the visible and the invisible, the noticed and the unnoticed, things in the light and things in the shadows, the real world versus the unreal world of fictions and illusions and disguises, the close by and the distant, the immediate and the postponed or delayed, the hidden and the obvious, the direct and the indirect, being blind and being clear sighted, seeing only one side or all sides of an event, the deep and the superficial, the normal and the abnormal, the single event versus events which are linked in a chain or series, and of course the "good economist" who sees or foresees “the unseen” and the "bad economist" who does not.
A deep insight into the nature of economic activity lay at the heart of Bastiat's notion of “the seen" and "the unseen”. This was the idea that economic activities were linked to each other by what he called “a series” or “a chain” (l’enchaînement) of interconnections. What was immediately apparent or obvious to the observer of an economic event was something that was direct, immediate, close in time or space, on the surface of events, and thus visible, that is to say “the seen”. However, because economic actions were interconnected they had “flow on effects” which impinged upon others in the market. These effects were “hidden” in the sense that they could be indirect, delayed in time, further away in distance, take place at a deep level, and thus were “invisible’ or “unseen.” Bastiat thought that these latter hidden or unseen effects could and should be seen (or “foreseen”) by an intelligent and inquiring mind, one that had been trained in sound economic analysis, or what he called a “good economist”. In contrast, those who lacked such training could not or would not see “the unseen” and therefore he called them a “bad” or “superficial” economist.
There was also the serious problem of people who were prevented from "seeing" what was happening in the economy because they were deliberately lied to or “duped” (his word) by powerful vested interest groups (such as protected domestic manufacturers); or they were forced to wear ideological “blindfolds” because of what they had been taught in government schools (such as the focus on ancient Roman society which disdained productive labour and extolled the virtues of slavery and military conquest), or were persuaded by the powerful oratory of socialist critics who had been railing against the “injustice” of rent, interest, and profit in the press for over ten years leading up to the outbreak of the February Revolution of 1848. Bastiat wrote two collections of what he called "sophismes économiques" which were brief essays designed to rip off the blindfolds which covered the eyes of these “dupes” who believed the economic “sophistry” which was being peddled by these groups. [114] Thus, his concern with “the seen” and “the unseen” needs to be seen in the context of this more general critique.
The vocabulary Bastiat devised to explore the idea of "the seen" and "the unseen" can be divided into three groups: words he used to describe seeing and perceiving, not seeing and being deceived, and the “series” or “chains” of consequences which tied the economy together into an interconnected whole. This vocabulary, like his other ones, evolved over the short period between his coming to the attention of the Paris-based economists in late 1844 and his death at the end of 1850.
The terms used to describe “seeing” include the following:
The terms used to describe “not seeing” include the following (I have not given a reference for those phrases which are used many times):
The terms he used to describe the interconnectedness of economic activity and the various effects and consequences of an action, include the following:
And finally the two different kinds of economists:
One might summarise the different though related approaches to economic thinking of Adam Smith and Bastiat by saying that the former talked about markets being guided as if by “an invisible hand” (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, IV.i.10.) whereas Bastiat wanted to expose the “invisible harm” caused by government intervention in those markets. The former wanted to show the beneficial effects of what was unseen (the hand of the market); whereas the latter wanted to show the harmful consequences of what was unseen when the government intervened.
As is often the case with Bastiat, his changing use of terminology makes it hard to pin down exactly the first time he expressed this idea in his writing. The following are a selection of his early efforts to refine his thinking about “the seen” and “the unseen”. A very early usage is in “Human Labor and Domestic Labor” (c. 1845) [116] where he argues against opponents of imported goods and the use of machines in factories by contrasting “leurs effets immédiats et transitoires” (their immediate and transitory effects) (which are seen to be harmful) and their “conséquences générales et définitives” (general and permanent consequences) (which are beneficial).
Another early use occurs in an essay he wrote at the end of 1846 "On the Impact of the Protectionist Regime on Agriculture” (Dec. 1846) [117] in which he talks about tariffs as being “disguised taxes” and where the “benefits” dazzle the eyes but the taxes pass unnoticed (“le bénéfice crève les yeux, tandis que la cotisation qui le constitue passe inaperçue”). In early 1847 in the essay “Domination through Work” he talks about the “illusion” people have about the dangers of importing the products of foreign labour which he believes comes about because people do not see or appreciate a key thing, namely it saves them labour which they can devote to something else: “L’illusion provient de ce qu’on ne voit pas une chose” (the illusion comes about because one does not see something). [118]
In early 1848 when he begins writing articles which will later be reworked and republished in his treatise Economic Harmonies (Jan. 1850) he quotes an insight made by Rousseau (someone he didn’t normally quote favourably) [119] that it required a lot of thinking in order to see and understand the things that one was constantly surrounded by and took for granted. [120]
Rousseau a dit: « Il faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer les faits qui sont trop près de nous. » |
Rousseau has said: “A great deal of philosophy is needed for us to take account of those facts that are too close to us.” |
Tels sont les phénomènes sociaux au milieu desquels nous vivons et nous nous mouvons. L’habitude nous a tellement familiarisés avec ces phénomènes, que nous n’y faisons plus attention, pour ainsi dire, à moins qu’ils n’aient quelque chose de brusque et d’anormal qui les impose à notre observation. |
Such are the social phenomena in the midst of which we live and move. Habit has familiarized us with these phenomena to such an extent that we no longer pay attention to them, so to speak, unless something sudden and abnormal brings them to our notice. |
In early 1849 in a long pamphlet called “Protectionism and Communism" in which he argued that the conservative support for protection was logically similar to the ideas for the redistribution of wealth being put forward by the communists, he makes the point that the immediate “profits” which seem to come from a protective tariff can be seen by “the naked eye” but the string of costs and losses which they bring in their train can only be see by “the inquiring eye of the mind”: [121]
Ce qui fait que l’opinion publique s’égare sur ce point, c’est que le Profit de la protection est visible à l’œil nu, tandis que des deux Pertes égales qu’elle entraîne, l’une se divise à l’infini entre tous les citoyens, et l’autre ne se montre qu’à l’œil investigateur de l’esprit. |
What causes public opinion to err on this point is that the profit due to protectionism is visible to the naked eye, whereas of the two equal losses it brings in its wake one is infinitely divided between the citizens and the other is visible only to the eye of an investigative mind. |
Probably the first explicit use of the phrase "ce qu'on ne voit pas" (that which one doesn't see) in the sense it came to have in his later writings (Economic Harmonies (Jan. 1850) and WSWNS (July 1850) was in an article “Laziness and Trade Restrictions” he wrote in January 1848 for the journal of the French Free Trade Association which he edited, Libre-Échange, pointing out the clear opportunity costs which this action imposes and which are “not seen” immediately: [122]
Si un homme d’État intervient et dit: « Nous allons exclure le produit étranger; tu le feras toi-même, et tes concitoyens te le payeront plus cher, afin de te déterminer au travail par l’appât d’un plus grand gain, » le résultat sera que tous ses concitoyens, payant le produit plus cher, seront moins riches d’autant, et favoriseront dans une moindre proportion des industries déjà existantes dans le pays. Tout ce qu’on aura fait, c’est d’encourager une forme de travail en en décourageant dix autres, et l’on ne voit pas alors comment le sacrifice atteint le but, qui est de détruire la paresse. |
If a politician steps in and says “We are going to ban the entry of foreign products; you will make them yourself and your fellow citizens will pay you more for it, in order to encourage you to work with the incentive of more money”, the result will be that all his fellow citizens will be less wealthy by the same amount, and will patronize to a lesser extent the industries which already exist in the country. All that will happen, is to encourage one form of labour by discouraging ten others, and one will not then see how this sacrifice will achieve its goal, which is to destroy laziness. |
Thus the range of words he used before he settled on “ce qu’on voit” (that which one sees, or the seen) and “ce qu’on ne voit pas” (that which one does not see, or the unseen), probably at the beginning of 1848, is considerable, which makes tracking his changing usage problematical at times.
Opening quote: [123]
Vous ressemblez à des architectes qui disputent sur un monument dont chacun n’a observé qu’une face. Ils ne voient pas mal, mais ils ne voient pas tout. Pour les mettre d’accord il ne faut que les décider à faire le tour de l’édifice. |
“You (communists) are like architects who quarrel over a monument, which they have seen from just one side. They do not see incorrectly, but they do not see everything. To make them agree, all you need is to persuade them to walk around the edifice.” |
Before turning to the classic statement of his theory in the booklet WSWNS (July 1850) it should be noted that there were many references as well in his treatise Economic Harmonies, the first and unfinished edition of which appeared in January 1850 and an expanded posthumous edition which appeared in July 1851. I believe that the concept of “the unseen” plays a very important part in his treatise which has gone largely unrecognised (dare I say “unseen”?) by scholars. We have identified eleven instances of this principle being referred to directly and indirectly which we list below.
This list with the full quotation can be found in the Appendix.
Opening quote: [124]
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. |
Not to understand political economy is to let oneself be dazzled by the immediate effect of a phenomenon; to understand it (means) to consider all of its effects in one’s thinking and in one’s predictions (about the future). |
In his definitive work on the matter, written only months before he died, Bastiat provides the reader with a concise definition of what he meant by the term (quoted above) and a dozen specific examples of his principle at work. Since the entire book is devoted to a detailed discussion of the principle of “the seen” and “the unseen” we will only summarise the contents here.
A number of his key ideas from previous books and articles are drawn upon here as well and in some cases developed in new directions, such as the idea of the “displacement” or transfer of wealth which is often misunderstood as an increase in wealth, the sophism of the ricochet effect (especially applied to the salaries paid to public servants), the idea of the “double incidence of loss” which describes the missing “third party” who loses out when state laws favour one party over another (this “third party” is left hidden in the shadows and thus can’t be seen easily), the idea that economic actions produce a series of events which take place over time and space; and his objection to the practice of “legal plunder” (and a new related term of the “legal parasite”). He also introduces two new kinds of “eyes” with which the economic world can be viewed: “l’œil gauche” (the left eye) which only sees the immediately obvious, i.e. “the seen”, and “l’œil droit” (the right eye) which is not usually used to view the world but which would reveal the less obvious or things hidden, i.e. “the unseen.”
The specific examples of the “the seen” and “the unseen" covered in this book include the following:
Opening quote: [125]
C’est toujours la lutte entre ce qui frappe les yeux et ce qui ne se montre qu’à l’esprit, entre ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas. |
It is always the struggle between what strikes the eyes and what is only revealed to the mind, between what is seen and what is not seen. |
Bastiat concluded his booklet CQV with the following words which I think are fitting here as well: [126]
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. |
Thus one sees in the many subjects I have dealt with that, not to understand Political Economy is to let oneself be be blinded by the immediate effect of a phenomenon; to understand it (means) to consider all of its effects in one’s thinking and in one’s predictions (about the future). |
Je pourrais soumettre ici une foule d’autres questions à la même épreuve. Mais je recule devant la monotonie d’une démonstration toujours uniforme, et je termine, en appliquant à l’Économie politique ce que Chateaubriand dit de l’Histoire: |
I might at this point submit a host of other questions to the same proof. However, I draw back from the monotony of an endlessly repetitive argument and will close by applying to Political Economy what Chateaubriand said about History: |
« Il y a, dit-il, deux conséquences en histoire: l’une immédiate et qui est à l’instant connue, l’autre éloignée et qu’on n’aperçoit pas d’abord. Ces conséquences souvent se contredisent; les unes viennent de notre courte sagesse, les autres de la sagesse perdurable. L’événement providentiel apparaît après l’événement humain. Dieu se lève derrière les hommes. Niez tant qu’il vous plaira le suprême conseil, ne consentez pas à son action, disputez sur les mots, appelez force des choses ou raison ce que le vulgaire appelle Providence ; mais regardez à la fin d’un fait accompli, et vous verrez qu’il a toujours produit le contraire de ce qu’on en attendait, quand il n’a point été établi d’abord sur la morale et la justice. » (Chateaubriand. Mémoires d’outre-tombe.). |
“There are” he said, “two consequences in history; one that is immediate and known right away, the other more distant and not obvious at first sight. These consequences are often contradictory; some come from our recently acquired wisdom, the others from wisdom of long standing. A providential event appears after a human one. God arises behind men. You may deny as much as you like the supreme counsel, refuse to accept what it has done, query its choice of words and dismiss as the mere force of things or reason, what the common folk call Providence, as much as you like. But look to the end of an accomplished deed and you will see that it has always produced the opposite of what was expected of it, when it has not initially been based on morality and justice.” (Chateaubriand, Memoirs from Beyond the Grave) |
I thought I might end this academic analysis of obscure word use among dead white economists with a poem. I don't think there has been much poetry written about economics or by economists. The one I do know about wrote very bad poetry extolling the virtues of free trade during the campaign by the Anti-Corn Law League, namely Ebenezer Elliott (1781-1849) known as "the Corn Law rhymer". In reading about CP it became clear that "if … then" statements were the form most commonly used - "if you keep these other things equal, then this will be the result." So it was natural I should think of Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "If" (c. 1895). [127]
The poem consists of a rather tedious set of "if … then" statements of advice from a father to his son. There are 4 stanzas, 11 "if statements", and one "then" conclusion. To remind you, here is part of the first stanza and the conclusion:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too; ...Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Here is my humble "if … then" poem on a theme of economics:
If you can hold one factor still when all about you
Other factors change and make it hard to view,
If you can see more clearly when others shroud their eyes
And whose mal-observation prevents them being wise,The economy is yours and everything that's in it,
And more, you'll be an economist my friend.
The edition I have used is John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy. By John Stuart Mill. In Two Volumes. Seventh Edition. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader And Dyer, 1871). It is available at my website [Online].
1.) Chap III Of Unproductive Labour , p. I-62 [Online].
All labour is, in the language of political economy, unproductive, which ends in immediate enjoyment, without any increase of the accumulated stock of permanent means of enjoyment. And all labour, according to our present definition, must be classed as unproductive, which terminates in a permanent benefit, however important, provided that an increase of material products forms no part of that benefit. The labour of saving a friend's life is not productive, unless the friend is a productive labourer, and produces more than he consumes. To a religious person the saving of a soul must appear a far more important service than the saving of a life ; but he will not therefore call a missionary or a [i-62] clergyman productive labourers, unless they teach, as the South Sea Missionaries have in some cases done, the arts of civilization in addition to the doctrines of their religion. It is, on the contrary, evident that the greater number of missionaries or clergymen a nation maintains, the less it has to expend on other things; while the more it expends judiciously in keeping agriculturists and manufacturers at work, the more it will have for every other purpose. By the former it diminishes, cæteris paribus, its stock of material products ; by the latter, it increases them.
2.) CHAPTER VII. ON WHAT DEPENDS THE DEGREE OF PRODUCTIVENESS OF PRODUCTIVE AGENTS, p. I-129 [Online].
§ 3. So much for natural advantages ; the value of which, cæteris paribus, is too obvious to be ever underrated. But experience testifies that natural advantages scarcely ever do for a community, no more than fortune and station do for an individual, anything like what it lies in their nature, or in their capacity, to do. Neither now nor in former ages have the nations possessing the best climate and soil, been either the richest or the most powerful ; but (in so far as regards the mass of the people) generally among the [i-130] poorest, though, in the midst of poverty, probably on the whole the most enjoying. Human life in those countries can be supported on so little, that the poor seldom suffer from anxiety, and in climates in which mere existence is a pleasure, the luxury which they prefer is that of repose. Energy, at the call of passion, they possess in abundance, but not that which is manifested in sustained and persevering labour : and as they seldom concern themselves enough about remote objects to establish good political institutions, the incentives to industry are further weakened by imperfect protection of its fruits. Successful production, like most other kinds of success, depends more on the qualities of the human agents, than on the circumstances in which they work : and it is difficulties, not facilities, that nourish bodily and mental energy. Accordingly the tribes of mankind who have overrun and conquered others, and compelled them to labour for their benefit, have been mostly reared amidst hardship. They have either been bred in the forests of northern climates, or the deficiency of natural hardships has been supplied, as among the Greeks and Romans, by the artificial ones of a rigid military discipline. From the time when the circumstances of modern society permitted the discontinuance of that discipline, the South has no longer produced conquering nations ; military vigour, as well as speculative thought and industrial energy, have all had their principal seats in the less favoured North.
3.) CHAPTER IX. OF PRODUCTION ON A LARGE, AND PRODUCTION ON A SMALL SCALE p. I-187 [Online].
But although the gross produce of the land is greatest, cæteris paribus, under small cultivation, and although, therefore, a country is able on that system to support a larger aggregate population, it is generally assumed by English writers that what is termed the net produce, that is, the surplus after feeding the cultivators, must be smaller ; that therefore, the population disposable for all other purposes, for manufactures, for commerce and navigation, for national defence, for the promotion of knowledge, for the liberal professions, for the various functions of government, for the arts and literature, all of which are dependent on this surplus for their existence as occupations, must be less numerous ; and that the nation, therefore (waving all question as to the condition of the actual cultivators), must be inferior in the principal elements of national power, and in many of those of general well-being. This, however, has been taken for granted much too readily. Undoubtedly the non-agricultural population will bear a less ratio to the agricultural, under small than under large cultivation.
4.) CHAPTER XII. OF THE LAW OF THE INCREASE OF PRODUCTION FROM LAND p. I-226 [Online].
§ 3. That the produce of land increases, cæteris paribus, in a diminishing ratio to the increase in the labour employed, is a truth more often ignored or disregarded than actually denied. It has, however, met with a direct impugner in the well-known American political economist, Mr. H. C. Carey, who maintains that the real law of agricultural industry is the very reverse ; the produce increasing in a greater ratio than the labour, or in other words affording to labour a perpetually increasing return. To substantiate this assertion, he argues that cultivation does not begin with the better soils, and extend from them, as the demand increases, to the poorer, but begins with the poorer, and does not, till long after, extend itself to the more fertile. Settlers in a new country invariably commence on the high and thin lands ; the rich but swampy soils of the river bottoms cannot at first be brought into cultivation, by reason of their unhealthiness, and of the great and prolonged labour required for clearing and draining them. As population and wealth increase, cultivation travels down the hill sides, clearing them as it goes, and the most fertile soils, those of the low grounds, are generally (he even says universally) the latest cultivated. These propositions, with the inferences which Mr. Carey draws from them, are set forth at much length in his latest and most elaborate treatise, " Principles of Social Science ;" and he considers them as subverting the very foundation of what he calls the English political economy, with all its practical consequences, especially the doctrine of free trade.
5.) CHAPTER II. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED p. I-275 [Online].
But the feudal family, the last historical form of patriarchal life, has long perished, and the unit of society is not now the family or clan, composed of all the reputed descendants of a common ancestor, but the individual; or at most a pair of individuals, with their unemancipated children. [i-275] Property is now inherent in individuals, not in families: the children when grown up do not follow the occupations or fortunes of the parent: if they participate in the parent's^ pecuniary means it is at his or her pleasure, and not by a voice in the ownership and government of the whole, but generally by the exclusive enjoyment of apart; and in this country at least (except as far as entails or settlements are an obstacle) it is in the power of parents to disinherit even their children, and leave their fortune to strangers. More distant relatives are in general almost as completely detached from the family and its interests as if they were in no way connected with it. The only claim they are supposed to have on their richer relations, is to a preference, cæteris paribus, in good offices, and some aid in case of actual necessity.
6.) CHAPTER XIV. OF THE DIFFERENCES OF WAGES IN DIFFERENT EMPLOYMENTS p. I-489 [Online].
For the same reason it is found that, cæteris paribus, those trades are generally the worst paid, in which the wife and children of the artizan aid in the work. The income which the habits of the class demand, and down to which they are almost sure to multiply, is made up, in those trades, by the earnings of the whole family, while in others the same income must be obtained by the labour of the man alone. It is even probable that their collective earnings will amount to a smaller sum than those of the man alone in other trades ; because the prudential restraint on marriage is unusually weak when the only consequence immediately felt is an improvement of circumstances, the joint earnings of the two going further in their domestic economy after marriage than before. Such accordingly is the fact, in the case of hand-loom weavers. In most kinds of weaving, women can and do earn as much as men, and children are employed at a very early age ; but the aggregate earnings of a family are lower than in almost any other kind of industry, and the marriages earlier. …
7.) APPENDIX p. I-613 [Online].
On what evidence is it asserted that small properties imply deficiency of cattle, and consequent deficiency of manure ? That they are not favourable to sheep farming seems to be admitted ; yet in France, as well as in the United Kingdom, the number of sheep has doubled in the course of a century. It is true that in quality, instead of the extraordinary improvement which has taken place in England, they have remained almost stationary. But the breeding and fattening of horned cattle is so perfectly compatible with small capital, that in the opinion of many Continental authorities, small farms have the advantage in this respect, and so great an advantage as to be more than a compensation for their inferiority in sheep. It is argued that the petite propriété must diminish the number of cattle, because it leads to the breaking up of natural pasture. But when natural pasture is fit for the plough, a greater number of cattle than were supported on the whole, may be supported on a part, by laying it out in roots and artificial grasses ; and it is well known that on the stall-feeding system there is much greater preservation of manure. The question of petite culture, in relation to cattle, is, in fact, one and the same with the question of stall-feeding. The two things must stand or fall together. Stall-feeding produces, ceteris paribus, a greater quantity of provisions, but in the opinion of most judges a lower quality. Experience must decide.
8.) CHAPTER VIII. OF THE VALUE OF MONEY, AS DEPENDENT ON DEMAND AND SUPPLY. p. II-20 [Online].
It frequently happens that money, to a considerable amount, is brought into the country, is there actually invested as capital, and again flows out, without having ever once acted upon the markets of commodities, but only upon the market of securities, or, as it is commonly though improperly called, the money market. Let us return to the case already put for illustration, that of a foreigner landing in the country with a treasure. We supposed him to employ his treasure in the purchase of goods for his own use, or in setting up a manufactory and employing labourers; and in either case he would, cæteris paribus, raise prices. But instead of doing either of these things, he might very probably prefer to invest his fortune at interest; which we shall suppose him to do in [ii-21] the most obvious way, by becoming a competitor for a portion of the stock, exchequer bills, railway debentures, mercantile bills, mortgages, &c., which are at all times in the hands of the public. By doing this he would raise the prices of those different securities, or in other words would lower the rate of interest; and since this would disturb the relation previously existing between the rate of interest on capital in the country itself, and that in foreign countries, it would probably induce some of those who had floating capital seeking employment, to send it abroad for foreign investment rather than buy securities at home at the advanced price. As much money might thus go out as had previously come in, while the prices of commodities would have shown no trace of its temporary presence. This is a case highly deserving of attention: and it is a fact now beginning to be recognised, that the passage of the precious metals from country to country is determined much more than was formerly supposed, by the state of the loan market in different countries, and much less by the state of prices.
9.) CHAPTER XVIII. OF INTERNATIONAL VALUES, p. II-136 [Online].
It deserves notice, that this effect in favour of England from the opening of another market for her exports, will equally be produced even though the country from which the demand comes should have nothing to sell which England is willing to take. Suppose that the third country, though requiring cloth or iron from England, produces no linen, nor any other article which is in demand there. She however produces exportable articles, or she would have no means of paying for imports: her exports, though not suitable to the English consumer, can find a market somewhere. As we are only supposing three countries, we must assume her to find this market in Germany, and to pay for what she imports from England by orders on her German customers. Germany, therefore, besides having to pay for her own imports, now owes a debt to England on account of the third country, and the means for both purposes must be derived from her exportable produce. She must therefore tender that produce to England on terms sufficiently favourable to force a demand equivalent to this double debt. Everything will take place precisely as if the third country had bought German produce with her own goods, and offered that produce to England in exchange for hers. There is an increased demand for English goods, for which German goods have to furnish the payment; and this can only be done by forcing an increased demand for them in England, that is, by lowering their value. Thus an increase of demand for a country's exports in any foreign country, enables her to obtain more cheaply even [ii-136] those imports which she procures from other quarters. And conversely, an increase of her own demand for any foreign commodity compels her, cæteris paribus, to pay dearer for all foreign commodities.
10.) CHAPTER XVIII. OF INTERNATIONAL VALUES, II-150 [Online].
But these two influencing circumstances are in reality reducible to one: for the capital which a country has to spare from the production of domestic commodities for its own use, is in proportion to its own demand for foreign commodities: whatever proportion of its collective income it expends in purchases from abroad, that same proportion of its capital is left without a home market for its productions. The new element, therefore, which for the sake of scientific correctness we have introduced into the theory of international values, does not seem to make any very material difference in the practical result. It still appears, that the countries which carry on their foreign trade on the most advantageous terms, are those whose commodities are most in demand by foreign countries, and which have themselves the least demand for foreign commodities. From which, among other consequences, it follows, that the richest countries, cæteris paribus, gain the least by a given amount of foreign commerce: since, having a greater demand for commodities generally, they are likely to have a greater demand for foreign commodities, and thus modify the terms of interchange to their own disadvantage. Their aggregate gains by foreign trade, doubtless, are generally greater than those of poorer countries, since they carry on a greater amount of such trade, and gain the benefit of cheapness on a larger consumption: but their gain is less on each individual article consumed.
11.) CHAPTER XIX. ON MONEY, CONSIDERED AS AN IMPORTED COMMODITY. p. II-156 [Online].
Money, then, if imported solely as a merchandize, will, like other imported commodities, be of lowest value in the countries for whose exports there is the greatest foreign demand, and which have themselves the least demand for foreign commodities. To these two circumstances it is however necessary to add two others, which produce their effect through cost of carriage. The cost of obtaining bullion is compounded of two elements; the goods given to purchase it, and the expense of transport: of which last, the bullion countries will bear a part, (though an uncertain part,) in the adjustment of international values. The expense of transport is partly that of carrying the goods to the bullion countries, and partly that of bringing back the bullion: both these items are influenced by the distance from the mines; and the former is also much affected by the bulkiness of the goods. Countries whose exportable produce consists of the finer manufactures, obtain bullion, as well as all other foreign articles, cæteris paribus, at less expense than countries which export nothing but bulky raw produce.
12.) CHAPTER XXIII. OF THE RATE OF INTEREST., p. II-206 [Online].
The price of land, mines, and all other fixed sources of income, depends in like manner on the rate of interest. Land usually sells at a higher price, in proportion to the income afforded by it, than the public funds, not only because it is thought, even in this country, to be somewhat more secure, but because ideas of power and dignity are associated with its possession. But these differences are constant, or nearly so; and in the variations of price, land follows, cæteris paribus, the permanent (though of course not the daily) variations of the rate of interest. When interest is low, land will naturally be dear; when interest is high, land will be cheap. The last long war presented a striking exception to this rule, since the price of land as well as the rate of interest was then remarkably high. For this, however, there was a special cause. The continuance of a very high average price of corn for many years, had raised the rent of land even more than in proportion to the rise of interest and fall of the selling price of fixed incomes. Had it not been for this accident, chiefly dependent on the seasons, land must have sustained as great a depreciation in value as the public funds: which it probably would do, were a similar war to break out hereafter; to the signal disappointment of those landlords and farmers who, generalizing from the casual circumstances of a remarkable period, so long persuaded themselves that a state of war was peculiarly advantageous, and a state of peace disadvantageous, to what they chose to call the interests of agriculture.
13.) CHAPTER II. INFLUENCE OF THE PROGRESS OF INDUSTRY AND POPULATION ON VALUES AND PRICES, p. II-273 [Online].
When, however, population increases, as it has never yet failed to do when the increase of industry and of the means of subsistence made room for it, the demand for most of the productions of the earth, and particularly for food, increases in a corresponding proportion. And then comes into effect that fundamental law of production from the soil, on which we have so frequently had occasion to expatiate; the law, that increased labour, in any given state of agricultural skill, is attended with a less than proportional increase of produce. The cost of production of the fruits of the earth increases, cæteris paribus, with every increase of the demand.
14.) CHAPTER III. INFLUENCE OF THE PROGRESS OF INDUSTRY AND POPULATION, ON RENTS, PROFITS, AND WAGES., p. II-284 [Online].
It follows, from principles with which we are already familiar, that in these circumstances rent will rise. Any land can afford to pay, and under free competition will pay, a rent equal to the excess of its produce above the return to an equal capital on the worst land, or under the least favourable conditions. Whenever, therefore, agriculture is driven to descend to worse land, or more onerous processes, rent rises. Its rise will be twofold, for, in the first place, rent in kind, or corn rent, will rise; and in the second, since the value of agricultural produce has also risen, rent, estimated in manufactured or foreign commodities (which is represented, cæteris paribus, by money rent) will rise still more.
15.) CHAPTER II. ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION., p. II-392 [Online].
§ 2. For what reason ought equality to be the rule in matters of taxation? For the reason, that it ought to be so in all affairs of government. As a government ought to make no distinction of persons or classes in the strength of their claims on it, whatever sacrifices it requires from them should be made to bear as nearly as possible with the same pressure upon all, which, it must be observed, is the mode by which least sacrifice is occasioned on the whole. If any one bears less than his fair share of the burthen, some other person must suffer more than his share, and the alleviation to the one is not, cæteris paribus, so great a good to him, as the increased pressure upon the other is an evil. Equality of taxation, therefore, as a maxim of politics, means equality of sacrifice. It means apportioning the contribution of each person towards the expenses of government, so that he shall feel neither more nor less inconvenience from his share of the payment than every other person experiences from his. This standard, like other standards of perfection, cannot be completely realized; but the first object in every practical discussion should be to know what perfection is.
16.) CHAPTER VI. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION., p. II-474 [Online].
5thly. Among luxuries of general consumption, taxation should by preference attach itself to stimulants, because these, though in themselves as legitimate indulgences as any others, are more liable than most others to be used in excess, so that the check to consumption, naturally arising from taxation, is on the whole better applied to them than to other things. 6thly. As far as other considerations permit, taxation should be confined to imported articles, since [ii-475] these can be taxed with a less degree of vexatious interference, and with fewer incidental bad effects, than when a tax is levied on the field or on the workshop. Custom-duties are, cæteris paribus, much less objectionable than excise: but they must be laid only on things which either cannot, or at least ill not, be produced in the country itself; or else their production there must be prohibited (as in England is the case with tobacco), or subjected to an excise duty of equivalent amount. 7thly. No tax ought to be kept so high as to furnish a motive to its evasion, too strong to be counteracted by ordinary means of prevention: and especially no commodity should be taxed so highly as to raise up a class of lawless characters, smugglers, illicit distillers, and the like.
17.) CHAPTER X. OF INTERFERENCES OF GOVERNMENT GROUNDED ON ERRONEOUS THEORIES., p. II-534 [Online].
Now, in the first place, there is nothing more objectionable in a money payment than in payment by any other medium, if the state of the market makes it the most advantageous remittance; and the money itself was first acquired, and would again be replenished, by the export of an equivalent value of our own products. But, in the next place, a very short interval of paying in money would so lower prices as either to stop a part of the importation, or raise up a foreign demand for our produce, sufficient to pay for the imports. I grant that this disturbance of the equation of international demand would be in some degree to our disadvantage, in the purchase of other imported articles; and that a country which prohibits some foreign commodities, does, cæteris paribus, obtain those which it does not prohibit, at a less price than it would otherwise have to pay. To express the same thing in other words; a country which destroys or prevents altogether certain branches of foreign trade, thereby annihilating a general gain to the world, which would be shared in some proportion between itself and other countries—does, in some circumstances, draw to itself, at the expense of foreigners, a larger share than would else belong to it of the gain arising from that portion of its foreign trade which it suffers to subsist. But even this it can only be enabled to do, if foreigners do not maintain equivalent prohibitions or restrictions against its commodities. In any case, the justice or expediency of destroying one of two gains, in order to engross a rather larger [**ii-535**] share of the other, does not require much discussion: the gain, too, which is destroyed, being, in proportion to the magnitude of the transactions, the larger of the two, since it is the one which capital, left to itself, is supposed to seek by preference.
1.) “Aux rédacteurs du National (2) (To the Editors of Le National (2)) Courrier français, 11 novembre 1846. [Online]
“Il y a en effet deux sortes d’impôts, les bons et les mauvais. J’appelle bon impôt celui en retour duquel le contribuable reçoit un service supérieur ou du moins équivalent à son sacrifice. Si l’État, par exemple, prend, en moyenne, 1 franc à chaque citoyen, et si, avec les 36 millions qui en proviennent, il fait un canal qui économise tous les ans à l’industrie 5 ou 6 millions de frais de transport, on ne peut pas dire que l’opération nous place dans une condition inférieure au peuple voisin, qui, cæteris paribus, ne paye pas les 36 millions, mais n’a pas non plus le canal. S’agit-il du fer ? Il est bien vrai qu’en raison de la taxe son prix de revient sera augmenté dans une proportion quelconque ; mais, en raison du canal, il sera diminué dans une proportion plus forte encore, en sorte que, si le maître de forges fait son compte, il trouvera que son fer lui coûte moins qu’avant la taxe. Or, il est évident qu’un impôt de cette nature (et tous devraient l’être) ne justifie pas une protection spéciale en faveur du fer. Il s’en passait avant la taxe, à fortiori, il peut s’en passer après.“
2.) Capitale et rente (Paris: Guillaumin, 1849). [Online].
“D’après quelle loi s’établit le taux de ces services rémunératoires du prêt ? D’après la loi générale qui règle l’équivalence de tous les services, c’est-à-dire d’après la loi de l’offre et de la demande. Plus une chose est facile à se procurer, moins on rend service en la cédant ou prêtant. L’homme qui me donne un verre d’eau, dans les Pyrénées, ne me rend pas un aussi grand service que celui qui me céderait un verre d’eau, dans le désert de Sahara. S’il y a beaucoup de rabots, de sacs de blé, de maisons dans un pays, on en obtient l’usage (cæteris paribus) à des conditions plus favorables que s’il y en a peu, par la simple raison que le prêteur rend en ce cas un moindre service relatif.”
3.) “Abondance”, Dictionnaire de l'économie politique (Paris: Guillaumin, 1852), vol. 1, pp. 2-4. [Online]
“On dira peut-être qu’il ne suffit pas que les produits abondent ; qu’il faut encore qu’ils soient équitablement répartis. Rien n’est plus vrai. Mais ne confondons pas les questions. Quand nous défendons l’abondance, quand nos adversaires la décrient, les uns et les autres nous sous-entendons ces mots : cæteris paribus, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, l’équité dans la répartition étant supposée la même.”
4.) Harmonies économiques (1851) chap. IX. Propriété foncière, p. 271 [Online]
“Le seul fait qu’il existe des terres sans valeur quelque part oppose au privilége un obstacle invincible, et nous nous retrouvons dans l’hypothèse précédente. Les services agricoles subissent la loi de l’universelle compétition, et il est radicalement impossible de les faire accepter pour plus qu’ils ne valent. J’ajoute qu’ils ne valent pas plus (cœteris paribus) que les services de toute autre nature.”
5.) Letter from Eaux-Bonnes, 3 juillet 1850. A M. de Fontenay [Online]
“Il y a toute une science à élever sur le vilain mot consommation : c’est ce que j’établirai au commencement de mon second volume. Quant à la population, il est incompréhensible que M. Clément m’attaque sur un sujet que je n’ai pas encore abordé ! Et au fond, nier cet axiome : La densité de la population est une facilité de production, c’est nier toute la puissance de l’échange et de la division du travail. De plus c’est nier des faits qui crèvent les yeux. — Sans doute la population s’arrange naturellement de manière à produire le plus possible ; et pour cela, selon l’occurrence, elle diverge ou converge, elle obéit à une double tendance de dissémination et de concentration ; mais plus elle augmente, cœteris paribus, — c’est-à-dire à égalité de vertus, de prévoyance, de dignité, — plus les services se divisent, se rendent facilement, plus chacun tire parti de ses moindres qualités spéciales, etc…”
1.) ““Réflexions sur les pétitions de Bordeaux, Le Havre, et Lyon concernant les Douanes” (Reflections on the Petitions from Bordeaux, Le Havre, and Lyons Relating to the Customs Service) April 1834. [Online].
“Toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, il est avantageux pour le public que les matières premières soient mises en œuvre sur le lieu même de leur production.“
2.) “Lettre au rédacteur du Journal des Débats. Première lettre” (First Letter to the Editor of the Journal des débats), Journal des Débats, 2 mai 1846. [Online].
“Ici on pourra m’arrêter et me dire que de telles suppositions ne se réalisent jamais ; mais comme je cherche l’ influence de deux systèmes de douane différents sur deux opérations analogues, je dois bien raisonner comme les géomètres, sur cette formule : toutes choses égales d’ailleurs.“
3.) "De la concurrence,” (On Competition), JDE, Mai 1846, T. XIV, pp. 106-122. and HE X. Concurrence, p. 315 [Online].
“Toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, il y a plus de profits aux travaux dangereux qu'à ceux qui ne le sont pas; aux états qui exigent un long apprentissage et des déboursés longtemps improductifs, ce qui suppose, dans la famille, le long exercice de certaines vertus, qu'à ceux où suffit la force musculaire; aux professions qui réclament la culture de l'esprit et font naître des goûts délicats, qu'aux métiers où il ne faut que des bras. Tout cela n'est-il pas juste? Or la concurrence établit nécessairement ces distinctions : la société n'a pas besoin qu'un Fourier ou un père Enfantin en décident.”
4.) “Deuxième discours, à Paris” (Second Speech given in the Montesquieu Hall in Paris) [salle montesquieu, 29 septembre 1846], Journal des Économistes, octobre 1846. [Online].
“Chacun de nous comprend instinctivement que nos services seront d’autant plus recherchés, d’autant plus demandés, auront d’autant plus de valeur, d’autant plus de prix, qu’ils seront plus rares, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, c’est-à-dire le grand réservoir commun, le milieu demeurant également pourvu. Et voilà pourquoi nous avons tous l’instinct du monopole. Tous nous voudrions opérer la rareté du service qui fait l’objet de notre industrie, en éloignant nos concurrents.”
5.) “Peuple et Bourgeoisie” (The People and the Bourgeoisie), Libre-Échange, 22 May 1847 [Online].
“Ces loisirs, s’ils ne coûtent rien à qui que ce soit, méritent-ils d’exciter la jalousie ? Ce développement intellectuel ne tourne-t-il pas au profit du progrès, dans l’ordre moral aussi bien que dans l’ordre industriel ? Ces capitaux sans cesse croissants, précisément à cause des avantages qu’ils confèrent, ne sont-ils pas le fonds sur lequel vivent les classes qui ne sont pas encore affranchies du travail manuel ? Et le bien-être de ces classes, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, n’est-il pas exactement proportionnel à l’abondance de ces capitaux et, par conséquent, à la rapidité avec laquelle ils se forment, à l’activité avec laquelle ils rivalisent ?”
6.) Sophismes économiques II chap. V. Cherté, bon marché (late 1847), p. II-52. [Online]
“Supposons deux nations isolées, chacune composée d’un million d’habitants. Admettons que, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, il y ait chez l’une juste une fois plus de toutes sortes de choses que chez l’autre, le double de blé, de viande, de fer, de meubles, de combustible, de livres, de vêtements, etc. On conviendra que la première sera le double plus riche."
7.) Sophismes économiques II chap. XII. Le sel, la poste et la douane (late 1847), p. II-128 [Online]
“Mais permettez-moi de vous dire que les chiffres, dans votre rapport, dansent avec un peu trop de laisser aller. Dans tous vos tableaux, dans tous vos calculs, vous sous-entendez ces mots : Toutes choses égales d’ailleurs. Vous supposez les mêmes frais avec une administration simple qu’avec une administration compliquée ;”
8.) "Maudit argent" (Damned Money), Journal des Économistes, 15 Avril 1849, T. 23, no. 97, pp. 1-20. Published as book or pamphlet: Bastiat, L’État. Maudit argent! (Paris: Guillaumin, 1849). [Online]
“Tout cela est fort subtil. Mais vous aurez bien de la peine à me faire comprendre que je ne suis pas plus riche, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, si j’ai deux écus, que si je n’en ai qu’un.”
9.) “Abondance”, Dictionnaire de l'économie politique (Paris: Guillaumin, 1852), vol. 1, pp. 2-4. [Online]
“On dira peut-être qu’il ne suffit pas que les produits abondent ; qu’il faut encore qu’ils soient équitablement répartis. Rien n’est plus vrai. Mais ne confondons pas les questions. Quand nous défendons l’abondance, quand nos adversaires la décrient, les uns et les autres nous sous-entendons ces mots : cæteris paribus, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, l’équité dans la répartition étant supposée la même.”
10.) HE A la jeunesse française (early 1850), p. 12. [Online].
“Disciples de Malthus, philanthropes sincères et calomniés, dont le seul tort est de prémunir l’humanité contre une loi fatale, la croyant fatale, j’aurai à vous soumettre une autre loi plus consolante : « Toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, la densité croissante de population équivaut à une facilité croissante de production. » — Et s’il en est ainsi, certes, ce ne sera pas vous qui vous affligerez de voir tomber du front de notre science chérie sa couronne d’épines.“
11.) HE V. De la Valeur (early 1850), pp. 155=56. [Online].
“Au fond, le mot rareté, dans le sujet qui nous occupe, exprime d’une manière abrégée cette pensée : Toutes choses égales d’ailleurs, un service a d’autant plus de valeur que nous aurions plus de difficulté à nous le rendre à nous-mêmes, et que, par conséquent, nous rencontrons plus d’exigence quand nous le réclamons d’autrui.”
12.) HE XVII. Services privés, service public (1850), pp. 486-87. [Online].
“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.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. By John Stuart Mill. Fourth Edition. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. 1869). pp. 170-71 [Online].
Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society: accordingly, it was once held to be the duty of governments, in all cases which were considered of importance, to fix prices, and regulate the processes of manufacture. But it is now recognised, though not till after a long struggle, that both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, quâ restraint, is an evil: but the restraints in question affect only that part of conduct which society is competent to restrain, and are wrong [171] solely because they do not really produce the results which it is desired to produce by them. As the principle of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade, so neither is it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of that doctrine; as for example, what amount of public control is admissible for the prevention of fraud by adulteration; how far sanitary precautions, or arrangements to protect workpeople employed in dangerous occupations, should be enforced on employers. Such questions involve considerations of liberty, only in so far as leaving people to themselves is always better, cæteris paribus, than controlling them: but that they may be legitimately controlled for these ends, is in principle undeniable. On the other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which are essentially questions of liberty; such as the Maine Law, already touched upon; the prohibition of the importation of opium into China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.
I have counted the following instances of its use in Bastiat's work:
1.) "Un économiste à M. de Lamartine. A l'occasion de son écrit intitulé: Du Droit au travail” (Letter from an Economist to M. de Lamartine. On the occasion of his article entitled: The Right to Work) [Journal des Économistes, February 1845, T. 10, no. 39, pp. 209-223. [Online]
L’économie des sociétés a eu aussi ses Laplace. S’il y a des perturbations sociales, ils ont aussi constaté l’existence de forces providentielles qui ramènent tout à l’équilibre, et ils ont trouvé que ces forces réparatrices se proportionnent aux forces perturbatrices, parce qu’elles en proviennent. Ravis d’admiration devant cette harmonie du monde moral, ils ont dû se passionner pour l’œuvre divine et répugner plus que les autres hommes à tout ce qui peut la troubler. Aussi n’a-t-on jamais vu, que je sache, les séductions de l’intérêt privé balancer dans leur cœur cet éternel objet de leur admiration et de leur amour. |
Political economy also has its Laplaces. They have observed that, when social disturbances appear, there also exist providential forces that bring everything back into equilibrium. They have discovered that these restorative forces are proportional to the disturbing forces because the one gives rise to the other. In delighted admiration for this harmony in the moral world, they have conceived a passion for the divine work and they, more than other people, reject everything that might disrupt it. For this reason, as far as I know, there has never been an instance when the attraction of private interest has come to rival in their hearts this eternal object of their admiration and love. |
2.) HE2 chap. XVI De la population, p. 427 [Online]
La guerre, l’esclavage, les impostures théocratiques, les priviléges, les monopoles, les restrictions, les abus de l’impôt, voilà les manifestations les plus saillantes de la spoliation. On comprend quelle influence des forces perturbatrices d’une aussi vaste étendue ont dû avoir et ont encore, par leur présence ou leurs traces profondes, sur l’inégalité des conditions ; nous essayerons plus tard d’en mesurer l’énorme portée.
1.) HE Chap. “A la jeunesse française” (early 1850), p. 10 [Online]
Il ne suffisait donc pas d’exposer, dans leur majestueuse harmonie, les lois naturelles de l’ordre social, il fallait encore montrer les causes perturbatrices qui en paralysent l’action. C’est ce que j’ai essayé de faire dans la seconde partie de ce livre.
2.) HE Chap. II Besoins, Efforts, Satisfaction (early 1850), p. 38 [Online]
Enfin j’appellerai l’attention du lecteur sur les obstacles artificiels que rencontre le développement pacifique, régulier et progressif des sociétés humaines. De ces deux idées : Lois naturelles harmoniques, causes artificielles perturbatrices, se déduira la solution du Problème social.
3.) 2 references in HE Chap. X Competition,
3.1.) HE Chap. X Competition, p. 296 [Online]
Loin que la Concurrence, comme on l’en accuse, agisse dans le sens de l’inégalité, on peut affirmer que toute inégalité factice est imputable à son absence ; et si l’abîme est plus profond entre le grand lama et un paria qu’entre le président et un artisan des États-Unis, cela tient à ce que la Concurrence (ou la liberté), comprimée en Asie, ne l’est pas en Amérique. Et c’est pourquoi, pendant que les Socialistes voient dans la Concurrence la cause de tout mal, c’est dans les atteintes qu’elle reçoit qu’il faut chercher la cause perturbatrice de tout bien. Encore que cette grande loi ait été méconnue des Socialistes et de leurs adeptes, encore qu’elle soit souvent brutale dans ses procédés, il n’en est pas de plus féconde en harmonies sociales, de plus bienfaisante dans ses résultats généraux, il n’en est pas qui atteste d’une manière plus éclatante l’incommensurable supériorité des desseins de Dieu sur les vaines et impuissantes combinaisons des hommes.
3.2.) HE Chap. X Competition, p.312 [Online]
J’expose maintenant des lois générales que je crois harmoniques, et j’ai la confiance que le lecteur commence à se douter aussi que ces lois existent, qu’elles agissent dans le sens de la communauté et par conséquent de l’égalité. Mais je n’ai pas nié que l’action de ces lois ne fût profondément troublée par des causes perturbatrices. Si donc nous rencontrons en ce moment un fait choquant d’inégalité, comment le pourrions-nous juger avant de connaître et les lois régulières de l’ordre social et les causes perturbatrices de ces lois ?
4.) 4 references in HE chap XIV Des salaires, p. 406 [Online]
Les lois générales du monde social sont harmoniques, elles tendent dans tous les sens au perfectionnement de l’humanité. |
[to add] |
Car enfin, puisque, après une période de cent ans, pendant laquelle elles ont été si fréquemment et si profondément violées, l’Humanité se trouve plus avancée, il faut que leur action soit bienfaisante, et même assez pour compenser encore l’action des causes perturbatrices. |
|
Comment, d’ailleurs, en pourrait-il être autrement? N’y a-t-il pas une sorte d’équivoque ou plutôt de pléonasme sous ces expressions : Lois générales bienfaisantes ? Peuvent-elles ne pas l’être?… Quand Dieu a mis dans chaque homme une impulsion irrésistible vers le bien, et, pour le discerner, une lumière susceptible de se rectifier, dès cet instant il a été décidé que l’Humanité était perfectible et qu’à travers beaucoup de tâtonnements, d’erreurs, de déceptions, d’oppressions, d’oscillations, elle marcherait vers le mieux indéfini. Cette marche de l’Humanité, en tant que les erreurs, les déceptions, les oppressions en sont absentes, c’est justement ce qu’on appelle les lois générales de l’ordre social. Les erreurs, les oppressions, c’est ce que je nomme la violation de ces lois ou les causes perturbatrices. Il n’est donc pas possible que les unes ne soient bienfaisantes et les autres funestes, à moins qu’on n’aille jusqu’à mettre en doute si les causes perturbatrices ne peuvent agir d’une manière plus permanente que les lois générales. Or cela est contradictoire à ces prémisses : notre intelligence, qui peut se tromper, est susceptible de se rectifier. Il est clair que le monde social étant constitué comme il l’est, l’erreur rencontre tôt ou tard pour limite la Responsabilité, l’oppression se brise tôt ou tard à la Solidarité ; d’où il suit que les causes perturbatrices ne sont pas d’une nature permanente, et c’est pour cela que ce qu’elles troublent mérite le nom de lois générales. |
5.) HE chap XVI Population, p. 427 [Online]
Il n’en a pas été ainsi pourtant ; c’est un point de fait incontestable. Il y a dans le monde une multitude de malheureux qui ne sont pas malheureux par leur faute.
Quelles sont les causes de ce phénomène ?
Je crois qu’il y en a plusieurs. L’une s’appelle spoliation, ou, si vous voulez, injustice. Les économistes n’en ont parlé qu’incidemment, et en tant qu’elle implique quelque erreur, quelque fausse notion scientifique. Exposant les lois générales, ils n’avaient pas, pensaient-ils, à s’occuper de l’effet de ces lois, quand elles n’agissent pas, quand elles sont violées. Cependant la spoliation a joué et joue encore un trop grand rôle dans le monde pour que, même comme économiste, nous puissions nous dispenser d’en tenir compte. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de vols accidentels, de larcins, de crimes isolés. — La guerre, l’esclavage, les impostures théocratiques, les priviléges, les monopoles, les restrictions, les abus de l’impôt, voilà les manifestations les plus saillantes de la spoliation. On comprend quelle influence des forces perturbatrices d’une aussi vaste étendue ont dû avoir et ont encore, par leur présence ou leurs traces profondes, sur l’inégalité des conditions ; nous essayerons plus tard d’en mesurer l’énorme portée.
6.) 2 references in HE XVIII. Causes perturbatrices.
6.1.) HE XVIII. Causes perturbatrices, p. 489 [Online]
La Justice et la Liberté auraient-elles produit fatalement l’Inégalité et le Monopole ? |
|
Pour le savoir, il fallait, ce me semble, étudier la nature même des transactions humaines, leur origine, leur raison, leurs conséquences et les conséquences de ces conséquences jusqu’à l’effet définitif ; et cela, abstraction faite des perturbations contingentes que peut engendrer l’injustice ; — car on conviendra bien que l’Injustice n’est pas l’essence des transactions libres et volontaires. |
|
Que l’injustice se soit fatalement introduite dans le monde, que la société n’ait pas pu y échapper, on peut le soutenir ; et, l’homme étant donné avec ses passions, son égoïsme, son ignorance et son imprévoyance primitives, je le crois. — Nous aurons à étudier aussi la nature, l’origine et les effets de l’Injustice. |
|
Mais il n’en est pas moins vrai que la science économique doit commencer par exposer la théorie des transactions humaines supposées libres et volontaires, comme la physiologie expose la nature et les rapports des organes, abstraction faite des causes perturbatrices qui modifient ces rapports. |
6.2.) p. 495 [Online]
D’après ce qui précède, on voit que nous ne sommes pas tellement fanatique de l’harmonie sociale que nous ne convenions qu’elle peut être et qu’elle est souvent troublée. Je dois même dire que, selon moi, les perturbations apportées à ce bel ordre par les passions aveugles, par l’ignorance et l’erreur, sont infiniment plus grandes et plus prolongées qu’on ne pourrait le supposer. Ce sont ces causes perturbatrices que nous allons étudier.
7.) 3 references in HE XIX. Guerre
7.1.) p. 501 [Online]
Consolons-nous en pensant qu’il occupait une place non moins large dans la vie antique : Seulement, celui dont quelques hommes s’étaient affranchis retombait d’un poids accablant sur les multitudes assujetties, au grand détriment de la justice, de la liberté, de la propriété, de la richesse, de l’égalité, du progrès ; et c’est la première des causes perturbatrices que j’ai à signaler au lecteur
7.2.) pp. 504-5 [Online]
Jusqu’ici on a pu croire que j’avais voué à ce principe un culte idolâtre, que je ne lui attribuais que des conséquences heureuses pour l’humanité, peut-être même que je l’élevais dans mon estime au-dessus du principe sympathique, du dévouement, de l’abnégation. — Non, je ne l’ai pas jugé ; j’ai seulement constaté son existence et son omnipotence. Cette omnipotence, je l’aurais mal appréciée, et je serais en contradiction avec moi-même, quand je signale l’intérêt personnel comme le moteur universel de l’humanité, si je n’en faisais maintenant découler les causes perturbatrices, comme précédemment j’en ai fait sortir les lois harmoniques de l’ordre social.
7.3.) p. 508 [Online]
Combien ces grands événements n’ont-ils pas agi comme causes perturbatrices, comme entraves sur le progrès naturel des destinées humaines ! Si l’on tient compte de la déperdition de travail occasionnée par la guerre, si l’on tient compte de ce que le produit effectif, qu’elle amoindrit, se concentre entre les mains de quelques vainqueurs, on pourra comprendre le dénûment des masses, dénûment inexplicable de nos jours par la liberté…
Other related uses of similar terms:
1.) HE chap VIII Propriété, Communauté, p. 216 [Online].
Quand nous admirons la loi providentielle des transactions, quand nous disons que les intérêts concordent, quand nous en concluons que leur gravitation naturelle tend à réaliser l’égalité relative et le progrès général, apparemment c’est de l’action de ces lois et non de leur perturbation que nous attendons l’harmonie. Quand nous disons : laissez faire, apparemment nous entendons dire : laissez agir ces lois, et non pas : laissez troubler ces lois. |
When we admire the providential law governing transactions, when we say that interests are in agreement, when we conclude from this that their natural gravitation tends to achieve relative equality and general progress, it is clearly from the action of these laws and not from their disruption that we expect harmony. When we say: laissez faire, we clearly mean to say: let these laws act, and not let these laws be disrupted. |
2.) HE Chap. X Competition, p. 312 [Online]
J’expose maintenant des lois générales que je crois harmoniques, et j’ai la confiance que le lecteur commence à se douter aussi que ces lois existent, qu’elles agissent dans le sens de la communauté et par conséquent de l’égalité. Mais je n’ai pas nié que l’action de ces lois ne fût profondément troublée par des causes perturbatrices. Si donc nous rencontrons en ce moment un fait choquant d’inégalité, comment le pourrions-nous juger avant de connaître et les lois régulières de l’ordre social et les causes perturbatrices de ces lois ? |
I will now set out general laws that I believe to be harmonious, and I am confident that the reader also will begin to guess at the existence of these laws, that they act in favor of the community and consequently of equality. However, I have not denied that the action of these laws has been profoundly disrupted by disturbing factors. Therefore, if we now find some shocking example of inequality, how can we judge it without being conversant with both the regular laws of social order and the disturbing factors which distort these laws? |
3.) HE XVIII. Causes perturbatrices, pp. 492-93 [Online]
Nous, après avoir étudié les lois providentielles de la société, nous disons : Ces lois sont harmoniques. Elles admettent le mal, car elles sont mises en œuvre par des hommes, c’est-à-dire, par des êtres sujets à l’erreur et à la douleur. Mais le mal aussi a, dans le mécanisme, sa mission qui est de se limiter et de se détruire lui-même en préparant à l’homme des avertissements, des corrections, de l’expérience, des lumières, toutes choses qui se résument en ce mot : Perfectionnement.
Nous ajoutons : Il n’est pas vrai que la liberté règne parmi les hommes ; il n’est pas vrai que les lois providentielles exercent toute leur action, ou du moins, si elles agissent, c’est pour réparer lentement, péniblement l’action perturbatrice de l’ignorance et de l’erreur. — Ne nous accusez donc pas quand nous disons laissez faire ; car nous n’entendons pas dire par là : laissez faire les hommes, alors même qu’ils font le mal. Nous entendons dire : étudiez les lois providentielles, admirez-les et laissez-les agir. Dégagez les obstacles qu’elles rencontrent dans les abus de la force et de la ruse, et vous verrez s’accomplir au sein de l’humanité cette double manifestation du progrès : l’égalisation dans l’amélioration.
1.) HE Chap. IV Échange
1.1.) p. 107 [Online]
Elles devraient rechercher avec soin si elles ne jouissent pas de quelque monopole, pour y renoncer ; — si elles ne profitent pas de quelques inégalités factices, pour les effacer ; — si le Paupérisme ne peut pas être attribué, en partie du moins, à quelque perturbation des lois sociales naturelles, pour la faire cesser, — afin de pouvoir dire en montrant leurs mains au peuple : Elles sont pleines, mais elles sont pures.
1.2.) p. 110 [Online]
Il est bien évident que la solution de ces questions est subordonnée à l’étude et à la connaissance des lois sociales naturelles. On ne peut se prononcer raisonnablement avant de savoir si la propriété, la liberté, les combinaisons des services volontairement échangés poussent les hommes vers leur amélioration, comme le croient les économistes, ou vers leur dégradation, comme l’affirment les socialistes. — Dans le premier cas, le mal social doit être attribué aux perturbations des lois naturelles, aux violations légales de la propriété et de la liberté. Ce sont ces perturbations et ces violations qu’il faut faire cesser, et l’Économie politique a raison.
2.) HE chap. V De la value, p. 124 [Online]
Le diamant joue un grand rôle dans les livres des économistes. Il s’en servent pour élucider les lois de la valeur ou pour signaler les prétendues perturbations de ces lois.
"Les forces réparatrices"
1.) "Un économiste à M. de Lamartine" (Feb. 1845)
1.1.) [Online]
L’économie des sociétés a eu aussi ses Laplace. S’il y a des perturbations sociales, ils ont aussi constaté l’existence de forces providentielles qui ramènent tout à l’équilibre, et ils ont trouvé que ces forces réparatrices se proportionnent aux forces perturbatrices, parce qu’elles en proviennent. Ravis d’admiration devant cette harmonie du monde moral, ils ont dû se passionner pour l’œuvre divine et répugner plus que les autres hommes à tout ce qui peut la troubler. Aussi n’a-t-on jamais vu, que je sache, les séductions de l’intérêt privé balancer dans leur cœur cet éternel objet de leur admiration et de leur amour. Bonaparte s’en étonna. Peu habitué à de telles résistances, il les honora du titre de niais, parce qu’ils refusaient leur concours à sa mission d’arbitraire, la regardant comme incompatible avec les grandes lois sociales qu’ils avaient découvertes et proclamées. Et ce titre glorieux, ils le portent encore, — et on n’en voit aucun aux affaires, car ils n’y veulent entrer qu’avec leur principe.
1.2.) [Online]
Ce ne sont pas là les doctrines que vous devez promulguer en France. Repoussez leurs trompeuses séductions. Rattachez-vous au principe sévère, mais vrai, mais le seul vrai, de la Liberté. Embrassez dans votre vaste intelligence et ses lois, et son action, et ses phénomènes, et les causes qui la troublent, et les forces réparatrices qui sont en elle. Inscrivez sur votre bannière : « Société libre, gouvernement simple, »
"La force curative
1.) "De la population" Encyclopédie du 19e siècle and also JDE version [Online].
De même, quand, par quelque cause, l'humanité suit un mouvement rétrograde, le malaise et l'imprévoyance sont entre eux cause et effet réciproques, et la déchéance n'aurait pas de terme si la société n'était pas pourvue de cette force curative, vis medicatrix, que la Providence a placée dans tous les corps organisés. Remarquons, en effet, que, à chaque période dans la déchéance, l'action de la limitation dans son mode destructif devient à la fois plus douloureuse et plus facile à discerner.
2.) conclusion to HE 1st part, p. 334 [Online]:
Je répéterai ici ce que j’ai dit ailleurs : En tout ce qui concerne l’homme, cet être qui n’est perfectible que parce qu’il est imparfait, l’Harmonie ne consiste pas dans l’absence absolue du mal, mais dans sa graduelle réduction. Le corps social, comme le corps humain, est pourvu d’une force curative, vis medicatrix, dont on ne peut étudier les lois et l’infaillible puissance sans s’écrier encore : Digitus Dei est hic.
3.) HE Chap. XVI De l'a population, p. 443 [Online]
De même, quand, par quelque cause, l’humanité suit un mouvement rétrograde, le malaise et l’imprévoyance sont entre eux cause et effet réciproques, et la déchéance n’aurait pas de terme, si la société n’était pas pourvue de cette force curative, vis medicatrix, que la Providence a placée dans tous les corps organisés. Remarquons, en effet, qu’à chaque période dans la déchéance, l’action de la limitation dans son mode destructif devient à la fois plus douloureuse et plus facile à discerner. D’abord il ne s’agit que de détérioration, d’abaissement ; ensuite c’est la misère, la famine, le désordre, la guerre, la mort ; tristes mais infaillibles moyens d’enseignement.
4.) HE chap XX Responsabilité, pp. 514-15 [Online]
Une communauté se renouvelle incessamment. Que ses institutions soient élastiques et flexibles, qu’au lieu de venir en collision avec les puissances nouvelles qu’enfante l’esprit humain, elles soient organisées de manière à admettre cette expansion de l’énergie intellectuelle et à s’y accommoder ; et l’on ne voit aucune raison pour qu’elle ne fleurisse pas dans une éternelle jeunesse. Mais, quoi qu’on pense de la fragilité et du fracas des empires, toujours est-il que la société, qui, dans son ensemble, se confond avec l’humanité, est constituée sur des bases plus solides. Plus on l’étudie, plus on reste convaincu qu’elle aussi a été pourvue, comme le corps humain, d’une force curative qui la délivre de ses maux, et qu’en outre elle porte dans son sein une force progressive. Elle est poussée par celle-ci vers un perfectionnement auquel on ne peut assigner de limites.
5.) HE chap. XXII Moteur social, pp. 550-51 [Online]
Comment donc des chefs d’école (socialiste) se rangent-ils sous la dénomination commune de Socialistes, et quel est le lien qui les unit contre la société naturelle ou providentielle ? Il n’y en a pas d’autre que celui-là : Ils ne veulent pas la société naturelle. Ce qu’ils veulent, c’est une société artificielle, sortie toute faite du cerveau de l’inventeur. Il est vrai que chacun d’eux veut être le Jupiter de cette Minerve ; il est vrai que chacun d’eux caresse son artifice et rêve de son ordre social. Mais il y a entre eux cela de commun, qu’ils ne reconnaissent dans l’humanité ni la force motrice qui la porte vers le bien, ni la force curatrice qui la délivre du mal. Ils se battent pour savoir à qui pétrira l’argile humaine ; mais ils sont d’accord que c’est une argile à pétrir. L’humanité n’est pas à leurs yeux un être vivant et harmonieux, que Dieu lui-même a pourvu de forces progressives et conservatrices ; c’est une matière inerte qui les a attendus, pour recevoir d’eux le sentiment et la vie ; ce n’est pas un sujet d’études, c’est une matière à expériences.
The edition I have used is the second edition published posthumously: Frédéric Bastiat, Harmonies économiques. 2me Édition. Augmentée des manuscrits laissés par l’auteur. Publiée par la Société des amis de Bastiat. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1851). It is available at my website [Online].
(1.) IV Exchange - (HE, p. 95, [Online].)
Here is a classic statement of the principle of opportunity cost, where the intervention of the state causes losses and distortions by causing exchanges to be made (which are “seen”) that would never have taken place in its absence, and prevented other exchanges that would have been made (which are “not seen”).
Soit que cette intervention de la Force dans les échanges en provoque qui ne se seraient pas faits, ou en prévienne qui se seraient accomplis, il ne se peut pas qu’elle n’occasionne tout à la fois Déperdition et Déplacement de travail et de capitaux, et par suite perturbation dans la manière dont la population se serait naturellement distribuée. |
Whether the intervention of the power (of the state) in exchanges stimulates some exchanges that would never have been made, or prevents some that would have been made, it cannot fail to cause the simultaneous loss or displacement of labor and capital, and consequently a disturbance in the way that populations are naturally distributed. |
(2.) V On Value - (HE, p. 116, [Online].)
Bastiat reprimands the communists who wish to restructure the economy so there is a "community of goods" by comparing them to architects arguing about the merits of a statue, each one of which has only looked at one side of it. It is not that they do not see what is before them, but they do not see the whole of the statue. To do that they need to walk around it to see the bigger picture. The communists, he argues, do the same thing with the economy.
Communistes, vous rêvez la communauté. Vous l’avez. L’ordre social rend toutes les utilités communes, à la condition que l’échange des valeurs appropriées soit libre. |
Communists, you dream of the community (of goods). Well you have it. The social order makes all things of use common (to all), on condition that the exchange of privately owned things of value is made freely. |
Vous ressemblez à des architectes qui disputent sur un monument, dont chacun n’a observé qu’une face. Ils ne voient pas mal, mais ils ne voient pas tout. Pour les mettre d’accord, il ne faut que les décider à faire le tour de l’édifice. |
You are like architects who quarrel over a monument, which they have seen from just one side. They do not see incorrectly, but they do not see everything. To make them agree, all you need is to persuade them to walk around the edifice. |
(3.) Addition to the HE2 version of chap. V “Value" - (HE, p. 164, [Online].)
This comes from a passage that was added to the second expanded edition of Economic Harmonies. Bastiat severely criticised Rousseau whose ideas he believed had mislead generations of French readers about what he thought were the harmful effects of civilisation, private property, and free markets. See in particular his harsh comments in the essay “The Law” (June 1850). But here he quotes him more positively (in fact, he quotes this passage several times in his writings) agreeing with Rousseau that people often cannot see the things which are immediately around them, things which are habitual and everyday occurrences and thus pass unnoticed much of the time. Instead they only see things that are “abnormal” or out of the ordinary like the crop failures of 1846-47 which caused so much harm to ordinary workers and their families, prompting calls for price controls to be imposed on bread. What is not seen or properly understood is how, in normal times, individuals do anticipate and plan for the future needs of consumers which they cannot see now in the present but can only imagine or “foresee” will exist in the future. The market makes it possible to pool individual foresight or planning for the future thus creating a kind of “la prévoyance sociale” (social foresight or planning) to anticipate “unseen” future demand for a product (like food) by making plans to produce it in the present.
Bastiat argues that “from the point of view of political economy” the human capacity to engage in foresight or planing for the future (prévoir, la prévoyance) should never be underestimated.
Remarquez ceci: dans l’humanité, l’inexpérience et l’imprévoyance précèdent l’expérience et la prévoyance. Ce n’est qu’avec le temps que les hommes ont pu prévoir leurs besoins réciproques, au point de se préparer à y pourvoir. Logiquement, le facio ut facias a dû précéder le do ut des. Celui-ci est en même temps le fruit et le signe de quelques connaissances répandues, de quelque expérience acquise, de quelque sécurité politique, de quelque confiance en l’avenir, en un mot, d’une certaine civilisation. Cette prévoyance sociale, cette foi en la demande qui fait qu’on prépare l’offre, cette sorte de statistique intuitive dont chacun a une notion plus ou moins précise, et qui établit un si surprenant équilibre entre les besoins et les approvisionnements, est un des ressorts les plus efficaces de la perfectibilité humaine. C’est à lui que nous devons la séparation des occupations, ou du moins les professions et les métiers. C’est à lui que nous devons un des biens que les hommes recherchent avec le plus d’ardeur: la fixité des rémunérations, sous forme de salaire quant au travail, et d’intérêt quant au capital. C’est à lui que nous devons le crédit, les opérations à longue échéance, celles qui ont pour objet le nivellement des risques, etc. Il est surprenant qu’au point de vue de l’économie politique ce noble attribut de l’homme, la Prévoyance, n’ait pas été plus remarqué. C’est toujours, ainsi que le disait Rousseau, à cause de la difficulté que nous éprouvons à observer le milieu dans lequel nous sommes plongés et qui forme notre atmosphère naturelle. Il n’y a que les faits anormaux qui nous frappent, et nous laissons passer inaperçus ceux qui, agissant autour de nous, sur nous et en nous d’une manière permanente, modifient profondément l’homme et la société. |
Note this: in the human race, inexperience and lack of foresight precede experience and foresight. It is only with the passing of time that people have been able to foresee their reciprocal needs to the extent of preparing to meet them. Logically, facio ut facias (I do (something) for you so that you may do (something) for me) had to precede the do ut des (I give (something) to you so that you may give (something) to me). The latter is simultaneously the fruit and evidence of some dispersed knowledge, some acquired experience, some political security, or some confidence in the future, in a word, a certain degree of civilization. This social foresight, this belief in demand which means that we prepare the supply, this sort of intuitive (understanding of) statistics, of which everyone has a more or less accurate notion and which establishes so surprising an equilibrium between needs and supplies, is one of the most efficient springs of human perfectibility. To it we owe the division of labor, or at least the professions and trades. To it we owe one of the things that men pursue with the greatest ardor, the stability of payment in the form of wages in the case of labor and interest in the case of capital. To it we owe credit, operations of long term finance, those whose object is to level out risk, etc. It is surprising that from the point of view of political economy this noble attribute of man, foresight, has not been more noted. This, as Rousseau said, stems always from the difficulty we have in observing the environment that surrounds us, forming the very air we breathe. Only abnormal events strike us and we let pass unnoticed those that have their effects around us, on us, and in us, and create permanent and profound changes in man and society. |
(4.) IX Property in Land - (HE, pp. 281-82 [Online].)
In this passage Bastiat responds to socialist criticisms about the legitimacy of charging interest on capital and rent for agricultural land which had become common place in the late 1840s. The socialists believed that only “le travail actuel” (present labour) which could be “seen by the naked eye” should be paid for, and not “le travail antérieur” (labour which had been completed in the past and was now in the form of capital) which was no longer visible. He appeals to the reader not to be blind (insensibles) to the beneficent effects of the “economic harmonies” of the free market which are “unfolding before our very eyes”.
Passez en revue toutes les améliorations permanentes dont l’ensemble constitue la valeur du sol, et vous pourrez faire sur chacune la même remarque. Après avoir détruit le fossé, détruisez aussi la clôture, réduisant l’agriculteur à monter la garde autour de son champ; détruisez le puits, la grange, le chemin, la charrue, le nivellement, l’humus artificiel; replacez dans le champ les cailloux, les plantes parasites, les racines d’arbres, alors vous aurez réalisé l’utopie égalitaire. Le sol, et le genre humain avec lui, sera revenu à l’état primitif: il n’aura plus de valeur. Les récoltes n’auront plus rien à démêler avec le capital. Leur prix sera dégagé de cet élément maudit qu’on appelle intérêt. Tout, absolument tout, se fera par du travail actuel, visible à l’œil nu. L’économie politique sera fort simplifiée. La France fera vivre un homme par lieue carrée. Tout le reste aura péri d’inanition; — mais on ne pourra plus dire: La propriété est un monopole, une illégitimité, un vol. |
If we review all the permanent improvements that constitute the value of the soil you would be able to make the same comment for each of them. Having destroyed the ditch, destroy the fencing as well, thus reducing the farmer to mounting guard on his field. Destroy the well, the barn, the track, the plough, the leveling (which has been) carried out, and the artificial fertilizer. Put the stones back into the field, together with the weeds and the roots of trees, and then you will have achieved egalitarian utopia. The soil, and the human race with it, will be returned to its original state, and will no longer have any value. Harvests would no longer have anything to do with. Their price would be free of this damn thing known as interest. Everything, absolutely everything, will be done through present labor visible to the naked eye. Political economy will be very much simpler. France will provide a living for one man per square league; all the others will have died of starvation, but nobody will be able to say: property is a monopoly, illegitimate, a theft. |
Ne soyons donc pas insensibles à ces harmonies économiques qui se déroulent à nos yeux, à mesure que nous analysons les idées d’échange, de valeur, de capital, d’intérêt, de propriété, de communauté. |
Let us therefore not be blind to the economic harmonies unfolding before our eyes as we analyze the ideas of exchange, value, capital, interest, property, and community. |
(5.) X Competition - (HE, pp. 304-5, [Online].)
In this passage Bastiat defends competition against its critics. Previously he had focused on the benefits of international, global competition which brought products from all over the world to the consumers of France at the cheapest price. But he worries that he has thereby distracted “the readers eye” (dérober à l’œil du lecteur) from the same processes which were taking place with more common domestic products.
Here he revisits the quote from Rousseau about people not seeing what is right before their eyes in the form of mundane and everyday items like a piece of bread or cloth. In order to see what is going on the consumer has to go beneath the surface appearance of things, under “the skin” of society as it were, in order to appreciate how competition between producers leads to innovation, improvement in quality, and cheaper prices for these everyday goods. He calls this the “gratuitous utility” which the innovators and producers make available to the consumers.
J’ai cité deux exemples, et, pour rendre le phénomène plus frappant par sa grandeur, j’ai choisi des relations internationales opérées sur une vaste échelle. Je crains d’être ainsi tombé dans l’inconvénient de dérober à l’œil du lecteur le même phénomène agissant incessamment autour de nous et dans nos transactions les plus familières. Qu’il veuille bien prendre dans ses mains les plus humbles objets, un verre, un clou, un morceau de pain, une étoffe, un livre. Qu’il se prenne à méditer sur ces vulgaires produits. Qu’il se demande quelle incalculable masse d’utilité gratuite serait, à la vérité, sans la Concurrence, demeurée gratuite pour le producteur, mais n’aurait jamais été gratuite pour l’humanité, c’est-à-dire ne serait jamais devenue commune. … et il comprendra alors le vice des théories socialistes, qui, ne voyant que la superficie des choses, l’épiderme de la société, se sont si légèrement élevées contre la Concurrence, c’est-à-dire contre la liberté humaine; il comprendra que la Concurrence, maintenant aux dons que la nature a inégalement répartis sur le globe le double caractère de la gratuité et de la communauté, il faut la considérer comme le principe d’une juste et naturelle égalisation. |
I have cited two examples, and in order to make the phenomenon even more striking in its grandeur I have chosen international relations operating on a vast scale. I fear that I may thereby have fallen into the trap of shifting the reader’s gaze from the very same phenomenon happening constantly around us in our most mundane transactions. Let him pick up the most humble of objects, a glass, a nail, a piece of bread, a piece of fabric or a book. He should meditate a while on these commonplace objects. Let him ask himself whether, without competition, such an incalculable mass of free utility would truly have remained free for the producer but would never have become free for the human race, that is to say, would never have become common to all. … At this point he will understand the flaws in socialist theories that, merely seeing the surface appearance of things, the epidermis of society, have spoken out so irresponsibly against competition, that is to say, against human freedom, and will realize that since competition safeguards the twin character of gratuitousness and common availability of the gifts that nature has inequitably distributed over the planet, it has to be considered as the basis of a just and natural process of equalization. |
(6.) X Competition - (HE, p. 314, [Online].)
The following passage is an example of Bastiat discussing the importance of not just looking at a part of something but the whole of it, as well as only looking at the surface of things and not the deeper reality. A common criticism of competition was that it harmed the interests of workers. It could take the form of competition between producers who wanted to lower their costs and thus sought to replace physical labour with machines in the factories. Or it could take the form of competition between workers for jobs, who would take cuts in their pay and working conditions in order to get employment. Bastiat’s response was that competition had a beneficial side for the workers and that the costs and benefits of competition had to be carefully weighed up both in the short term as well as in the longer term.
Competition between producers often benefited the workers when there was a labour shortage which led to a bidding war for labour which increased their wages, or the introduction of machines which made the workers more productive and which also led to higher wages as a result. Workers also benefitted more generally in that they like all consumers enjoyed the lower prices, greater choice, and higher quality of goods which global competition made possible. Elsewhere Bastiat argued that when the observer takes a much longer term view, say over a century or two, the gradual progress which European societies had enjoyed in diet, housing, living conditions, longevity of life, transport and communications, etc. showed that people had become much better off. However, because these improvement were so gradual they were almost invisible to the eye and thus not fully understood or appreciated.
Il est vrai que le prolétaire, quand il se considère comme producteur, comme offreur de travail ou de services, se plaint aussi de la concurrence. Admettons donc qu’elle lui profite d’une part, et qu’elle le gêne de l’autre; il s’agit de savoir si la balance lui est favorable, ou défavorable, ou s’il y a compensation. |
It is true that when they consider themselves producers or suppliers of work or services, the proletariat also complain about competition. Let us assume therefore that it benefits them on one hand and harms them on the other. What we need to know is whether on the whole competition is beneficial or detrimental to the proletariat or whether it balances out. |
Je me serais bien mal expliqué si le lecteur ne comprenait pas que, dans ce mécanisme merveilleux, le jeu des concurrences, en apparence antagoniques, aboutit à ce résultat singulier et consolant qu’il y a balance favorable pour tout le monde à la fois, à cause de l’Utilité gratuite agrandissant sans cesse le cercle de la production et tombant sans cesse dans le domaine de la Communauté. … C’est cette portion d’utilité gratuite, forcée par la Concurrence de devenir commune, qui fait que les valeurs tendent à devenir proportionnelles au travail, ce qui est au profit évident du travailleur. C’est elle aussi qui explique cette solution sociale, que je tiens constamment sous les yeux du lecteur, et qui ne peut nous être voilée que par les illusions de l’habitude: pour un travail déterminé chacun obtient une somme de satisfactions qui tend à s’accroître et à s’égaliser. |
I would have explained myself very badly if the reader failed to understand that in this marvelous mechanism, the interplay of these different kinds of competition which appear (on the surface) to be antagonistic result in this important and reassuring conclusion that there is a balance which is favourable to everybody at the same time, because gratuitous utility constantly increases the sphere of production and (then) falls into the domain of the Commons. … It is also this portion that explains the solution to the social problem that I constantly keep before the reader’s eyes, and which only the illusions of habit alone are capable of shrouding. For a given quantity of work each person receives a quantity of satisfaction that tends to increase and become equal. |
(7.) XVII Private and Public Services - (HE, p. 471, [Online].)
This is one of the unfinished chapters which only appeared in the second enlarged posthumous edition. It is a version of the argument he used in his “sophism of the ricochet effect” and is similar to chapter III “Taxes” in WSWNS. He criticises the idea that taxes paid for the salaries of public servants (functionaries) “come back” to the taxpayer, as a result of the “ricochet” or flow on effect, when the public servant spends their salary. This is an “illusion” in Bastiat’s view and is another example of opportunity cost where people only see the public servant’s expenditure and do not see what the taxpayers would have done with their money had they been allowed to keep it. They too would have spent it on something, but on something else and somewhere else. See also example 9 below.
Nous plaçons ici cette observation pour prévenir un sophisme très-répandu, né de l’illusion monétaire. On entend souvent dire: L’argent reçu par les fonctionnaires retombe en pluie sur les citoyens. Et l’on infère de là que cette prétendue pluie est un second bien ajouté à celui qui résulte du service. En raisonnant ainsi, on est arrivé à justifier les fonctions les plus parasites. On ne prend pas garde que, si le service fut resté dans le domaine de l’activité privée, l’argent qui, au lieu d’aller au trésor et de là aux fonctionnaires, aurait été directement aux hommes qui se seraient chargés de rendre librement le service, cet argent, dis-je, serait aussi retombé en pluie dans la masse. Ce sophisme ne résiste pas quand on porte la vue au-delà de la circulation des espèces, quand on voit qu’au fond il y a du travail échangé contre du travail, des services contre des services. Dans l’ordre public, il peut arriver que des fonctionnaires reçoivent des services sans en rendre; alors il y a perte pour le contribuable, quelque illusion que puisse nous faire à cet égard le mouvement des écus. |
We have made this observation here to ward off a widespread sophism born of the money illusion. You often hear it said that the money received by functionaries falls again like rain on the citizens, with the inference that this alleged rain is a second benefit added to the one resulting from the service. Such reasoning serves to justify the most parasitical functions. No notice is taken of the fact that if the service had been left in the domain of private activity, the money, instead of going to the treasury and thence to functionaries, would have gone directly to people who would have been responsible for freely providing the service, and would also have fallen like rain on the population. This sophism does not stand up if we look beyond the circulation of money and see that this is basically work being exchanged for work and services for services. In the public realm, it may happen that functionaries receive services without rendering any in return. In this case taxpayers are the losers, whatever the illusion the movement of écus may have on us. |
(8.) XVII Private and Public Services - (HE, pp. 479-80, [Online].)
This passage comes from another unfinished chapter which appeared in the second, enlarged, posthumous edition. It provides another example of Bastiat arguing that one must “look at” (regarder) more than just one side in order to understand what is going on. The issue here is when is it legitimate to use force against another person, what is the proper function of the state, and what are the limits to its power.
A related issue, which is not directly discussed here, is how one should regard (look at) the state itself, especially when it transcends its legitimate functions.
Bastiat believes that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defence, which he believes is a right individuals have before the state arose; [128] and once there is a state its only legitimate function is to defend and protect the legitimate rights of the individuals in society, and no more than this. Here Bastiat wants to take issue with a common belief that when an individual violates the liberty of another individual, this is a result of there being “too much” liberty for the former. Bastiat believes this is an example of only looking at (regarder) the issue from one side, namely that of the aggressor. Bastiat believes this is a false way of looking at the problem, rather it should be looked at from the point of view of the victim of aggression, from which it appears to be a result of an absence or the destruction of liberty. He believes that it also appears to be a “lack of liberty” for society as a whole when it is looked at from the perspective of “l’ensemble du phénomène” (the whole or the collection of phenomena).
This passage also touches upon some of Bastiat’s greatest insights into the nature of the state, firstly that it engages in organised and “legal plunder” which private individuals are prohibited from doing but which it hides or disguises under the cloak of the law which legitimizes its actions; secondly, that people are deluded by what the state can and should do and thus ask this “fiction” or “l’être fictif” (imaginary being) to provide them with everything they need at taxpayers’ expense, such as jobs, food, education, housing, etc. [129] He also calls this a “dangerous illusion” [130] the folly of which needs to be pointed out to the people.
Dans quel cas l’emploi de la force est-il légitime? Il y en a un, et je crois qu’il n’y en a qu’un: le cas de légitime défense. S’il en est ainsi, la raison d’être des gouvernements est trouvée, ainsi que leur limite rationnelle. |
In what circumstances is the use of force legitimate? There is one, and I believe there is only one: the case of legitimate self-defense. If this is so, the raison d’être of governments is apparent, as is their rational limit. |
Quel est le droit de l’individu? C’est de faire avec ses semblables des transactions libres, d’où suit pour ceux-ci un droit réciproque. Quand est-ce que ce droit est violé? Quand l’une des parties entreprend sur la liberté de l’autre. En ce cas il est faux de dire, comme on le fait souvent: «Il y a des excès, abus de liberté.» Il faut dire: «Il y a défaut, destruction de liberté.» Excès de liberté sans doute si on ne regarde que l’agresseur; destruction de liberté si l’on regarde la victime, ou même si l’on considère, comme on le doit, l’ensemble du phénomène. |
What is the right of an individual? It is to carry out free transactions with his fellow men, which gives rise to a reciprocal right in these people. When is this right violated? When one of the parties infringes the freedom of the other. In this case, it is wrong to say, as is so often done: “There has been an excess, an abuse of freedom.” What ought to be said is: “There has been a lack, a destruction of freedom.” An excess of freedom, doubtless, if you look only at the aggressor; destruction of freedom if you take only look at the victim, or even if you consider, as you should, the phenomenon as a whole. |
(9.) XVII Private and Public Services - (HE, p. 488, [Online].)
Here is another example of the problems of legal plunder by the state, the “ricochet effect" defence of government spending, and seeing an issue from only one side. The latter is used by Bastiat to turn the “ricochet effect” on its head. Normally it was used by public servants (functionaries) or recipients of government privileges such as subsidies and tariffs to justify what they received from the government as it would “trickle down” to the poor eventually. Here Bastiat argues that the poor could use the same argument to justify their getting taxpayer funded benefits, as they too would stimulate the economy by spending it themselves.
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 (le sophisme des ricochets) 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 (of the ricochet effect) would vanish: “If on your individual authority you took from the pockets of a workman one franc to help to pay for your admission 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 benefit your factories. We will consume more meat, and that will benefit your land. We will consume more sugar, and that will benefit your shipping.” |
(10.) XX Responsibility - (HE, pp. 523-24, [Online].)
In this passage Bastiat discusses the issue of an action which produces a series of effects or consequences, some of which result in benefits to the actor (usually the first consequence) and some of which do not (usually later ones). Experience will teach the individual when this is the case, this will cause them to learn from their mistakes, and in the future they will exercise “foresight” so this does not occur again. The harmful effects will “open their eyes” and enlightenment will be achieved.
Quand un de nos actes produit une première conséquence qui nous agrée, suivie de plusieurs autres conséquences qui nuisent, de telle sorte que la somme des maux l’emporte sur celle des biens, cet acte tend à se restreindre et à disparaître à mesure que nous acquérons plus de prévoyance. |
When one of our actions produces an initial consequence that we like, followed by several others that are harmful, so that the total evil outweighs the good, this act tends to become limited and disappear as we acquire more foresight. |
Les hommes aperçoivent naturellement les conséquences immédiates avant les conséquences éloignées. D’où il suit que ce que nous avons appelé les actes vicieux sont plus multipliés dans les temps d’ignorance. Or la répétition des mêmes actes forme les habitudes. Les siècles d’ignorance sont donc le règne des mauvaises habitudes. |
People naturally perceive immediate consequences before those that occur later. From this it follows that what we have called harmful acts are more frequent in eras of ignorance. Well, a repetition of the same act forms a habit. Centuries of ignorance therefore cause bad habits to reign. |
Par suite, c’est encore le règne des mauvaises lois, car les actes répétés, les habitudes générales constituent les mœurs sur lesquelles se modèlent les lois, et don’t elles sont, pour ainsi parler, l’expression officielle. |
As a result bad laws still reign, for repeated acts and general habits make up the customs on which the laws are modeled and of which they are, so to speak, the official expression. |
Comment cesse cette ignorance? Comment les hommes apprennent-ils à connaître les secondes, les troisièmes et jusqu’aux dernières conséquences de leurs actes et de leurs habitudes? |
How do we stop this ignorance? How do people learn to identify the second, third, and so on to the final consequences of their actions and habits? |
Ils ont pour cela un premier moyen: c’est l’application de cette faculté de discerner et de raisonner qu’ils tiennent de la Providence. |
The first means for them to do this is to apply the faculty of discernment and reason that they receive from Providence. |
Mais il est un moyen plus sûr, plus efficace, c’est l’expérience. — Quand l’acte est commis, les conséquences arrivent fatalement. La première est bonne, on le savait, c’est justement pour l’obtenir qu’on s’est livré à l’acte. Mais la seconde inflige une souffrance, la troisième une souffrance plus grande encore, et ainsi de suite. |
But there is another means that is surer and more effective, experience. When an action is done, it inevitably has consequences. One knew that the first consequence would be good, since it was precisely to achieve this that the action was undertaken in the first place. But the second consequence inflicts suffering, the third even greater suffering, and so on. |
Alors les yeux s’ouvrent, la lumière se fait. On ne renouvelle pas l’acte ; on sacrifie le bien de la première conséquence par crainte du mal plus grand que contiennent les autres. Si l’acte est devenu une habitude et si l’on n’a pas la force d’y renoncer, du moins on ne s’y livre qu’avec hésitation et répugnance, à la suite d’un combat intérieur. On ne le conseille pas, on le blâme ; on en détourne ses enfants. On est certainement dans la voie du progrès. |
Eyes are then opened, and enlightenment follows. The action is not repeated, and the good of the first consequence is sacrificed for fear of the greater evil caused by the succeeding ones. If the action has become a habit and if people are not strong enough to reject it, at least they carry it out only with hesitation and repugnance following (some) inner conflict. It is not recommended, but censured, and children are warned against it. This is certainly the path of progress. |
(11.) XXI Solidarity - (HE, p. 540, [Online].)
In this passage, Bastiat discusses how people learn from their mistakes, pass this knowledge on to others, and use the power of public opinion to correct harmful behaviour instead of resorting to the state to solve problems. He called this a form of “human solidarity”. However, sometimes this is not possible when the link between an action and its consequences are broken. In the case of an individual, they soon feel directly and personally the consequences of a poorly chosen action, however this is not the case in a large group of people. Since actions result in a "series of consequences" the observer has to take into account all of them not just the initial one. An act might have an immediate and good effect which occurs locally and thus is "parfaitement visible" (perfectly visible) to the people. However, the subsequent, later consequences might cause harm, which is difficult to see, which then enters into society. Thus the connection between a harmful action and its bad effects is broken. In this way the general public is often mislead or deceived about the good which will result from a certain action when in fact it will cause them and society great harm. It is very revealing of Bastiat’s anti-war sentiments that he chose war as his example in this passage.
La Solidarité est donc, comme la responsabilité, une force progressive; et l’on voit que, relativement à l’auteur de l’acte, elle se résout en responsabilité répercutée, si je puis m’exprimer ainsi; — que c’est encore un système de peines et de récompenses réciproques, admirablement calculé pour circonscrire le mal, étendre le bien et pousser l’humanité dans la voie qui mène au progrès. |
(Human) solidarity, like (individual) responsibility, is thus a force for progress, and it can be seen that with regard to the author of the act it results in responsibility which is passed on to others, if I may put it this way, which is another system of reciprocal rewards and punishments which are admirably calculated to limit harm, extend good, and propel the human race along the path that leads to progress. |
Mais pour qu’elle fonctionne dans ce sens, — pour que ceux qui profitent ou souffrent d’une action, qu’ils n’ont pas faite, réagissent sur son auteur par l’approbation ou l’improbation, la gratitude ou la résistance, l’estime, l’affection, la louange, ou le mépris, la haine et la vengeance, — une condition est indispensable : c’est que le lien qui existe entre un acte et tous ses effets soit connu et apprécié. |
But in order for it to act in this way, for those who benefit or suffer from an action of which they are not the authors, to redirect their approval or blame, gratitude or resistance, esteem, affection and praise or scorn, hatred and vengeance to the person who carried it out, one condition is essential, and that is that the link that exists between an action and all its effects must be known and assessed. |
Quand le public se trompe à cet égard, la loi manque son but. |
When the general public is mistaken with regard to this, the law fails in its aim. |
Un acte nuit à la masse; mais la masse est convaincue que cet acte lui est avantageux. Qu’arrive-t-il alors? C’est qu’au lieu de réagir contre cet acte, au lieu de le condamner et par là de le restreindre, le public l’exalte, l’honore, le célèbre et le multiplie. |
If an action causes harm to the masses but the masses are convinced that this action is beneficial to them, what happens? Instead of reacting against this act, instead of condemning it and restraining it, the general public exalts, honors, praises, and multiplies it. |
Rien n’est plus fréquent, et en voici la raison: |
Nothing happens more often, and this is the reason why: |
Un acte ne produit pas seulement sur les masses un effet, mais une série d’effets. Or il arrive souvent que le premier effet est un bien local, parfaitement visible, tandis que les effets ultérieurs font filtrer insensiblement dans le corps social un mal difficile à discerner ou à rattacher à sa cause. |
An action does not have just one effect on the masses, but a series of effects. Well, it often happens that the initial effect is good locally and perfectly visible, while subsequent effects pass through unseen into the social body a form of harm difficult to discern/perceive/see or to relate to its cause. |
La guerre en est un exemple. … |
War is an example of this. … |
Sir William Petty, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, together with The Observations upon Bills of Mortality, more probably by Captain John Graunt, ed. Charles Henry Hull (Cambridge University Press, 1899), 2 vols. [Online OLL
Treatise of Taxes and Contributions (1662), Chap. V. Of Usury, pp. 14-15.
"If a man can bring to London an ounce of Silver out of the Earth in Peru, in the same time that he can produce a bushel of Corn, then one is the natural price of the other; [51] now if by reason of new and more easie Mines a man can get two ounces of Silver as easily as formerly he did one, then Corn will be as cheap at ten shillings the bushel, as it was before at five shillings cœteris paribus."
The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits. By Bernard Mandeville. With a Commentary Critical, Historical, and Explanatory by F. B. Kaye. The Second Volume. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924).
"THE FOURTH DIALOGUE BETWEEN Horatio and Cleomenes."
1.) p. 172, On the skill women have in conversation:
Cleo. … The generality of Women are quicker of Invention, and more ready at Repartee, than the Men, [188] with equal Helps of Education; and it is surprizing to see, what a considerable Figure some of them make in Conversation, when we consider the small Opportunities they have had of acquiring Knowledge.
Hor. But sound Judgment is a great Rarity among them.
Cleo. Only for want of Practice, Application and Assiduity. Thinking on abstruse Matters, is not their Province in Life; and the Stations they are commonly placed in, find them other Employment: but there is no Labour of the Brain, which Women are not as capable of performing, at least, as well as the Men, with the same Assistance, if they set about, and persevere in it: sound Judgment is no more than the Result of that Labour: he that uses himself to take Things to Pieces, to compare them together, to consider them abstractly and impartially; that is, he, who of two Propositions he is to examine, seems not to care which is true; he that lays the whole Stress of his Mind on every Part alike, and puts the same Thing in all the Views it can be seen in: he, I say, that employs himself most often in this Exercise, is most likely, cæteris paribus, to acquire what we call a sound Judgment. The Workmanship in the Make of Women seems to be more elegant, and better finish’d: the Features are more delicate, the Voice is Edition: current; Page: [173] sweeter, the whole Outside of them is more curiously wove, than they Edition: orig; Page: [189] are in Men; and the difference in the Skin between theirs and ours is the same, as there is between fine Cloth and coarse. There is no Reason to imagine, that Nature should have been more neglectful of them out of Sight, than she has where we can trace her; and not have taken the same Care of them in the Formation of the Brain, as to the Nicety of the Structure, and superior Accuracy in the Fabrick, which is so visible in the rest of their Frame.
2.) p. 182 - on the sociability and docility of men
Cleo. … The second Reason for which I said Man was call’d Sociable, is, that associating together turn’d to better Account in our Species, than it would do in any other, if they were to try it. To find out the Reason of this, we must search into humane Nature for such Qualifications as we excel all other Animals in, and which the GeneraIity of Men are endued with, taught or untaught: But in doing this, we should neglect nothing that is observable in them, from their most early Youth to their extreme old Age.
Hor. I can’t see, why you use this Precaution, of taking in the whole Age of Man; would it not be Edition: current; Page: [182] sufficient to mind those Qualifications which he is possess’d of, when he is come to the height of Maturity, or his greatest Perfection?
Cleo. A considerable part of what is call’d Docility in Creatures, depends upon the Pliableness of the Parts, and their Fitness to be moved with Facility, which are either entirely lost, or very much impair’d, when they are full grown. There is nothing in which our Species so far surpasses all others, than in the Capacity of acquiring the Faculty of Thinking and Speaking well: That this is a peculiar Property belonging to our Nature is very certain, yet it is as manifest, that this Capaci-Edition: orig; Page: [202]ty vanishes, when we come to Maturity, if till then it has been neglected. The Term of Life likewise, that is commonly enjoy’d by our Species, being longer than it is in most other Animals, we have a Prerogative above them in point of Time; and Man has a greater Opportunity of advancing in Wisdom, though not to be acquired but by his own Experience, than a Creature that lives but half his Age, though it had the same Capacity. A Man of threescore, cæteris paribus, knows better what is to be embraced or avoided in Life, than a Man of thirty. What Mitio, in excusing the Follies of Youth, said to his Brother Demea, in the Adelphi, ad omnia alia Ætate sapimus rectius,1 holds among Savages, as well as among Philosophers. It is the Concurrence of these, with other Properties, that together compose the Sociableness of Man.
3.)
Hor. Do you think it more probable, that Men of Parts and Learning should be preferr’d, than others of less Capacity?
Cleo. Cæteris paribus, I do.
Hor. Then you must allow, that there is Virtue at least in those, who have the Disposal of Places.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. By Adam Smith, LL.D. and F.R.S. Formerly Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Glasgow. In Two Volumes. (London: Printed for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell, in The Strand, MDCCLXXVI (1776)).
"Of the Discouragement of Agriculture in the antient State of Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire." I-467 [Online]
WHEN land, like moveables, is considered as the means only of subsistence and enjoyment, the natural law of succession divides [i-467] it, like them, among all the children of the family; of all of whom the subsistence and enjoyment may be supposed equally dear to the father. This natural law of succession accordingly took place among the Romans, who made no more distinction between elder and younger, between male and female, in the inheritance of lands, than we do in the distribution of moveables. But when land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times, every great landlord was a sort of petty prince. His tenants were his subjects. He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace, and their leader in war. He made war according to his own discretion, frequently against his neighbours, and sometimes against his sovereign. The security of a landed estate, therefore, the protection which its owner could afford to those who dwelt on it, depended upon its greatness. To divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be oppressed and swallowed up by the incursions of its neighbours. The law of primogeniture, therefore, came to take place, not immediately, indeed, but in process of time, in the succession of landed estates, for the same reason that it has generally taken place in that of monarchies, though not always at their first institution. That the power, and consequently the security of the monarchy, may not be weakened by division, it must descend entire to one of the children. To which of them so important a preference shall be given, must be determined by some general rule, founded not upon the doubtful distinctions of personal merit, but upon some plain and evident difference which can admit of no dispute. Among the children of the same family, there can be no indisputable difference but that of sex, and that of age. The male sex is universally preferred to the female; and when all other things are equal, the elder every where takes place [i-468] of the younger. Hence the origin of the right of primogeniture, and of what is called lineal succession.
"Of the agricultural Systems, or of those Systems of political Oeconomy which represent the Produce of Land as either the sole or the principal Source of the Revenue and Wealth of every Country." II-276 [Online]
FIFTHLY and lastly, though the revenue of the inhabitants of every country was supposed to consist altogether, as this system seems to suppose, in the quantity of subsistence which their industry could procure to them; yet, even upon this supposition, the revenue of a trading and manufacturing country must, other things being equal, always be much greater than that of one without trade or manufactures. By means of trade and manufactures, a greater quantity of subsistence can be annually imported into a particular country than what its own lands, in the actual state of their cultivation, could afford. The inhabitants of a town, though they frequently possess no lands of their own, yet draw to themselves by their industry such a quantity of the rude produce of the lands of other people as supplies them, not only with the materials of their work, but with the fund of their subsistence. What a town always is with regard to the country in its neighbourhood, one independent state or country may frequently be with regard to other independent states or countries. It is thus that Holland draws a great part of its subsistence from other countries; live cattle from Holstein and Jutland, and corn from almost all the different countries of Europe. A small quantity of manufactured produce purchases a great quantity of rude produce. A trading and manufacturing country, therefore, naturally purchases with a small part of its manufactured produce a great part of the rude produce of other countries; while, on the contrary, a country without trade and manufactures is generally obliged to purchase, at the expence of a great part of its rude produce, a very small part of the manufactured produce of other countries. The one exports what can subsist and accommodate but a very few, and imports the subsistence and accommodation of a great number. The other exports the accommodation [ii-277] and subsistence of a great number, and imports that of a very few only. The inhabitants of the one must always enjoy a much greater quantity of subsistence than what their own lands, in the actual state of their cultivation, could afford. The inhabitants of the other must always enjoy a much smaller quantity.
Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers (London: J. Johnson 1798). 1st edition.
Chap. VII, p. 120: [Online]
An observation the converse of this will probably also be found true. In those countries that are subject to periodical sicknesses, the increase of population, or the excess of births above the burials, will be greater in the intervals of these periods, than is usual, cæteris paribus, in the countries not so much subject to such disorders. If Turkey and Egypt have been nearly stationary in their average population for the last century, in the intervals of their periodical plagues, the births must have exceeded the burials in a greater proportion than in such countries as France and England.
Chap. VII, p. 123: [Online]
Dr. Price thinks that the registers in the former period are not to be depended upon; but, probably, in this instance, they do not give incorrect proportions. At least, there are many reasons for expecting to find a greater excess of births above the burials in the former period than in the latter. In the natural progress of the population of any country, more good land will, cæteris paribus, 5 be taken into cultivation in the earlier stages of it than in the later. And a greater proportional yearly increase of produce will almost invariably be followed by a greater proportional increase of population.
FN p. 123: [Online]
I say cæteris paribus, because the increase of the produce of any country will always very greatly depend on the spirit of industry that prevails, and the way in which it is directed. The knowledge and habits of the people, and other temporary causes, particularly the degree of civil liberty and equality existing at the time, must always have great influence in exciting and directing this spirit.
Thomas Robert Malthus, Principles of Political Economy (London: W. Pickering, 1836). - 1 instance
pp. 221-22: [Online OLL
Lawyers, as a body, are not well remunerated, because the prevalence of other motives, [222] besides mere gain, crowds the profession with candidates, and the supply is not regulated by the cost of the education; and in all those instances, where disadvantages or difficulties of any kind accompany particular employments, it is obvious that they must be paid comparatively high, because if the additional remuneration were not sufficient to balance such disadvantages, the supply of labour in these departments would be deficient, as, cæteris paribus, every person would choose to engage in the most agreeable, the least difficult, and the least uncertain occupations. The deficiency so occasioned, whenever it occurs, will naturally raise the price of labour; and the advance of price, after some little oscillation, will rest at the point where it is just sufficient to occasion a supply suited to the effectual demand.
An Essay on the Principle of Population (1826 6th ed) - 2 instances
Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, or a View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an Inquiry into our Prospects respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which it Occasions (London: John Murray 1826). 6th ed.
Book III, Chapter XIII: Of increasing Wealth, as it affects the Condition of the Poor. [Online]
On an attentive review, then, of the effects of increasing wealth on the condition of the poor, it appears that, although such an increase does not imply a proportionate increase of the funds for the maintenance of labour, yet it brings with it advantages to the lower classes of society which may fully counterbalance the disadvantages with which it is attended; and, strictly speaking, the good or bad condition of the poor is not necessarily connected with any particular stage in the progress of society to its full complement of wealth. A rapid increase of wealth indeed, whether it consists principally in additions to the means of subsistence or to the stock of conveniences and comforts, will always, cæteris paribus, have a favourable effect on the poor; but the influence even of this cause is greatly modified and altered by other circumstances, and nothing but the union of individual prudence with the skill and industry which produce wealth can permanently secure to the lower classes of society that share of it which it is, on every account, so desirable that they should possess.
Book III, Chapter XIV: General Observations. [Online]
In the case also of the prevalence of prudential habits, and a decided taste for the conveniences and comforts of life, as, according to the supposition, these habits and tastes do not operate as an encouragement to early marriages, and are not in fact spent almost entirely in the purchase of corn, it is quite consistent with the general principles laid down, that the population should not proceed at the same rate as is usual, cæteris paribus, in other countries, where the corn wages of labour are equally high.
Malthus' Letters to David Ricardo (1814) - 2 instances
David Ricardo, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 6 Letters 1810-1815.
Malthus to Ricardo [reply to 64.—answered by 70] Nov 23. 1814 [Online]
It is of course by no means enough to say that from the state of production from the land, compared with the [153] means necessary to make it produce, you can infer with certainty the state of general profits; as this is merely saying what every body knows, that all profits must caeteris paribus be on a level. But the question is whether agriculture always takes the lead in the determination? and I should certainly say that it did not.
David Ricardo, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 7 Letters 1816-1818.
Malthus to Ricardo. Feby. 24th [1818] [Online OLL
I am surprised, with you that Major Torrens should puzzle himself so long with his peculiar objections to your measure of value. For myself, I own, I am quite satisfied with your own concessions; and if as you yourself acknowledge, taxation, foreign materials, and the different quantities of fixed and circulating capitals employed, all prevent the exchangeable value of commodities from being determined by the labour which they have cost in production, I should say, it followed that your theory was only true caeteris paribus, which might be equally said of the cost of the materials.
James Mill, Twelve Essays in the Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1824). Edited by David M. Hart (2023). [Online]
“Beggar” in Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. With Preliminary Dissertations on the History of the Science. Illustrated by Engravings. (Edinburgh, Archibald Constable and Company, 1824).
pp. II-242-43 [Online]
Of all the causes of beggary, war may undoubtedly be assumed as one of the most extraordinary. We have already seen in what manner the people converted by it into soldiers swell the ranks of mendicity; but this is only a small part of the deplorable effects. It brings the condition of the whole of the labouring mass down nearer to the mendicant level; and, of course, a new and additional portion down to it altogether. This it does by the consumption which it produces. Exactly in proportion as money is spent upon war, exactly in that proportion is the means of employing labour, that is, of buoying up the condition of the people, destroyed; exactly in that proportion must the people, cæteris paribus, sink. These are conclusions which may be regarded as scientific, and which will never be called in dispute except by those who are ignorant of the subject. It is not impossible for war to be accidentally accompanied with circumstances which counter-balance this tendency, even in respect to wealth; but this is exceedingly rare. The great men very often gain by war: the little almost always lose.
John Ramsay McCulloch, The Principles of Political Economy: with Some Inquiries Respecting Their Application, and a Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the Science. A New Edition, enlarged and corrected throughout. (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843). 1st ed. 1825.
p. 108:
Countries with every imaginable capability for the profitable employment of industry and stock may have the misfortune to be subjected to governments which do not respect or uphold the right of property; and the insecurity thence resulting may be sufficient to paralyze the exertions of those who are otherwise placed in the most favourable situation for the accumulation of wealth. But we believe it may be laid down as a principle, which hardly admits of exception, that if two or more countries, nearly in the same physical circumstances, have about equally tolerant and liberal governments, and give equal protection to property, their prosperity will be in proportion to the rate of profit in each. Wherever, cæteris paribus, profits are high, capital is rapidly augmented, and there is a comparatively rapid increase of wealth and population; but, on the other hand, wherever profits are low, the means of employing additional labour are comparatively limited, and the progress of society rendered so much the slower.
p. 109:
But without referring to the case of America, Holland, or any other country, the smallest reflection on the motives to engage in any branch of industry is sufficient to show that the advantages derived from it are always supposed, caeteris paribus, to be directly as the rate of profit. What is the object that every man has in view who either employs himself or his capital in an industrious undertaking? Is it not to gain the greatest possible reward for his labour, or the greatest possible rate of profit on his capital? One branch of industry is said to be peculiarly advantageous, for the single and sufficient reason that it yields a comparatively large profit; and another is, with equal propriety, said to be peculiarly disadvantageous, because it yields a comparatively small profit. It is always to this standard, to the high or low rate of profit which they yield, that every individual refers in judging of the comparative benefits of different undertakings; and it is hardly necessary to add, that what is true of individuals, must be true of states.
p. 159:
Nothing, indeed, can be a greater error than to imagine that, in the present state of the world, the security of any particular country, or her means of defence or aggression, can be materially increased by prohibitory regulations. The warlike implements made use of, and the character of the contests carried on in modern times, occasion an enormous expense. There is no longer any doubt of the maxim that money is the sinews of war; that the wealthiest nation is, cæteris paribus, the most powerful. Those who possess wealth in sufficient quantities will never want for "man and steel, the soldier and his sword;" they have a talisman by which they may cover the land with armies and the ocean with fleets, and against whose powerful influence the purest patriotism and the most unflinching courage will with difficulty struggle. But when such is the case, when it is admitted on all hands that wealth is the main source of power and influence, and when it admits of demonstration, that a free and extended commerce is the most prolific source of wealth, can anything be more contradictory than to attempt to increase the defence or security of a country by enacting measures that must necessarily fetter and narrow its commerce?
p. 361, FN:
Sir William Petty seems to have been one of the earliest writers who has distinctly stated the principle, that the value of commodities depends on the quantities of labour required for their production. "If," says he, "a man bring to London an ounce of silver out of the earth in Peru, in the same time that he can produce a bushel of corn, the one is the natural price of the other now if, by reason of new and more easie mines, a man can get two ounces of silver as easily as formerly he did one, then corn will be as cheap at ten shillings the bushel as it was before at five shillings, cæteris paribus.”— Treatise of Taxes and Contributions, ed. 1679, p. 31. At page 24 he says, "Let a hundred men work ten years upon corn, and the same number of men the same time upon silver; I say that the neat proceed of the silver is the price of the whole neat proceed of the corn, and like parts of the one the price of like parts of the other :" and at page 67 he says, "Corn will be twice as dear when there are two hundred husbandmen to do the same work which a hundred could perform." These passages are curious and interesting, as exhibiting the first germs of the theory which Mr Ricardo did so much to perfect.
A Review of Definitions in Political Economy (1827) - 4 instances
p. 5:
M. Say, in particular, seems to attribute an over importance to terms. He has an appendix to his work, to which he gives the title of an "epitome," but which is, in substance, a glossary. If it were really an epitome, it words to be explained. He himself is obliged, in order to make it serve as an epitome, to give an index raisonné to it, that we may get it into a more convenient order. The merit of a work of reasoning is surely in no respect in proportion to the number of definitions it gives us, or the number of new terms it obliges us to get by heart. Even its novelty and originality do not, in the slightest degree, arise from these sources. On the contrary, it will, cæteris paribus, be better, if it tells us what it has to tell without using one single word that we were not familiarly acquainted with, in the same sense, before. It will be shorter, and its doctrines more easily learned. Our bias ought always to be against technical terms, rather than in favour of them.
p. 64:
Mr. Malthus, like M. Say, understands by demand, the will combined with the power to purchase (p. 64). He does not, like M. Say, deliver his doctrine on this subject in the form of strict proportion, but more cautiously says, "that the relative values of commodities in money, or, their prices, are determined by the relative demand for them, compared with the supply of them" which does not necessarily import more, than that an increase of demand will always increase price, cæteris paribus ; and a lowering of demand lessen price; and so, vice versa, of supply but not that the increased demand, &c., will increase in price in the same proportion as it has itself increased.
p. 70:
If all were clever, the wages of all would, cæteris paribus, be higher. The master pays such such an one more, because he makes more by him. Besides, in some cases a thing acquires part of its desirableness by being rare; in which ease its rarity doubly raises its value in exchange, once because it is more difficult to get, and once more because it is more prized and desired.
p. 83:
If the price of labour did not in such case rise, the supply would certainly ultimately diminish; and upon that event happening, or on the immediate prospect of its happening low ages would rise. At the same time, people would works harder, which would increases the proportion which the remuneration would bear to the number of people working, though not to the quantity of work done. Now natural price of labour, in Mr. Ricardo's sense, applies to the former it is the cost of maintaining labourers, and is in proportion, cæteris paribus, to the number of them, and not of the portions of= work they do, or of the hours they labour. If a man chooses to work harder, there is no such thing as the cost= of production of that addition.
Richard Whately, Introductory Lectures on Political Economy, delivered in Easter Term 1831 (London: B. Fellowes, 2nd and enlarged ed. 1832). [Online OLL
p. 183:
On the whole then, I think we may conclude, that the notions of those who consider a poor and imperfectly civilized community as possessing, cæteris paribus, superior or even equal advantages in point of moral improvement, are as much opposed to reason and to experience, as they are to every rational wish: and that as the Most High has evidently formed Society with a tendency to advancement in National Wealth, so, He has designed and fitted us, to advance, by means of that, in Virtue, and true Wisdom, and Happiness.
p. 192:
A community, again, would, cæteris paribus, labour under a great disadvantage in respect of advancement in virtue at least, whose institutions were such as tended to arm against the laws large bodies of such persons as were not, in the outset, destitute of all moral principle, but whose mode of life was a fit training to make them become so. Such are, Poachers and Smugglers. An excessive multiplication of the latter class is produced by the enactment of laws, whose object is, not revenue, but the exclusion of foreign productions for the supposed benefit of domestic industry. Whatever may be thought of the expediency of those laws, with a view to national wealth, all must agree, that the extension of smuggling must produce the most demoralizing effects.
pp. 205-6:
After adverting to the remark of M. Garnier, in his notes to the French translation of A. Smith, that in France no man of health and strength need be without employment, which that Author attributes to the absence of such restrictions as our poor-laws impose, Mr. Senior observes, that nevertheless the common people in France are worse fed, and incomparably worse clothed, than in England; and adds, that "the French labourer being employed in more capacities than the Englishman, has more trades to turn to, and for that very reason is less efficient at any one. The Russian is probably more seldom out of employ than the Frenchman, and the Tartar, less frequently than either. But I believe nothing to be more clearly established than that, cæteris paribus, the productiveness of labour is in proportion to its subdivision; and that, cæteris paribus, in proportion to that subdivision must be the occasional suffering from want of employment."
Nassau William Senior, Three Lectures on the Rate of Wages, delivered before the University of Oxford, in Easter Term 1830. With a Preface on the Causes and Remedies of the Present Disturbances (London: John Murray, 1831). 2nd edition.
LECTURE III.: POPULAR ERRORS ON THE CAUSES AFFECTING WAGES, (concluded.) [Online OLL
p. 48:
The word ‘employment’ is merely a concise form of designating toil, trouble, exposure, and fatigue. All these, per se, are evils, and the less of them that is required for obtaining a given amount of subsistence and comfort,—or, in other words, the greater the facility of obtaining that given amount,—the better, cæteris paribus, will be the condition of the labouring classes; indeed, of all classes in the community.
Nassau William Senior, Poor Law Commissioners’ Report of 1834. Copy of the Report made in 1834 by the Commissioners for Inquiring into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty (London: Printed for H.M. Stationery Off. by Darling and Son, 1905). [Online OLL
It is also clear that such officers should be selected as would not be biassed by local interests or partialities. The most fitting persons must often, as in the instances we have cited, be sought for in distant districts, and, cæteris paribus, would be preferable to persons within the same districts.
Nassau William Senior, Political Economy (London: Richard Griffin and Co. 3rd ed. 1854). 1st ed. 1850. [Online OLL
p. 133:
To revert to our supposition of a capitalist with ?50,000 repaid by an extra revenue of ?2500 a-year for living in Jamaica: it is clear that another capitalist taking there ?100,000 would, coeteris paribus, obtain an extra revenue of ?5000 a-year, and that notwithstanding his labour would not necessarily be greater than that of the first-mentioned capitalist, or notwithstanding it might in fact be much less.
p. 169:
Toil, exposure, and fatigue, per se, are evils, and the less of them that is required for obtaining a given amount of subsistence and comfort, or, in other words, the greater the facility of obtaining that given amount, the better, coeteris paribus, will be the condition of the labouring classes; indeed, of all classes in the community. What occasions the prosperity of a colony? Not the dearness of subsistence, but its cheapness; not the difficulty of obtaining food, clothing, shelter, and fuel, but the facility.
p. 183:
If fewer fleets, and armies, and magistrates, could preserve the peace, that is, if labour were more productive in affording security, the labouring classes would, cœteris paribus, be better off, just as they would be better off if fewer husbandmen or artisans could produce, directly or indirectly, the same quantity of corn; that is, if labour were more productive in supplying food.
p. 219:
The French labourer, being employed in more capacities than the Englishman, has more trades to turn to, and for that very reason is less efficient at any one. The Russian is probably more seldom out of employ than the Frenchman, and the Tartar less frequently than either. But few principles are more clearly established than that, cœteris paribus, the productiveness of labour is in proportion to its subdivision, and that, cœteris paribus, in proportion to that subdivision must be the occasional suffering from want of employment. A savage may be compared to one of his own instruments, to his club, or his adze, clumsy and inefficient, but yet complete in itself. A civilized artificer is like a single wheel or roller, which, when combined with many thousand others in an elaborate piece of machinery, contributes to effects which seem beyond human force and ingenuity, but, alone, is almost utterly useless.
Harriet Martineau, Illustrations of Political Economy (3rd ed) in 9 vols. (London: Charles Fox, 1834). Vol. 9. [Online OLL
“The Moral of Many Fables,” vol. 9, p. 114
If home producers can compete with foreign producers, they need no protection, as, ceteris paribus, buying at hand is preferable to buying at a distance. Free competition cannot fail to benefit all parties:—
Consumers, by securing the greatest practicable improvement and cheapness of the article;
Producers, by the consequent perpetual extension of demand;—and
Society at large, by determining capital to its natural channels.
"The Loom and the Lugger" in vol. 6 Harriet Martineau, Illustrations of Political Economy (3rd ed) in 9 vols. (London: Charles Fox, 1834). Vol. 6. [Online OLL
“You should get rid of this inferiority, my dear sir,” said Breme, with an encouraging smile, “and then we shall be most happy to deal exclusively with you. We prefer dealing with neighbours, caeteris paribus, I assure you. You should get rid of this inferiority, and then——”
If home producers can compete with foreign producers, they need no protection, as, cœteris paribus, buying at hand is preferable to buying at a distance.
Summary of Principles illustrated in this and the preceding Volume.
Free competition cannot fail to benefit all parties:—
Consumers, by securing the greatest practicable improvement and cheapness of the article;
Producers, by the consequent perpetual extension of demand;—and
Society at large, by determining capital to its natural channels.
Mountifort Longfield, Lectures on Political Economy, delivered in Trinity and Michaelmas Terms, 1833 (Dublin: Richard Milliken and Son, 1834).
Lecture 2, pp. 35-36 [Online OLL:
We have not many data to ascertain the price that would be given, if any one should find or possess a horse with eight legs, a monkey with seven heads, or a Queen Anne’s farthing, or any of those rarities which serve to amuse the antiquary or puzzle the philosopher. In what manner such things shall be distributed is [36] evidently a matter of trivial importance. Their price depends very much upon caprice and ceteris paribus, they will be dearest in those countries where the greatest inequality of wealth exists, or where the greatest amount of riches is in the hands of a few individuals. I shall henceforth in general therefore confine myself to those articles whose value admits of being measured by the quantity and kind of labour necessary to produce them, and it will be necessary to investigate more minutely the circumstances which regulate or affect their value.
Lecture IX, p. 196 [Online OLL:
This prospect, however, of deriving a profit from their accumulations, is a strong additional motive to save, although its influence will vary considerably, according to the manners, habits, disposition, circumstances, and general situation of the country. It will not generally be strongest where the rate of profits is highest, although, cæteris paribus, it would necessarily be so. But without departing from my present purpose, I cannot now enter upon the enquiry of the circumstances, which combined with the rate of profits, will have most influence in strengthening the principle of accumulation in any country.
Jeremy Bentham, Manual of Political Economy (1790-95, 1st published 1838??) in Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 3. [Online OLL
Chapter III. Of Wealth.
§ 5.: Axioms applying to Equality,* in respect of wealth.
I. Case or state of things the first.—The quantities of wealth in question, considered as being in a quiescent state, actually in the hands of the two parties in question: neither entering into, nor going out of the hands of either.
- Cæteris paribus,—to every particle of the matter of wealth corresponds a particle of the matter of happiness. Accordingly, thence,
- So far as depends upon wealth,—of [229] two persons having unequal fortunes, he who has most wealth must by a legislator be regarded as having most happiness.
Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). In 11 vols. Volume 8. [Online OLL
Essay on Logic (1838??)
- The field of art and science is capable of extension, and is continually receiving it; and the greater the extension it receives, the greater, there seems reason to believe—the greater cæteris paribus—is the quantity of well-being possessed by the aggregate of mankind. Of no such property as extension in particular parts is a sphere susceptible;—if it be so extended it ceases to be spherical.
Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring , vol. 2. Principles of Judicial Procedure, with the Outlines of a Procedure Code.
Cæteris paribus, that mode of operation which is most prompt will be least afflictive. To the pursuer’s side it will manifestly be most beneficial. So likewise to the defendant’s side, except in so far as by delay in respect of the rendering the service due, he is served at the expense of the pursuer and of the interest of the public in respect of justice.
Herbert Spencer, Social Statics: or, The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed, (London: John Chapman, 1851).
p. 144 [Online]
Those who hesitate to admit that a good name is property, should remember that it has really a money value. To be accounted honest is to be preferred as one with whom commercial dealings may be most safely carried on. Whose is said to be particularly industrious, is likely, other things being equal, to get better pay than his competitors. The celebrity attending great intellectual capacity, introduces those possessing it to responsible and remunerative situations. It is quite allowable therefore, to classify reputation under this head, seeing that, like capital, it may bring its owner an actual revenue in hard cash.
Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology, in Three Volumes (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1898). Authorized third edition.
p I-52 [Online]:
§ 30. As preliminary to the summing up of these physical characters, I must name a most general one—early arrival at maturity. Other things equal, the less evolved types of organisms take shorter times to reach their complete forms than do the more evolved; and this contrast, conspicuous between men and most inferior creatures, is perceptible among varieties of men. There is reason for associating this difference with the difference in cerebral development. The greater costliness of the larger brain, which so long delays human maturity as compared with mammalian maturity generally, delays also the maturity of the civilized as compared with that of the savage. Causation apart, however, the fact is that (climate and other conditions being equal) the inferior races reach puberty sooner than the superior races. Everywhere the remark is made that the women early bloom and early fade; and a corresponding trait of course holds in the men. This completion of growth and structure in a shorter period, implies less plasticity of nature: the rigidity of adult life sooner makes modification difficult. This trait has noteworthy consequences: one being that it tends to increase those obstacles to progress arising from the characters above described; which, on now re-enumerating them, we shall see are already great.
p. II-569 [Online]:
§ 548. For preserving its corporate life, a society is impelled to corporate action; and the preservation of its corporate life is the more probable in proportion as its corporate action is the more complete. For purposes of offence and defence, the forces of individuals have to be combined; and where every individual contributes his force, the probability of success is greatest. Numbers, natures, and circumstances being equal, it is clear that of two tribes or two larger societies, one of which unites the actions of all its capable members while the other does not, the first will ordinarily be the victor. There must be an habitual survival of communities in which militant cooperation is universal.
p. III-537 [Online]:
§ 826. That in common with multitudinous other kinds of combinations, trade-unions are prompted by community of interests among their members, is implied by facts showing that where, other things being equal, the interests are mixed, they do not arise. At the present time in Lancashire ...
John Elliot Cairnes, The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy (London: Macmillan, 1875 2nd ed). 1st ed. 1861. [Online OLL.
1). p. 48
It is positively true, e.g., to assert that men desire wealth, that they seek, according to their lights, the easiest and shortest means by which to attain their ends, and that consequently they desire to obtain wealth with the least exertion of labour possible; and it is a logical deduction from this principle, that, where perfect liberty of action is permitted, labourers will seek those employments, and capitalists those modes of investing their capital, in which, ceteris paribus, wages and profits are highest.
2.) p. 83
No one thinks of framing an hypothesis as to the motives which induce men to engage in industry, to prefer remunerative to unremunerative occupations, or to embark their earnings in investments which, ceteris paribus, promise the best returns; or, again, as to the causes which, in a given state of agricultural knowledge and skill, set a permanent limit to the application of capital and labour to the soil; any more than as to those on which depend the continuance and growth of population. Conjecture here would manifestly be out of place, inasmuch as we possess in our consciousness and in the testimony of our senses, as I have already shown, direct and easy proof of that which we desire to know. In Political Economy, accordingly, hypothesis is never used as a help towards the discovery of ultimate causes and laws; just as in physical investigation it is never used as a substitute for experiment.
3.) p. 90
One of the first and most elementary principles in the theory of money is that, ceteris paribus, the value of money is inversely as its quantity.
4.) pp. 104-5
So also, in discussing with M. Say the theory of rent, of profits, of taxation, the question is invariably reduced by Ricardo, either to some acknowledged principle of human action, or to some question of physical fact—to such issues, e.g., as the following—What is the productive capacity of the soil? Is the ratio of returns to outlay, ceteris paribus, the same, or greater, or less, as the outlay is increased? Does not the conduct of farmers in resorting to inferior soils prove it to be less? In the cultivation of land, therefore, is there not a point at which the returns pay the capital and labour employed in cultivation, and no more? Will not the self-interest of farmers lead them to push cultivation to this point? Will not the same consideration prevent them from pushing it further? Are there not soils of every possible degree of fertility? Are there not some, therefore, which will merely yield an average profit on the outlay, and no more? Will not the competition of farmers, each guided by considerations of individual self-interest, force up the rent of land till the returns merely leave them the average rate of profits on their capital? Will not the same motive prevent them from raising it further? Is not rent, therefore, determined by the difference between the cost of that portion of agricultural produce which is raised at greatest expense, and that which is raised at less? Supposing a tax on raw produce, the farmer will not pay the tax, for then he would not get the average profits, and rather than submit to less, his self-interest will lead him to withdraw his capital from the land. Will he evade the tax by contracting the area of cultivation and giving a lower rent; or will the wants of consumers induce them to give a higher price rather than diminish their consumption? Will, therefore, the minimum rate of profit, necessary in order to secure the investment of the farmer's capital, be maintained by a fall in rent, or by a rise in price? On the decision of such points are the laws of rent, of profits, of taxation, made to turn.
5.) FN2, p. 56
I don't know that any further reply need be made to this than that given in the text, namely, that whatever be the value of the objection, it applies with equal force to all sciences whatever which have reached the deductive stage. In no other sense is a dynamical law true than as expressing 'a tendency' influencing matter. Whether the result in any given case be such as the law asserts, will depend, whatever be the branch of speculation, upon whether the necessary ceteris paribus, implied in its statement, is realized. The reason that attention has been drawn more to the influence of disturbing causes in the political and moral than in the physical sciences is sufficiently obvious. In those physical sciences which are sciences of observation, as Astronomy, the principles are few in number and perfectly definite in character; while in those physical sciences, as, e.g., Chemistry, in which the principles are more numerous and complex, we can avail ourselves of experiment. In the former case all, or nearly all, the causes influencing the result are known and their effect may be calculated; in the latter, all that are not required may be eliminated. But in the moral and political sciences, in which we have to deal with human interests and passions, the agencies in operation at any given time in any given society are numerous, while, being in this case precluded from experiment, we are unable to prepare the conditions beforehand with a view to preserving the necessary ceteris paribus.
6.) FN1, p. 91
It is not to be supposed that the discrepancy alluded to goes the length of invalidating the elementary law that, ceteris paribus, the value of money is inversely as its quantity. This still rests upon the same basis of mental and physical facts as every other doctrine of Political Economy, and must always constitute a fundamental principle in the theory of money. It merely showed that in the practical case the condition ceteris paribus was not fulfilled. The fact in question is no more inconsistent with the economic law, than the non-correspondence of a complex mechanical phenomenon with what a knowledge of the elementary laws of mechanics might lead a tyro to expect, is inconsistent with these elementary laws. A guinea dropped through the air from a height falls to the ground more quickly than a feather; yet no one would on this account deny the doctrine that the accelerating power of gravity is the same for all bodies.
William Edward Hearn, Plutology: or the Theory of the Efforts to Satisfy Human Wants (Melbourne: George Robertson, 1863; London: Macmillan and Co., 1864).
p. 32 [Online]:
But as the actual character of the labourer is more important than the fertility or the abundance of the natural agents that surround him ; so the circumstances that form his character are more important than his mere undeveloped power and capacities. Some of these circumstances will presently appear. It is sufficient now to indicate the fact that between different individuals of the same nation and between different nations considerable diversities of original power exist : and that such diversities, other things being equal, determine, and in all cases concur in determining, the efficiency of labour.
Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (Macmillan, 1890. 8th ed.).
BOOK V, CHAPTER V: EQUILIBRIUM OF NORMAL DEMAND AND SUPPLY, CONTINUED, WITH REFERENCE TO LONG AND SHORT PERIODS. (Paragraph 905):
The element of time is a chief cause of those difficulties in economic investigations which make it necessary for man with his limited powers to go step by step; breaking up a complex question, studying one bit at a time, and at last combining his partial solutions into a more or less complete solution of the whole riddle. In breaking it up, he segregates those disturbing causes, whose wanderings happen to be inconvenient, for the time in a pound called Cœteris Paribus. The study of some group of tendencies is isolated by the assumption other things being equal: the existence of other tendencies is not denied, but their disturbing effect is neglected for a time. The more the issue is thus narrowed, the more exactly can it be handled: but also the less closely does it correspond to real life. Each exact and firm handling of a narrow issue, however, helps towards treating broader issues, in which that narrow issue is contained, more exactly than would otherwise have been possible. With each step more things can be let out of the pound; exact discussions can be made less abstract, realistic discussions can be made less inexact than was possible at an earlier stage.
BOOK V, CHAPTER V: EQUILIBRIUM OF NORMAL DEMAND AND SUPPLY, CONTINUED, WITH REFERENCE TO LONG AND SHORT PERIODS. (Paragraph 914):
The day to day oscillations of the price of fish resulting from uncertainties of the weather, etc., are governed by practically the same causes in modern England as in the supposed stationary state. The changes in the general economic conditions around us are quick; but they are not quick enough to affect perceptibly the short-period normal level about which the price fluctuates from day to day: and they may be neglected [impounded in **cœteris paribus**] during a study of such fluctuations.
Book V, Chapter V: Equilibrium of normal demand and supply, Continued, with reference to long and short periods (Paragraph 915)
Let us then pass on; and suppose a great increase in the general demand for fish, such for instance as might arise from a disease affecting farm stock, by which meat was made a dear and dangerous food for several years together. We now impound fluctuations due to the weather in cœteris paribus, and neglect them provisionally: they are so quick that they speedily obliterate one another, and are therefore not important for problems of this class. And for the opposite reason we neglect variations in the numbers of those who are brought up as seafaring men: for these variations are too slow to produce much effect in the year or two during which the scarcity of meat lasts. Having impounded these two sets for the time, we give our full attention to such influences as the inducements which good fishing wages will offer to sailors to stay in their fishing homes for a year or two, instead of applying for work on a ship. We consider what old fishing boats, and even vessels that were not specially made for fishing, can be adapted and sent to fish for a year or two. The normal price for any given daily supply of fish, which we are now seeking, is the price which will quickly call into the fishing trade capital and labour enough to obtain that supply in a day's fishing of average good fortune; the influence which the price of fish will have upon capital and labour available in the fishing trade being governed by rather narrow causes such as these. This new level about which the price oscillates during these years of exceptionally great demand, will obviously be higher than before. Here we see an illustration of the almost universal law that the term Normal being taken to refer to a short period of time an increase in the amount demanded raises the normal supply price. This law is almost universal even as regards industries which in long periods follow the tendency to increasing return.
Jean-Baptiste Say, Traité d’Économie Politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent, et se consomment les richesses. Par Jean-Baptiste Say, Membre du Tribunat (De L’imprimerie De Crapelet. À Paris, An XI —1803). Two volumes.
1.) chap XLVI "De la production dans ses rapports avec la population" [Online]:
Sans doute un pays où les fortunes sont très inégalement partagées, où des mœurs dissolues font qu’un petit nombre d’individus consomment une quantité de produits qui pourrait suffire à l’entretien d’une multitude, un tel pays, dis-je, ne peut pas avec une pareille quantité de produits nourrir une population aussi forte que le pourrait une contrée plus sobre ; mais toutes choses d’ailleurs égales, la population d’un pays se proportionne à ses produits. C’est une vérité reconnue par la plupart des auteurs qui ont écrit sur l’économie politique, quelque variées que soient leurs opinions sur presque tout le reste
2.) Chap. XVI "Des profits du fonds de terre", p. II-317 [Online]:
Il est à remarquer que le revenu foncier dépend en grande partie du système suivi par l’autorité publique. Il dépend d’elle d’ouvrir des communications, de favoriser la production d’où naissent les accumulations et l’enrichissement, et par suite la population ; l’habileté, l’économie de l’administration peuvent diminuer les charges publiques ; et nous venons de voir les bonifications qui en résultent pour le revenu foncier. Or le revenu foncier influe sur le prix d’achat des terres : celui-ci s’élève, toutes choses d’ailleurs égales, en proportion des profits territoriaux ; et s’il dépend de l’administration d’élever les profits, il dépend d’elle d’augmenter ou de réduire la valeur de toutes les terres d’un État, d’augmenter ou de réduire la valeur de l’État lui-même.
3.) Chap. XIII "Des impôts qui portent sur les revenus, et quels revenus ils atteignent." [Online]:
Les effets que je fais remarquer et qui sont conformes à l’expérience aussi bien qu’expliqués par le raisonnement, sont permanents ; ils durent tout autant que les mêmes circonstances durent. Un propriétaire foncier supportera toujours la totalité de sa contribution personnelle, et non pas un manufacturier. La consommation d’une denrée, toutes choses d’ailleurs égales, sera constamment bornée par un impôt qui en élèvera le prix, et il y aura moins de gains faits dans sa production. Un homme qui n’est ni producteur ni consommateur d’une denrée de luxe, ne supportera jamais la moindre part d’un impôt mis sur cette denrée. Que penser en conséquence d’une doctrine [**~237~**] qui a obtenu l’approbation d’une société illustre, et où l’on établit qu’il importe peu que l’impôt pèse sur une branche de revenu ou sur une autre, pourvu qu’il soit anciennement établi ; que tout impôt, à la longue, se puise dans tous les revenus, comme le sang qu’on tire d’un bras se pompe sur tout le corps ? Cette comparaison n’est nullement analogue à la nature de l’impôt. Les richesses sociales ne sont point un fluide qui cherche son niveau. Une atteinte portée à l’une des branches de l’arbre social peut la tuer, sans que l’arbre en souffre ; elle est plus fâcheuse si elle porte sur une branche productive que sur une autre qui ne l’est pas. Si les blessures se multiplient, si l’arbre entier est attaqué, on le dévoue à la stérilité et bientôt à la mort.
Jean-Baptiste Say, Œuvres Complètes I. Traite d'Économie Politique ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses. Édition variorum des six éditions (1803-1814-1817-1819-1826-l 841) établie par Claude Mouchot, éditées par Emmanuel Blanc, Pierre-Henri Goutie, Gilles Jacouo, Claude Mouchot, Jean-Pierre Potier, Michèle Saquin, Jean-Michel Servet, Philippe Steiner et André Tiran (coordonnateur) (Paris: Economica, 2006).
CHAPITRE VII Des Revenus industriels, p. 717:
Nous avons vu, dans le chapitre précédent, que la demande de certains produits est toujours plus soutenue que celle de certains autres. Nous en avons conclu que les services qui se consacrent à ces genres de production, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, sont mieux récompensés que les autres.
FNbb, p. 717:
Quand les produits, quels qu'ils soient, sont vivement demandés, les services productifs, seuls moyens par lesquels on puisse les obtenir, sont vivement demandés aussi, et cette demande active en élève nécessairement le taux ; ceci regarde les services productifs pris en masse. L'industrie, les capitaux et les terres rapportent en général de plus gros profits, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, quand la demande des produits est plus vive, quand 1 'aisance est plus grande, la production plus active.
p. 779. 2 versions:
- En effet, tout entrepreneur qui a des fonds disponibles, après avoir pesé les avantages et les inconvénients d'une profession, tels qu'ils sont désignés au chapitre précédent, paragraphe, préfère indubitablement, toutes choses étant d'ailleurs égales, les emplois les plus sûrs et ceux qui lui rendent plus promptement la disposition de ses capitaux.
- Plusieurs économistes, sur ce fondement que les capitalistes donnent tou jours la préférence, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, aux emplois qui rapportent le plus, présument que les profits des capitaux s'égalisent par la concurrence, et que, si nous voyons des capitaux, engagés dans des entreprises périlleuses rapporter de plus gros profits que d'autres, cette supériorité ne provient que d'une prime d'assurance suffisante pour compenser les pertes auxquelles le capital est exposé.
Liv. II Chap IX, pp. 804-6:
Or le revenu foncier influe sur le prix d'achat des terres : celui -ci s'élève, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, en proportion des profits territoriaux ; et s'il dépend de 1 'administration d'élever les profits, il dépend d'elle, d'augmenter ou de réduire la valeur de toutes les terres d'un État, d'augmenter ou de réduire la valeur de l'État lui-même.
Liv. II chap XI "Population", p. 830:
Sans doute un pays où les fortunes sont très inégalement partagées, où des moeurs dissolues font qu'un petit nombre d'individus consomment une quantité de produits qui pourrait suffire à l'entretien d'une multitude, un tel pays, dis-je, ne peut pas avec une pareille quantité de produits, nourrir une population aussi forte que le pourrait une contrée plus sobre ; mais toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, la population d'un pays se proportionne à ses produits.
p. 831:
Ces propositions générales reçoivent bien des modifications des circonstances particulières. Si les produits sont très inégalement distribués, si un homme en a plus qu'il ne lui en faut pour exister dans sa situation, la population sera moins grande que si le surplus de cet homme en faisait vivre un autre. Si les besoins d'une nation sont grands, la même quantité de produits n'y fera pas subsister autant de monde que dans une supposition contraire. Toujours est-il vrai que, toutes choses étant d'ailleurs égales, le nombre des hommes se proportionnera à la quantité des produits.
Liv. III, chap. X, p. 1025:
A joutons que les effets que je fais remarquer, et qui sont conformes à l'expérience aussi bien qu'expliqués par le raisonnement, dureent autant que les circonstances qui les ont occasionnés. Un propriétaire foncier ne pourra jamais faire supporter à ses consommateurs aucune part de sa contribution foncière: il n'en sera pas de même d'un manufacturier'. La consommation d'une denrée, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, sera constamment bornée par un impôt qui en élèvera le prix, et il y aura moins de gains faits dans sa production. Un homme qui n'est ni producteur ni consommateur d'une denrée de luxe, ne supportera jamais la moindre part d'un impôt mis sur cette denrée.
ÉPITOMÉ, p. 1158:
La valeur des services productifs se règle suivant les principes qui déterminent la valeur de toutes les autres choses ; c'est-à-dire que leur valeur s'élève en raison directe de la quantité de services demandée, et en raison inverse de la quantité de services offerte. Les prix des services productifs (toutes choses d'ailleurs égales) s'égalisent entre eux, quel que soit le produit auquel ils concourent
Jean Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy; or the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth, ed. Clement C. Biddle, trans. C. R. Prinsep from the 4th ed. of the French (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co., 1855. 4th-5th ed. ). [Online OLL.
Yet they all benefit by this economy; and that they do so, if the explanations already given are not convincing, experience bears irrefragable testimony; for consumers always buy cheapest where commercial industry is the most subdivided. Ceteris paribus, a commodity brought from the same distance is sold cheaper at a large town or fair, than in a village or hamlet. [Online OLL.
It is hardly necessary to caution the reader, that I have throughout been considering maritime industry solely in its relation to national wealth. Its influence upon national security is another thing. The art of navigation is an expedient of war, as well as of commerce. The working of a vessel is a military manœuvre; and the nation containing the larger proportion of seamen, is, therefore, ceteris paribus, the more powerful in a military point of view; consequently, political and military considerations have always interfered with national views of commerce, in matters of navigation; and England, in passing her celebrated Navigation Act, interdicting her carrying trade to all vessels, the owners and at least three-fourths of the crews whereof were not British subjects, had in view, not so much the profits of the carrying trade, as the increase of her own military marine, and the diminution of that of the other powers, especially of Holland, which then enjoyed an immense carrying trade, and was the chief object of English jealousy. [Online OLL.
When the demand for any product whatever, is very lively, the productive agency, through whose means alone it is obtainable, is likewise in brisk demand, which necessarily raises its ratio of value: this is true generally, of every kind of productive agency. Industry, capital, and land, all yield, ceteris paribus, the largest profits, when the general demand for products is most active, affluence most expanded, profits most widely diffused; and production most vigorous and prolific. [Online OLL.
Among the circumstances incident to the nature of the employment, which influence the rate of interest, the duration of the loan must not be forgotten; ceteris paribus, interest is lower when the lender can withdraw his funds at pleasure, or at least in a very short period; and that both on account of the positive advantage of having capital readily at command, and because there is less dread of a risk, which may probably be avoided by timely retreat. [Online OLL.
In practice, adventurers, having capital at their command, always weigh beforehand the advantages and disadvantages of the different modes of investment, as specified above,71 and naturally prefer, ceteris paribus, those presenting the smallest risk and the quickest return; so that there is less competition of capital for hazardous and long-winded adventurers; indeed, none whatever is embarked in them, unless they hold out a rate of profit so much above the average rate, as to tempt the capitalist to run the risk. [Online OLL.
FN 24: The leaves of trees absorb the carbonic-acid gas floating in the atmosphere we breathe, and which is so injurious to respiration. When this gas is super-abundant, it brings on asphyxia, and occasions death. On the contrary, vegetation increases the proportion of oxygen, which is the gas most favourable to respiration and to health. Ceteris paribus, those towns are the healthiest, which have the most open spaces covered with trees. It would be well to plant all our spacious quays.
Jean-Baptiste Say, Œuvres Complètes V. Œuvres Morales et Politiques. Texte établi et présenté par Emmanuel Blanc et André Tiran, éditées par Emmanuel Blanc, Pierre-Henri Goutte, Gilles Jacoud, Claude Mouchot, Jean-Pierre Potier, Michèle Saquin, Jean-Michel Servet, Philippe Steiner et André Tiran (coordonnateur) (Paris: Economica, 2003).
pp. 315-16:
Ce n'est pas tout : le spectacle du monde physique nous présente une suite de phénomènes enchaînés les uns aux autres ; il n'est aucun fait qui n'ait une ou plusieurs causes. Toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, la même cause ne produit pas deux effets différents: un grain de blé que je mets en terre ne produit pas tantôt un épi, tantôt un chardon ; il produit toujours du blé. Quand la terre est ameublie par la culture, quand elle est fertilisée par des engrais, dans une saison également favorable, le même champ produit plus que si le terrain n'avait pas reçu ces diverses façons. Voilà des causes toujours suivies des mêmes effets. Or on ne tarde pas à s'apercevoir qu'il en est de même dans l'économie politique. Un fait est toujours le résultat d'un ou de plusieurs faits antérieurs qui en sont la cause. Les événements d'aujourd'hui ont été amenés par ceux d'hier, et influeront sur ceux de demain ; tous ont été des effets et deviendront des causes ; de même que le grain de blé qui, étant un produit de l'année dernière, enfantera l'épi de l'année présente. Prétendre qu'un événement quel qu'il soit, dans le monde moral comme dans le monde physique, arrive sans cause, c'est prétendre qu'une tige pousse sans avoir eu de semence ; c'est supposer un miracle. De là cette expression commune, la chaîne des événements, qui nous montre que nous considérons les événements comme des chaînons qui se rattachent les uns aux autres.
Also quotes Voltaire (p. 529) and Rousseau (p. 707) using this phrase.
Jean-Baptiste Say, Œuvres Complètes IV. Leçons d'Économie Politique. Texte établi et présenté par Gilles Jacoud et PhilippeSteiner, éditées par EmmanuelBlanc, Pierre-Henri Goutte, GillesJacoud, Claude Mouchot, Jean-Pierre Potier, Michèle Sacquin, Jean-Michel Servet, Philippe Steiner et André Tiran (coordonnateur) (Paris: Economica, 2003).
5th Lecture, p. 125:
Par cette raison et toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, j'accorderai toujours plus de confiance à un homme éclairé qu'à celui qui manque de lumière, de même que dans un chemin solitaire, j'aimerai mieux rencontrer un homme raisonnable, qu'un insensé qui sera incapable de prévoir les conséquences du mal qu'il pourra me faire. Toutefois entendons-nous sur cette qualification d'homme éclairé.
p. 160:
De même toutes choses étant d'ailleurs égales, un pays où par l'effet des mauvaises lois (comme celles qui ont rapport aux substitutions et aux majorats les fortunes deviendront et resteront fort inégales, un tel pays, dis-je, nourrira proportionnellement moins d'habitants qu'un autre, parce qu'une grande fortune tend à diriger une partie plus considérable de la production vers des superfluités, ce qui est d'autant de ravi à la production des choses indispensables au soutien de la vie. Et cependant on aurait tort de croire que les gros revenus ne servent pas eux-mêmes à favoriser une nombreuse population. Lorsqu'un homme riche consacre une partie de son revenu à l'entretien de ses cochers, cuisiniers, concierges, etc., il faut considérer son revenu comme se partageant en plusieurs revenus, dont l'un devient celui du cocher et de sa famille, l'autre celui du cuisinier et de sa famille, l'autre celui du concierge, etc. Et toutes ces familles se multiplient d'autant plus que ces revenus qui deviennent les leurs, sont plus considérables.
p. 165:
Vous savez que les sources de nos revenus sont de plusieurs sortes. Nous pouvons faire des profits par notre industrie ; nous en pouvons faire par nos capitaux. Or la même famille peut réunir plusieurs sources de revenus. Quand on a su épargner et placer au moins un petit avoir, rien n'empêche qu'on ne tire en même temps des profits de son travail et de ses talents. C'est pour cela que, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, un peuple qui est laborieux et économe et qui tandis qu'il travaille, a des capitaux productifs qui travaillent aussi, est mieux pourvu que celui qui a le goût de la dissipation et de l'indolence et qui trouve son plus grand plaisir à gaspiller et à voir gaspiller les ressources qu'il a.
p. 205:
Tandis que les moralistes chagrins reprochent inutilement aux hommes qu'ils n'écoutent que leurs intérêts, montrons-leur en quoi consistent leurs intérêts bien entendus. Prouvons-leur que si dans certains cas particuliers des méchants ont tiré parti de l'injustice et du crime, cependant, au total, le bien dont on jouit le plus sûrement, le plus longtemps, et avec le plus de tranquillité, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, est le bien convenablement acquis ; or cette manière d'acquérir est toujours favorable à la société ; c'est une de ces vérités qui se présentent à chaque instant lorsqu'on étudie les moyens et les résultats de l' industrie.
Jean-Baptiste Say, Œuvres Complètes II. Cours complet d'economie politique pratique. Édition variorum des deux éditions (1828-1840). Volume réalisé par Emmanuel BLANC, Pierre-Henri Goutte et Jean-Pierre Potier, éditées par Emmanuel Blanc, Pierre-Henri Gourre, Gilles Jacouo, Claude Mouchot, Jean-Pierre Potier, Michèle Sacquin, Jean-Michel Servet, Philippe Steiner et André Tiran (coordonnateur) (Paris: Economica, 2010).
11 instances - cœteris paribus (1) - toutes choses d’ailleurs égales (10)
T1, p. 11:
Ce n'est pas tout : le spectacle du monde physique nous présente une suite de phénomènes enchaînés les uns aux autres; il n'est aucun fait qui n'ait une ou plusieurs causes. Toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, la même cause ne produit pas deux effets différents; un grain de blé que je mets en terre, ne produit pas tantôt un épi, tantôt un chardon ; il produit toujours du blé.
T1, FN1, p. 381:
"Il n'est personne qui puisse être étonné que je mette les talents, l'expérience, la simple force corporelle, au rang de nos fonds productifs, et que je les regarde comme faisant partie de nos fortunes. Un homme qui possède des talents, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, est plus riche qu'un homme qui en est dépourvu ; un homme qui jouit de toutes ses facultés physiques et morales est plus riche qu'un impotent.
T2, p. 734:
Pour connaître les lois qui, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, déterminent le taux des salaires, il faut connaître les causes qui influent en temps ordinaire sur la quantité du travail offerte par la classe ouvrière, et sur celle qui est demandée par la classe des entrepreneurs, par la classe consommatrice de ce travail.
T2, p. 774:
Lorsque l'on prête une somme, ce n'est donc point, je le répète, telle chose que l'on prête plutôt que telle autre; c'est une valeur disponible et qui réside dans des matières quelconques ; pour la prêter, on vend ces matières ; on transforme leur valeur en écus afin de la transmettre plus baisément à l'emprunteur, qui transforme à son tour la même valeur en toutes les choses dont il a besoin. Or, c'est la quantité, la somme de toutes ces valeurs à prêter, sous quelque forme qu'elles s'offrent, qui composent les capitaux disponibles et qui influent sur le taux de l'intérêt, toutes choses étant d'ailleurs égaies, c'est-à-dire, comme je viens de le dire, qu'avec un état donné de l'industrie, l'intérêt baisse lorsque les valeurs capitales disponibles sont considérables et hausse quand elles deviennent rares.
T2, p. 859:
Les produits ont pour objet de satisfaire nos besoins et, la nature ayant attaché un sentiment de plaisir et de bien-être à cette satisfaction, le bonheur des individus, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, est proportionné à la quantité de besoins qu'ils peuvent satisfaire et par conséquent à la quantité de produits dont ils peuvent disposer.
T2, p. 866:
Cette observation a ses analogues dans les grands États comme dans les petits villages. Si nous consommons en France, chaque année, pour 80 millions de francs en sucre et si, par une amélioration dans les procédés du commerce, par un tarif de droits plus modéré et la diminution de frais qui en résultera, nous obtenons la même quantité de sucre pour un quart moins de dépense, c'est-à-dire pour 60 millions de francs, nous n'aurons pas moins de sucre à consommer ni sous ce rapport moins de moyens d'exister, mais nos revenus se trouveront augmentés des 20 millions que nous aurons dépensés de moins en sucre et cette augmentation de revenu, pouvant être appliquée à des objets quelconques de consommation, entraînera une augmentation équivalente dans la population. Par la même raison une augmentation dans le prix du sucre produirait un effet contraire et causerait, si elle était permanente, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, une diminution de population en France.
T2, pp. 912-13:
Plusieurs économistes de notre époque, ne tenant pas assez compte de la prépondérance qu'exercent souvent les circonstances accidentelles sur les principes généraux, pensent que, les producteurs étant libres de porter leurs capitaux et leur industrie vers les genres de production les plus favorables à leurs intérêts, les avantages de chacun sont balancés par ses inconvénients, parce que, sans cela, tout le monde embrasserait les meilleures professions et abandonnerait les plus mauvaises. Mais cette parfaite liberté dans le choix des professions n'existe jamais ; les goûts, l'ignorance, le caprice des consommateurs, les circonstances diverses où ils se trouvent placés ne sauraient s'accommoder à des règles impérieuses; cette condition, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, équivaut à une impossibilité et retombe dans la catégorie des suppositions gratuites. C'est un des points où les résultats de l'économie politique expérimentale et ceux des théories absolues s'accordent le plus rarement .
T2, p. 1045:
Parmi les essais que l'on fait dans les arts, les uns sont peu importants, se font et se renouvellent dans les ateliers, et accroissent graduellement le domaine de l'art. Un ouvrier cherche à se préserver d'un inconvénient qui, dans le cours de son travail, se représente à tout moment et il y parvient quelquefois d'une manière fort heureuse; un autre s'avise d'un procédé nouveau qui lui réussit; la connaissance se propage d'un atelier dans l'autre et l'art s'en enrichit. Ce n'est que depuis peu d'années qu'on a découvert l'usage que l'on peut faire du charbon d'os1 '1 pour le raffinage du sucre. Depuis ce temps, le résidu des manufactures d'ammoniaque, que l'on ne croyait bon qu'à répandre sur les chemins, a pu s'employer avec beaucoup d'avantage; il a remplacé des matières plus coûteuses; il accélère la clarification, et nous permet actuellement d'acheter du sucre blanc à 10 ou 12 pour cent meilleur marché qu'il ne nous coûterait, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales.
T2, p. 1045:
On entend peu parler des tentatives qui échouent ; elles sont toujours plus nombreuses que les tentatives qui réussissent et, quand elles ont réussi, elles ne tardent pas à devenir la proie de concurrents adroits et, finalement, c'est le public seul qui en profite. Chacun des manufacturiers qui travaillent maintenant le coton, depuis que les procédés en sont connus de tout le monde, ne gagne pas davantage que les autres manufacturiers, caetera pariter; mais le public y a gagné de jouir à très bon marché d'une multitude de tissus de coton auparavant inconnus.
T1, p. 1105:
David Ricardo et ses partisans, au contraire. partant de cette supposition que, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, les capitaux s'appliquent toujours à l'industrie qui rend les plus gros profits, prétendent qu'un impôt sur un objet manufacturé, est entièrement payé par le consommateur ; car si le prix de l'objet, disent-ils. ne s'élevait pas à un taux suffisant pour payer la totalité de l'impôt, le fabricant appliquerait ses capitaux à une autre production.
T2, p. 1234:
Par exemple, le choix que peuvent faire les consommateurs de tels produits préférablement à tels autres avec une dépense égale donne toutes sortes d'avantages aux consommateurs éclairés sur ceux qui n'ont que des goûts grossiers ou dépravés. Un peuple est servi comme il veut être servi ; mais il ne distingue ce qui lui convient le mieux, depuis le service qu'il retire des plus simples ustensiles de ménage jusqu'à ceux que lui rendent les fonctionnaires les plus éminents, que lorsqu'il sait apprécier ce qui est bon et rebuter ce qui ne l'est pas. C'est pour cette raison que, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, les consommations sont d'autant mieux entendues qu'une nation est plus éclairée.
Richard Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. Traduit de l’anglois. (A Londres, chez Fletcher Gyles, dans Holborn. M.DCC. LV. (1755).
p. 210 [Online]:
La France, depuis l’érection en 1646 des Manufactures de draps, & des autres ouvrages qu’on y a faits ensuite, paroissoit [210] faire le commerce dont je viens de parler, au moins en partie. Depuis la décadence de la France, l’Angleterre s’en est mise en possession ; & tous les États ne paroissent fleurissans que par la part plus ou moins qu’ils y ont. L’inégalité de la circulation d’argent dans les différens États en constitue l’inégalité de puissance comparativement, toutes choses étant égales; & cette inégalité de circulation est toujours respective à la balance du commerce qui revient de l’Etranger.
Condillac, 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)).
chap. 25 De l'emploi des terres, p. 381 [Online]:
Suivant l’emploi des terres, la population sera donc plus ou moins grande.
Mais les hommes consomment plus ou moins à proportion qu’ils ont plus ou moins de besoins. Il faut donc que la population diminue à proportion que les besoins se multiplient davantage ; ou, si la population ne diminue pas, il faut qu’on ait trouvé les moyens d’augmenter les productions en raison des consommations.
En un mot, il n’y a jamais dans un pays que la quantité d’habitants qu’il peut nourrir. Il y en aura moins, toutes choses d’ailleurs égales, si chacun d’eux consomme davantage : il y en aura moins encore, si une partie des terres est consacrée à des productions dont ils ne se nourrissent pas.
Part 1 Chapter 29 Récapitulation sommaire de la première partie [Online]:
Concluons que les États de l’Europe, s’ils s’obstinent à ne pas laisser une entière liberté au commerce, ne seront jamais aussi riches ni aussi peuplés qu’ils pourraient l’être ; que si un d’eux accordait une liberté entière et permanente, tandis que les autres n’en accorderaient qu’une passagère et restreinte, il serait, toutes choses d’ailleurs égales, le plus riche de tous ; et qu’enfin, si tous cessaient de mettre des entraves au commerce, ils seraient tous aussi riches qu’ils peuvent l’être ; et qu’alors leurs richesses respectives seraient, comme nous l’avons déjà remarqué, en raison de la fertilité du sol et de l’industrie des habitants.
Part 2 chap 1 Répartition des richesses, lorsque le commerce jouit d’une liberté entière et permanente. [Online]:
En prouvant dans la première partie de cet ouvrage que le vrai prix est le même au marché commun où toutes les nations viennent librement vendre et acheter, j’ai remarqué que ce prix est plus haut ou plus bas pour elles, suivant qu’elles sont éloignées ou voisines du marché commun.
Les prix ne seront donc pas les mêmes partout où nos cités se sont établies. Premièrement ils seront plus hauts dans les villes que dans les campagnes. C’est qu’outre le salaire dû aux marchands, on leur doit encore les frais de voiture, et un dédommagement pour les risques qu’ils ont courus.
En second lieu, les prix seront plus haut dans les principales villes, parce qu’on y fait de plus grandes consommations. On y est mieux nourri, mieux vêtu, mieux logé, mieux meublé. Or plus on consomme, plus on demande ; et plus on demande, plus, toutes choses d’ailleurs égales, on achète à haut prix. D’ailleurs il faudra aller chercher les productions dans une plus grande étendue de pays, à proportion que les consommations seront plus grandes. Il y aura donc plus de risques et plus de frais de voiture à payer.
Benjamin Constant, Principes de politique, applicables à tous les gouvernements représentatifs et particulièrement à la constitution actuelle de la France (Paris: Alexis Eymery, Mai 1815). [Online].
Chapitre III. Les gouvernants sont-ils nécessairement plus exempts d'erreurs que les gouvernés ? (no pn):
Une autre considération ne doit pas nous échapper. Il y a dans le pouvoir quelque chose qui fausse plus ou moins le jugement. Les chances d'erreur de la force sont plus multipliées que celles de la faiblesse. La force trouve ses ressources en elle-même. La faiblesse a besoin de la raison. Toutes choses égales, il est toujours vraisemblable que les gouvernants auront des opinions moins justes, moins saines, moins impartiales que les gouvernés.
Chapitre VI. De l'action du gouvernement sur l'éducation
Ce n'est pas que, toutes choses égales, je ne préfère l'éducation publique à l'éducation privée. La première fait faire à la génération qui s'élève un noviciat de la vie humaine, plus utile que toutes les leçons de pure théorie, qui ne suppléent jamais qu'imparfaitement à la réalité et à l'expérience.
Benjamin Constant, Commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Filangieri par M. Benjamin Constant (Paris: Chez P. Dufort, Librairie, Quai Voltaire, no. 19, M. DCCCXXII (1822); M. DCCCXXIV (1824)). Vol. 1. Vol. 2.
p. II-241 [Online]:
Ce n’est pas que, toutes choses égales, je ne préfère l’éducation publique à l’éducation privée. La première fait faire à la génération qui s’élève un noviciat de la vie humaine plus utile que toutes les leçons de pure théorie, qui ne suppléent jamais qu’imparfaitement à la réalité et à l’expérience. L’éducation publique est salutaire surtout dans les pays libres. Les hommes rassemblés à quelque âge que ce soit, et surtout dans la jeunesse, contractent, par un effet naturel de leurs relations réciproques, un sentiment de justice et des habitudes d’égalité, qui les préparent à devenir des citoyens courageux et des ennemis de l’arbitraire. On a vu, sous le despotisme même, des écoles dépendantes de l’autorité, reproduire, en dépit d’elle, des germes de liberté qu’elle s’efforçait en vain d’étouffer. Mais je pense que cet avantage peut être obtenu sans contrainte.
Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Traité d'économie Politique. Par M. Le Comte Destutt de Tracy, Pair de France, Membre de L'institut de France, et de la Société Philosophique de Philadelphie. (Paris, Chez Mmes Bouguet et Lévi, Libraires, Quai des Augustins, No. 23, 1823).
pp.112-113 [Online]:
Dans les pays fertiles, la fécondité de la terre ne tourne pas directement au profit de celui qui la cultive ; car le propriétaire ne manque pas d'en exiger un loyer d'autant plus fort qu'il la sait plus productive. Mais cette terre rendant beaucoup, la quantité qu'un homme en peut exploiter fournit une masse de productions considérable. Or, comme, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, les bénéfices de tout entrepreneur sont toujours proportionnels à [113] l'étendue de sa fabrication, ici les bénéfices peuvent être assez forts pour attirer l'attention d'hommes ayant un certain degré d'aisance et de capacité. Ce n'est pas, encore une fois, la fécondité de la terre qui les a enrichis et éclairés ; mais c'est cette fécondité qui les attire et les empêche de porter leurs moyens dans d'autres spéculations.
pp. 168-69 [Online]:
L'opération du change, au contraire, se mêle à l'opération de banque et la complique, lorsqu'il s'agit de transporter des fonds d'un pays dans un autre. Car la somme que l'on reçoit à Paris, et pour laquelle on donne une lettre sur Londres, a été déposée en monnaie française ; et sera payée en [169] monnaie anglaise. Il faut donc faire la concordance de ces deux monnaies, et déterminer ce que chacune d'elles contient de métal pur, d'après les lois connues de leur fabrication. Il faut de plus évaluer, au moins d'une manière approximative, ce que les pièces de monnaies peuvent avoir perdu dans les deux pays, depuis qu'elles sont en circulation. C'est ce qui fait que, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, on demande toujours moins pour payer la même somme dans un pays, quand sa monnaie est ancienne et par conséquent a souffert beaucoup de déchet par l'usage et par la fraude des rogneurs d'espèces, que quand elle est toute neuve et intacte ; car dans ce dernier cas elle contient réellement plus de métal, et le porteur de la lettre en recevra plus pour la même somme. Ce change est encore une nouvelle occasion de gain pour le banquier.
pp. 191-92 [Online]:
Si de ces observations générales nous passons à des faits particuliers ; nous en trouverons la raison avec la même facilité. Prenons pour premier exemple la Russie. Je ne prétends faire ni l'éloge ni la satire de cette nation, que je ne connais pas. Mais on peut bien assurer qu'elle n'est pas plus habile que les autres nations européennes. Cependant il est [192] prouvé que sa population croît plus rapidement que celles des autres États de l'Europe. C'est parce qu'elle a de grandes étendues de terrain, qui, n'ayant point encore de maîtres, offrent de grands moyens d'existence à ceux qui s'y transplantent ou qu'on y transporte ; et si cet immense avantage n'y produit pas une multiplication des hommes aussi rapide qu'aux États-Unis, c'est que son organisation sociale et son industrie sont loin d'être aussi parfaites. Les pays fertiles, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, sot plus peuplés que les autres, et réparent facilement leurs désastres, parce que la terre y fournit de grands moyens, c'est-à-dire que le travail qui s'applique à la terre y est très fructueux. Aussi la Lombardie et la Belgique, tant de fois ravagées, sont toujours florissantes.
pp. 269-70 [Online]:
Je vois, au contraire, plusieurs avantages à ce que le gouvernement ait des possessions de ce genre. Premièrement, il est des espèces de productions que lui seul peut conserver en grande quantité. Tels sont les bois de haute-futaie, dont il faut attendre [270] le produit trop longtemps pour que le plus souvent les particuliers ne préfèrent pas, à quantité égale et même moindre, des rentrées plus fréquentes. Secondement, il peut être bon que le gouvernement possède des terres cultivées ; il en sera à portée de mieux connaitre les ressources et les intérêts des diverses localités ; et s'il est sage et bienfaisant, il pourra même en profiter pour répandre des lumières utiles. Troisièmement, quand une grande masse des biens-fonds est dans les mains du gouvernement, il en reste moins dans le commerce. Or, comme ce genre de possessions est toujours fort désiré, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, moins il y en aura à vendre et plus ils se vendront cher, c'est-à-dire que pour une somme de cent mille francs, l'acquéreur se contentera de trouver quatre ou même trois mille francs de revenu au lieu de cinq, et cela fera baisser le taux de l'intérêt de l'argent dans tous les autres placements, ce qui est un grand bien. Quatrièmement, et cette considération est la plus importante de toutes, tout ce que le gouvernement tire annuellement de ces biens-fonds est un revenu qu'il n'enlève à personne ; il lui vient de son propre bien, comme à tous les autres propriétaires, et c'est autant de diminué sur ce qu'il est obligé de se procurer par des impôts. Enfin, dans un cas de nécessité, il peut, comme les particuliers, faire ressource en vendant de ses fonds, sans avoir recours aux emprunts, qui sont toujours un grand mal, comme nous le verrons bientôt.
pp. 278-79 [Online]:
Pour l'impôt sur le revenu des terres, il est évident que c'est celui qui possède la terre au moment où l'on établit la taxe, qui la paie réellement, sans pouvoir la rejeter sur personne ; car elle ne lui donne pas le moyen d'augmenter ses produits, puisqu'elle n'ajoute rien ni à la demande de la denrée ni à la fertilité de la terre, et qu'elle ne diminue en rien les frais de culture. Tout le monde convient de cette vérité ; mais ce que l'on n'a pas assez remarqué, c’est que ce propriétaire doit être considéré moins comme étant privé d'une portion de son revenu annuel que comme ayant perdu la partie de son capital qui produirait cette portion de revenu au taux courant de l'intérêt actuel. La preuve en [279] est que, si une terre de cinq mille francs de revenu net vaut cent mille francs le lendemain du jour où on l'aura chargée d'un impôt perpétuel du cinquième, on n'en trouvera, toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, que quatre-vingt mille francs si on la met en vente, et elle ne sera de même comptée que pour quatre-vingt mille francs dans l'actif d'une succession où il se trouvera d'autres valeurs qui n'auront pas changé. En effet, quand l'État a déclaré qu'il prend à perpétuité le cinquième du revenu d'une terre, c'est comme s'il s'était déclare propriétaire du cinquième du fonds ; car nulle propriété ne vaut que par l'utilité qu'on en peut tirer. Cela est si vrai, que quand, en conséquence du nouvel impôt, l'État ouvre un emprunt aux intérêts duquel il affecte le revenu dont il s'est emparé, l'opération est consommée. Il a réellement touché le capital qu'il s'est approprié, et il l'a mangé tout d'un coup au lieu d'en dépenser actuellement le revenu. C'est comme quand M. Pitt s'est fait livrer tout d'un coup par les propriétaires le capital de l'impôt territorial dont ils étaient chargés. Ils se sont trouvés libérés, et lui, a mangé son fonds.
Charles Dunoyer, L’Industrie et la morale considérées dans leurs rapports avec la liberté (Paris: A. Sautelet et Cie, 1825).
p. 82 [Online]:
Cela doit résulter d'abord de l'infériorité de leur esprit. Il n'est pas possible que leurs mœurs ne se ressentent pas aussi bien que leurs arts de ce qui peut leur manquer en intelligence. Si la morale est une affaire de sentiment elle est surtout une affaire de sens; et, toutes choses d'ailleurs égales, il n'est pas douteux que, de deux races différentes, la plus capable d'acquérir des lumières ne soit aussi la plus capable d'acquérir des vertus.
Charles Comte, Traité de législation, ou exposition des lois générales suivant lesquelles les peuples prospèrent, dépérissent ou restent stationnaire (Paris: A. Sautelet et Cie, 1826-27). Four volumes in one.
vol 1 chap. V (no pn) [Online]:
Un homme doué d’une bonne organisation physique, a sur un homme mal constitué, toutes choses étant égales d’ailleurs, une multitude d’avantages : quel que soit le genre d’occupations auquel il s’adonne, il peut travailler mieux et plus longtemps : s’il est ouvrier ou artisan, il fait plus d’ouvrage, et le fait avec plus de perfection ; s’il est militaire, il supporte mieux les fatigues de la guerre, commande avec plus de facilité, attaque et se défend avec plus d’avantage ; s’il est artiste, ses organes ayant plus de souplesse, plus de délicatesse, il a, par cela même, plus d’habileté ; s’il est savant, magistrat, il est capable d’une attention plus soutenue, et la faculté de supporter de plus longues fatigues lui donne le moyen de se livrer à plus de travaux, et de faire plus de progrès ; enfin, il peut rendre plus de services à sa famille, à ses amis, à son pays, et par conséquent à lui-même ; ayant plus de confiance en lui, il en inspire davantage aux autres ; la sécurité dont il jouit se communique à ceux dont l’existence repose sur la sienne.
vol 1, chap 1 [Online]:
Le perfectionnement des facultés humaines n’influe pas seulement sur le bien-être des individus, il influe aussi sur le nombre de la population. Un homme doué d’une bonne organisation physique, d’une intelligence étendue et de mœurs pures, en même temps qu’il se sent plus disposé à se marier et à élever une famille, en a bien plus le moyen que celui qui ne possède pas les mêmes avantages, si toutes choses sont égales d’ailleurs. La différence à cet égard est si grande qu’il est impossible de s’en former une idée, sans avoir comparé ensemble un nombre considérable de faits dont on trouvera plus loin l’exposition. Il me suffit dans ce moment d’avoir indiqué ce phénomène : j’en donnerai ailleurs la démonstration.
vol 3 chap 37 [Online]:
Les erreurs dans lesquelles on est tombé à l’égard du continent américain, ne sont pas moins graves. La température de ce continent, soit à cause de l’élévation des montagnes, soit à cause de toute autre circonstance qu’il n’est pas de mon sujet de rechercher, est beaucoup plus froide que la température de l’ancien continent, à des degrés égaux d’élévation et de latitude. La différence d’un continent à l’autre est, suivant quelques savants, de quatorze ou quinze degrés de latitude, et suivant d’autres, de dix-huit [363]. La température de la France, sous le quarante-cinquième degré, doit donc être égale à la température qu’on trouve en Amérique sous le trentième ou sous le vingt-septième, toutes choses égales d’ailleurs. La Floride et une grande partie du Mexique se trouvent ainsi sous un climat que nous considérons comme tempéré. Il faut même remarquer qu’à mesure qu’on avance des deux extrémités de l’Amérique vers le centre, une partie du sol s’élève graduellement ; de sorte que les plus hautes montagnes se trouvent entre les tropiques. Ainsi, une partie de la chaleur qu’on devrait éprouver par une plus grande proximité de l’équateur, est perdue par l’effet d’une plus grande élévation du sol [364].
p. III-332 [Online]:
La nature du sol et la température de l’atmosphère ont, sur toutes les productions agricoles, une influence qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de démontrer ; mais, à leur tour, les produits de l’agriculture exercent sur presque tous les arts une influence non moins étendue. Il est évident qu’une nation dont le territoire nourrirait de nombreux troupeaux, ou produirait du coton, du lin, de la soie, aurait, pour se livrer à divers genres d’industrie, des avantages très grands sur celle dont le sol ne serait propre qu’à produire des vignes, toutes choses étant égales d’ailleurs. Mais il n’est pas moins évident qu’une nation qui trouverait dans la nature de son sol et dans le cours de ses eaux, les moyens de transporter et de travailler le coton, la laine, le lin, la soie, avec le moins de frais possible, pourrait donner à certaines branches d’industrie et de commerce un développement que ne saurait leur donner une nation qui ne possèderait pas les mêmes moyens de transport et de fabrication, quand même son sol produirait toutes les matières propres à être fabriquées.
p. III-432 [Online]:
Nous avons observé précédemment que nos organes physiques sont les premiers instruments que la nature met au service de notre intelligence ; et de ce fait nous avons conclu que l’individu qui est doué des meilleurs organes, est aussi celui qui peut faire le plus de progrès, si toutes choses sont égales d’ailleurs. Il s’agit donc de savoir quelle est la race qui est douée de la meilleure organisation physique ; quelle est celle qui a la meilleure ouïe, la meilleure vue, le meilleur odorat, les mains les plus souples, le tact le plus fin, les jambes les plus agiles, les muscles les plus forts ?
Gustave de Molinari, Cours d’économie politique, professé au Musée royal de l’industrie belge, 2 vols. 2nd revised and enlarged edition (Bruxelles et Leipzig: A Lacroix, Ver Broeckoven; Paris: Guillaumin, 1863).
p. I-311 [Online]:
Supposons, en effet, qu’elle n’existe point; supposons que la rémunération des capitaux employés aux frais et risques des capitalistes, vienne, toutes choses étant égales, à dépasser celle des capitaux loués ou prêtés; supposons que le taux des profits et des dividendes s’élève au dessus de celui des intérêts et des loyers, qu’en résultera-t-il? Que les capitalistes préféreront employer leurs capitaux eux-mêmes, pour leur propre compte, plutôt que de les prêter ou de les louer. Moins de capitaux s’offriront donc pour être prêtés ou loués et le taux de l’intérêt ou du loyer haussera jusqu’à ce que l’équilibre se trouve rétabli. Le contraire aura lieu si le taux de l’intérêt et du loyer vient à s’élever proportionnellement au dessus du taux des profits et des dividendes. En ce cas, les individus qui ont des capitaux engagés pour leur propre compte ou qui sont en train d’en accumuler, s’empresseront de les prêter ou de les louer et l’équilibre se rétablira encore.
p. I-315 [Online]:
Mais, en tous cas, le taux du loyer ne saurait dépasser, au moins d’une manière régulière et permanente, le taux de l’intérêt, ni demeurer au dessous. Chacun peut, en effet, donner à la portion de produit net qu’il capitalise, la destination qu’il trouve la plus avantageuse; il peut la mettre sous la forme d’un capital fixe, d’une maison, d’une terre, d’une machine, ou sous la forme d’un capital circulant, d’une provision de blé, de vin, [i-315] d’huile, ou bien encore d’une somme d’argent. Si la location des capitaux fixes rapporte, toutes choses étant supposées égales, plus que le prêt des capitaux circulants, il la choisira de préférence. Il échangera la portion de produit net qu’il veut capitaliser contre une terre, une maison ou une machine qu’il louera. Dans le cas contraire, il l’échangera contre une provision de blé, d’huile, de vin, ou contre une somme d’argent qu’il prêtera. L’équilibre s’établit ainsi nécessairement entre le taux de l’intérêt et le taux du loyer, c’est à dire entre le prix de l’usage de cette portion du matériel de la production que l’on désigne sous le nom de capital circulant, et le prix de l’usage de cette autre portion du matériel de la production que l’on désigne sous le nom de capital fixe.
[1] John K. Whittaker, "Ceteris paribus" New Palgrave (3rd ed.), p. 1495.
[2] Brown, James Robert and Yiftach Fehige, "Thought Experiments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). [Online elsewhere.
[3] Wikipedia, "Mutatis mutandis" [Online elsewhere.
[4] Book V, Chapter V: Equilibrium of normal demand and supply, Continued, with reference to long and short periods, in Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (8th ed.). Macmillan, 1890. Paragraphs 914-15.
[5] Principles of Economics (1890), Paragraph 905.
[6] Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. By Adam Smith, LL.D. and F.R.S. Formerly Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Glasgow. In Two Volumes. (London: Printed for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell, in The Strand, MDCCLXXVI (1776)). [Online]. p. II-276 [Online].
[7] Condillac, 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]. Page 268 [Online], p. 344 [Online], and p. 383 [Online].
[8] Jean-Baptiste Say, Traité d’Économie Politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent, et se consomment les richesses. Par Jean-Baptiste Say, Membre du Tribunat (De L’imprimerie De Crapelet. À Paris, An XI —1803). Two volumes. [Online]. References to "toutes choses d'ailleurs égales" [Online], [Online], and [Online].
[9] Jean-Baptiste Say, Œuvres Complètes II. Cours complet d'economie politique pratique. Édition variorum des deux éditions (1828-1840). Volume réalisé par Emmanuel BLANC, Pierre-Henri Goutte et Jean-Pierre Potier, éditées par Emmanuel Blanc, Pierre-Henri Gourre, Gilles Jacouo, Claude Mouchot, Jean-Pierre Potier, Michèle Sacquin, Jean-Michel Servet, Philippe Steiner et André Tiran (coordonnateur) (Paris: Economica, 2010).
[10] Cours, vol. 1, p. 9, Economica ed.
[11] Cours, vol. 1, p. 529, Economica ed.
[12] A System of Logic, II-536 [Online].
[13] A System of Logic, II-174 [Online].
[14] A System of Logic, II-163 [Online].
[15] A System of Logic (1843), 1868 ed., Book V "On Fallacies" in Volume II, pp. 295-409. [Online].
[16] 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). 79 pp. [Online].
[17] See, Physiocrates: Quesnay, Dupont de Nemours, Mercier de la Rivière, l’abbé Baudeau, Le Trosne, avec une introduction sur la doctrine des Physiocrates, des commentaires et des notices historiques, par Eugène Daire, 2 vols. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1846). Volume 2 of Collection des principaux économistes. Quesnay, “Le droit naturel” , chap. III. “De l’inégalité du droit naturel des hommes,” Vol. 1, p.46. Originally published in the Journal d’agriculture, September 1765.
[18] Gustave de Molinari, Les Soirées de la rue Saint-Lazare; entretiens sur les lois économiques et défense de la propriété (Paris: Guillaumin, 1849). [Online].
[19] Gustave de Molinari, Les Lois naturelles de l'économie politique (1887), Première partie: Les lois naturelles, pp. 1-31 [Online]; La Morale économique (1888), Livre I chap. IV “Les lois naturelles qui régissent les phénomènes économiques de la production, de la distribution et de la consommation,” pp. 10-19. See also Notions fondamentales économie politique et programme économique. (1891), Introduction Section I, pp. 2-11; Section I, chap. 1 “Les lois naturelles,” pp. 55-70 [Online]; Esquisse de l'organisation politique et économique de la Société future (1899), Introduction-Les lois naturelles, pp. i-xxvii. [Online].
[20] Jeremy Bentham, "Manual of Political Economy" in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843), vol. 3, pp. 228-29..
[21] Bentham, "Essay on Logic" in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843), vol. 8 p. ??.
[22] Beggar” in Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. With Preliminary Dissertations on the History of the Science. Illustrated by Engravings. (Edinburgh, Archibald Constable and Company, 1824); in James Mill, The Political Writings of James Mill: Essays and Reviews on Politics and Society, 1815-1836, ed. David M. Hart , pp. II-242-43 [Online].
[23] 6.: FREE DISCUSSION, LETTER II. In John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXII - Newspaper Writings December 1822 - July 1831 Part I, ed. Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson, Introduction by Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986). p. 14-15.
[24] 20.: SECURITIES FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXII - Newspaper Writings, p. 63.
[25] 18.: MALTHUS’S MEASURE OF VALUE in MORNING CHRONICLE, 8 FEB., 1823, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXII - Newspaper Writings, p. 53.
[26] “On the Words Productive and Unproductive”, Essay III in Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (1844, written 1829-30). [onliine]*EnglishClassicalLiberals/MilJS/1844-EssaysUnsettledQuestions/index.html#USQ-p201).
[27] "Paper Currency and Commercial Distress" (1826), in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume IV - Essays on Economics and Society Part IV, p. 184.
[28] A Spirit of Logic, I-460-61 [Online].
[29] A Spirit of Logic, II-287 [Online].
[30] A Spirit of Logic, II-494-96 [Online].
[50] On Liberty 1869 ed. pp. 170-71 [Online].
[51] “Réflexions sur les pétitions de Bordeaux, Le Havre, et Lyon concernant les Douanes” (Reflections on the Petitions from Bordeaux, Le Havre, and Lyons Relating to the Customs Service) April 1834. [Online].
[52] “Aux rédacteurs du National (2) (To the Editors of Le National (2)) Courrier français, 11 novembre 1846. [Online].
[53] HE, chap. X Competition, p. 315 [Online].
[54] “Réflexions sur les pétitions de Bordeaux, Le Havre, et Lyon concernant les Douanes” (Reflections on the Petitions from Bordeaux, Le Havre, and Lyons Relating to the Customs Service) April 1834. [Online]
[55] “Lettre au rédacteur du Journal des Débats. Première lettre” (First Letter to the Editor of the Journal des débats), Journal des Débats, 2 mai 1846. [Online].
[56] "De la concurrence,” (On Competition), JDE, Mai 1846, T. XIV, pp. 106-122. and HE X. Concurrence, p. 315 [Online].
[57] “Deuxième discours, à Paris” (Second Speech given in the Montesquieu Hall in Paris) [salle montesquieu, 29 septembre 1846], Journal des Économistes, octobre 1846. [Online].
[58] “Aux rédacteurs du National (2) (To the Editors of Le National (2)) Courrier français, 11 novembre 1846. [Online].
[59] “Peuple et Bourgeoisie” (The People and the Bourgeoisie), Libre-Échange, 22 May 1847 [Online].
[60] Sophismes économiques II, V. Cherté, bon marché (late 1847), p. II-52. [Online]
[61] Sophismes économiques II, XII. Le sel, la poste et la douane (late 1847), p. II-128 [Online].
[62] "Maudit argent" (Damned Money), Journal des Économistes, 15 Avril 1849, T. 23, no. 97, pp. 1-20. Published as book or pamphlet: Bastiat, L’État. Maudit argent! (Paris: Guillaumin, 1849) [Online].
[63] Capitale et rente (Paris: Guillaumin, 1849). [Online].
[64] “Abondance”, Dictionnaire de l'économie politique (Paris: Guillaumin, 1852), vol. 1, pp. 2-4. [Online].
[65] HE A la jeunesse Française (early 1850), p. 12. [Online].
[66] HE V. De la Valeur (early 1850), pp. 155-56. [Online].
[67] HE IX. Propriété foncière, p. 271 [Online].
[68] HE XVII. Services privés, service public (1850), p. 487. [Online].
[69] A letter from Eaux-Bonnes, 3 juillet 1850. A M. de Fontenay [Online].
[70] John Stuart Mill, “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Philosophical Investigation in that Science,” London and Westminster Review, IV and XXVI (Oct., 1836), 1-29. Reprinted in Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (London: John W. Parker, 1844), 120-64.
[73] PPE, p. I-298-99 [Online].
[77] Some Unsettled Questions, pp. 150-54. [Online].
[78] A System of Logic, p. II-474 [Online].
[79] Some Unsettled Questions, pp. 150-52 [Online].
[80] A System of Logic, I-474-75 [Online].
[81] A System of Logic, I-498 [Online].
[82] HE Chap. II "Besoins, Efforts, Satisfactions," p. 38. [Online]
[83] Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) was an astronomer and mathematician who used mathematical models to explain the perturbations in the orbits of Saturn, Jupiter, and the moon and discovered that they were oscillations which repeated themselves over time within precise limits.
[84] "Un économiste à M. de Lamartine. A l'occasion de son écrit intitulé: Du Droit au travail” (Letter from an Economist to M. de Lamartine. On the occasion of his article entitled: The Right to Work), Journal des Économistes, February 1845, T. 10, no. 39, pp. 209-223. [Online].
[85] HE XVIII. Causes perturbatrices, p. 492 [Online].
[86] HE, Chap XVI De la population, p. 427 [Online].
[87] It did not appear in HE1 which was published in early 1850 but the introductory section to a draft chapter on it did appear in the posthumous HE2. See HE2 Chapter XVIII "Disturbing Factors."
[88] He gives some indication of what this second book might have covered in chapters XVIII and XXII of Economic Harmonies ("Causes perturbatrices" (Disturbing Factors) and "Moteur social" (The Motive Force of Society)) and in ES2 I "Physiologie de la Plunder" (The Physiology of Plunder) (CW3, pp. 113-30).
[89] Bastiat first paired the concepts "cette force curative, vis medicatrix" in the article he wrote "On Population" which was published in L'Encyclopédie du 19e siècle [Online] and then in the Journal des Économistes [Online] before becoming a chapter in Harmonies économiques, p. 443 [Online].
[90] "Un économiste à M. de Lamartine. A l'occasion de son écrit intitulé: Du Droit au travail” (Letter from an Economist to M. de Lamartine. On the occasion of his article entitled: The Right to Work) [Journal des Économistes, February 1845, T. 10, no. 39, pp. 209-223 [Online].
[91] HE Chap. XIV Des salaires, pp. 405-6 [Online].
[92] HE Chap. VIII Propriété, Communauté, p. 216 [Online].
[93] HE Chap. X Competition, p. 312 [Online].
[94] HE Chap. XVIII. Causes perturbatrices, p. 489 [Online].
[95] HE Chap. IV Échange, p. 107 [Online]
[96] HE Chap. IV Échange, p. 110 [Online]
[97] HE Chap. V De la value, 124 [Online]
[98] HE chap. XVII "Private and Public Services", p. 484 [Online].
[99] Fifth Speech for the Free Trade Association in Lyon in August 1847, [Online] and OC2, pp. 281-82.
[100] Some Unsettled Questions, pp. 153-54 [Online].
[101] Some Unsettled Questions, pp 146-47 [Online].
[102] Some Unsettled Questions, pp. 153-54 [Online].
[103] Some Unsettled Questions, pp 146-47 [Online].
[104] Some Unsettled Questions, p. 147 [Online].
[105] Some Unsettled Questions, pp. 148-49 [Online].
[106] Some Unsettled Questions, p. 153 [Online].
[107] A System of Logic, Book V "On Fallacies" in Volume II, pp. 295-409.
[108] A System of Logic, chap. IV II-341 [Online].
[109] A System of Logic, II-345 [Online].
[110] A System of Logic, II-352 [Online].
[111] A System of Logic, II-351-52 [Online].
[112] Bastiat, Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas, ou l’Économie politique en une leçon (What is Seen and What is Not Seen, or Political Economy in One Lesson): 1st 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] . This 1st edition is also available in a combined "2 vols. in 1" edition [Online] . Other French editions appeared in his Oeuvres complètes (1854-55 and 1862-64), and as stand alone texts in 1869 (4th ed.), 1879 (5th ed.), and a Belgian edition on the eve of the First World War (1914).
[113] CQV, p. 3, [Online] and pp. 63-64 [Online].
[114] Sophismes économiques. Par M. Frédéric Bastiat, Membre du Conseil général des Landes (Paris: Guillaumin, 1846) and Sophismes économiques. Par M. Frédéric Bastiat. Membre correspondant de l’Institut et du Conseil général des Landes. Deuxième Série. (Paris: Guillaumin, 1848). 2 volumes in 1 version [Online]
[115] See my paper “On Ricochets, Hidden Channels, and Negative Multipliers: Bastiat on calculating the economic costs of ‘The Unseen’”. A paper 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. [Online].
[116] “Travail humain, travail national” (Human Labor and Domestic Labor) (c. 1845), ES1 20, p. I-136 [Online].
[117] “De l’influence du régime protecteur sur l’agriculture" (On the Impact of the Protectionist Regime on Agriculture), Journal des Économistes, Décembre 1846, T. XVI, no. 61, pp. 6-15. [Online].
[118] “Domination par le travail” (Domination through Work) (Libre-Échange, 14 February 1847) ES2.17, p. II-185 [Online] and in CW3, pp. 248-53. Quote p. 250. [Online elsewhere.
[119] See for example his attacks on Rousseau in "The Law" (July 1850), pp. 46 ff. [Online] and CW2, pp. 128 ff, [Online elsewhere.
[120] "Natural and Artificial Organisation" (Organisation naturelle Organisation artificielle), Journal des Économistes, T. XIX, No. 74, Jan 1848, pp. 113-26; this essay also appeared as chapter 1 in HE1, p. 16 [Online]. The quote comes from Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality but Bastiat is quoting from memory here and it is not exactly correct. The French states: “…ce n’est pas chez lui (l’homme sauvage) qu’il faut chercher la philosophie don’t l’homme a besoin, pour savoir observer une fois ce qu’il a vu tous les jours” (… and we should look in vain to him for that philosophy which a man needs if he is to know how to notice once what he has seen everyday.) See, Rousseau, Du contrat social et autres oeuvres politiques, ed. J. Ehrard, p. 49; Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, Part I, p. 90 (Cranston trans.). Bastiat was so impressed with this statement that he refers to it 4 times in the Economic Harmonies.
[121] “Protectionisme et communisme” (Protectionism and Communism) (January 1849) [Online], and in CW2, pp. 235-65. Quote p. 256. [Online elsewhere.
[122] “Paresse et restriction” (Laziness and Trade Restrictions) Libre-Échange, 16 January 1848. [Online].
[123] HE, chap. V "De la value", p. 116, [Online].
[124] CQV, Chap. XII Le droit au travail, pp. 78-79, [Online].
[125] CQV, Chap. VI “Intermediaries”, pp. 31-32, [Online].
[126] CQV, Chap. XII. "Droit au travail, droit au profit", pp. 78-79, [Online]. Quote from Chateaubriand, Mémoires d’outre-tombe (Paris: Eugène et Victor Penaud, 1850), vol. 11, Conclusion. L’idée chrétienne est l’avenir du monde”, p. 491.
[127] Academy of American Poets - Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" (c. 1895) [Online elsewhere.
[128] As a believer in natural rights Bastiat thought that every individual had an inherent right to defend themselves and their property from attack by others, or what he called "le droit individuel de légitime défense" (the individual's right to legitimate self-defense). This right existed prior to the existence of any state or other social organisation and was only limited by the individual's obligation not to initiate the use of force against others. He thought these pre-existing rights were "la Personnalité, la Liberté et la Propriété" ((the rights to) the person (or "personhood," i.e. to life), liberty, and property). See HE2 XVII "Public and Private Services”.
[129] See Bastiat’s famous definition of the state as "the great fiction" in “L'État" (The State) (Journal des débats, Sept. 1848): “L’Etat, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde” (The State is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else) [Online] and in CW2, p. 97, [Online elsewhere.
[130] “Funestes illusions. Les citoyens font vivre l’État. L'État ne peut faire vivre les citoyens" (Disastrous Illusions. The citizens give life to the state. The state cannot give life to the citizens), Journal des Economistes, 15 March 1848, T. 19, no. 70, pp. 323-33; ES3.24 in CW3, pp. 384-99, [Online OLL].