Comma for either/or — dharma, courage. Spelling forgiving — corage finds courage.

    An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy

    Chap. XXVI: Of the Vibration of the Balance of Wealth between the Subjects of a modern State

    James Steuart

    31 min

    We have frequently mentioned this balance, as an object of great importance to a statesman who is at the head of a luxurious nation; which having lost its foreign trade, has substituted in the place of it, an extensive inland commerce. This will supply the loss of the former, so far, as equally to provide employment, and, consequently, subsistence, to every one inclined to be industrious; although it must prove quite ineffectual for augmenting the national wealth already acquired.

    I shall first explain what I mean by the balance of wealth vibrating between the members of society; from which will be seen why I rank this also among the political balances of a modern state.

    It has been observed in the beginning of the nineteenth chapter, that the great characteristic of what we call liberty, is the circulation of an adequate equivalent for every thing transferred and every service performed.

    By wealth I understand the circulating adequate equivalent.

    The desires of the rich, and the means of gratifying them, make them call for the services of the poor: the necessities of the poor, and their desire of becoming rich, make them chearfully answer the summons; they submit to the hardest labour and comply with the inclinations of the wealthy, for the sake of an equivalent in money.

    This permutation between the two classes, is what we call circulation; and the effects produced by it upon the political situation of the parties, at the precise time of the circulation, and the consequences, after it is completely effected, explain what is called the balance of wealth.

    To render our ideas more correct, let us consider the money on one side, and the prestations, as the civilians call them, or performances of any kind, on the other, as reciprocal equivalents for one other; and then let us examine the nature of those prestations which tend to put these equivalents into circulation; that is to say, what are the things which money can purchase.

    These we may divide, with the lawyers, into corporeal and incorporeal. The corporeal may again be divided into consumable and inconsumable; and the incorporeal into personal service, and what the lawyers call jura, rights in or to any thing whatever. I cannot fully explain myself without the help of this distribution.

    Let us next consider the effects of the circulation of money, as it has for its object, the acquisition of the four several species here laid down.

    First, of inconsumable things. Secondly, of things consumable. Thirdly, of personal service. Fourthly, of rights acquired in or to any thing whatever.

    First, the only thing inconsumable is the surface of the earth. This must not be taken in a philosophical, and far less in a chemical sense. A thing is consumed, so far as it concerns our inquiry, the moment it becomes useless, or even when it is lost.

    The surface of the earth, therefore, is the only thing inconsumable; because, generally speaking, it never can cease to be useful, and never can be lost; it may be changed, but the earth must always have a surface. What is said of the surface, may be understood likewise of that small part of its body accessible to man, for supplying him with what he finds useful there, as the produce of mines.

    Next to the earth itself, nothing is less consumable than her metals, consequently coin may very properly be classed under the head of things inconsumable; although it may be lost, and even worn out in circulation.

    Let us now consider the effects of circulation in the purchase of land. (A), I shall suppose, has a piece of land, and (B) has one thousand pounds weight of gold coin, which the laws of society have constituted to be an adequate circulating equivalent for every thing vendible. They agree to make an exchange. Before the exchange, the balance of their wealth is equal; the coin is worth the land, the land is worth the coin; the exchange makes no alteration, nor has it the effect of making any afterwards; the new landlord may apply himself to the improvement of the soil, the moneyed man to the turning of his thousand weight of gold coin to the best advantage; consequently, by this transaction, no vibration of the balance seems to be affected.

    If coin itself be the object of sale, the consequences are much the same. (A) has a guinea, (B) has twenty-one shillings, the exchange they make produces no alteration in their circumstances. The same holds good in other species of circulation, such as the transmission of money by inheritance. (A) dies and leaves his money to (B); here the possessor of the money changes only his name, perhaps his inclinations, and that is all. In like manner, a person pays his debts, and withdraws his bond, or other security; no balance is affected by this circulation, matters stand between the parties just as before.

    The nature, therefore, of circulation, when one inconsumable commodity is given for another, is, that it operates no vibration in the balance of wealth between the parties; because, in order to produce this, one must remain richer than he was before, and the other proportionately poorer.

    Secondly, under the second head of alienation, to wit, that of consumable commodities, is comprehended every thing corporeal, except money, and land, which money may purchase. Here two things deserve our attention. First, the simple substance, or the production of nature; the other, the modification, or the work of man. The first I shall call the intrinsic worth, the other, the useful value. The value of the first must always be estimated according to its usefulness after the modification it has received is entirely destroyed, and when by the nature of the thing both must be consumed together, then the total value is the sum of both. The value of the second must be estimated according to the labour it has cost to produce it. An example will make this plain.

    The intrinsic worth of any silk, woollen, or linen manufacture, is less than the primitive value employed, because it is rendered almost unserviceable for any other use but that for which the manufacture is intended. But the intrinsic substance of a loaf of bread loses nothing by the modification, because the last cannot be consumed without the first. In a piece of silver-plate curiously wrought, the intrinsic worth subsists entire, and independent of the useful value, because it loses nothing by the modification. The intrinsic value, therefore, is constantly something real in itself; the labour employed in the modification represent a portion of a man's time, which having been usefully employed, has given a form to some substance which has rendered it useful, ornamental, or, in short, fit for man, mediately or immediately.

    Let us now apply these distinctions to the different circumstances which attend consumption, in order to perceive their effects.

    The consumption of the intrinsic value of any commodity, takes place the moment the matter employed begins to diminish, and is completed so soon as it is consumed totally. The consumption of the useful value proceeds in like manner, in proportion as the use it is put to makes the value of it diminish, or disappear altogether.

    Let us next take an example, and examine the effects of circulation in the purchase of things consumable, as to the vibration of the balance of wealth. (A) has a piece of coin, (B) has something which his labour has produced; they make an exchange. (A) hitherto has neither gained or lost, neither has (B); but (A) begins to make use of what he had purchased with his coin, and in using it a part disappears; that moment the balance begins to turn against him. (B), on the other hand, exchanges his piece of coin with another, whom we shall call (C), and gets in return a piece of wood; if (B) puts this piece of wood into the fire, in proportion as the wood consumes, the balance is returning to its level between (A) and (B), and is changing in favour of (C). If (B), instead of burning his wood, makes a beam of it for supporting his house, the balance will turn more slowly, because the wood is then longer in consuming; but if he makes some useful piece of furniture of one part of his wood, he may warm himself with the remaining part of it, and with the coin he gets for his work, may buy a beam for his house, and even food to eat. If (B) stops at this period, and works no more, he will find himself just upon a level with (A), so soon as his fire is burnt out, his beam rotten, and his food consumed; and the whole balance will be found in favour of (C); provided that by his industry he has been able to procure for himself all his necessaries, and preserve the piece of coin entire. Here then is the spur to industry; to wit, the acquisition of this balance, which gives a relative superiority even among those of the lowest classes, and determines their rank as well as their political-necessary, according to the principles laid down in the twenty-first chapter.

    The essential characteristic of this vibration of the balance of wealth, is the change in the relative proportion of riches between individuals. But it must be observed, that under this second species we are to consider the change of proportion no farther than as it is produced by the circulation of a free adequate equivalent, of such a nature as to be transferable to another hand without any diminution. The consumption, therefore, is the only thing which makes the balance turn. While the consumable commodity remains entire in the hands of the purchaser, he still remains possessor of the value, and may, by inverting the operation, return to the possession of the same species of wealth he had before.

    Here it may be asked, if money be absolutely necessary for producing a vibration of this balance by the means of consumption. We may easily conceive the greatest inequality between the members of a state, without supposing the existence of money. We may suppose the property of lands unequally divided, and a great surplus of subsistence found in the hands of one individual, which may by him be given in exchange for the produce of industry. Under such circumstances then it may be asked, if without money there can be such a thing as a vibration in the balance of wealth? supposing in this case the term wealth to imply, in general, the means of purchasing whatever man can perform or produce.

    I answer, that no doubt the balance may be susceptible of small vibrations, because even in the exchange of consumable commodities, the consumption may go on faster on one side than on the other; but I think, unless the inconsumable fund of wealth (which is what gives the superiority, and which in the example alleged, we supposed to be coin) can be made to change hands according to the adequate proportion of the consumption made, we cannot say properly, that a vibration can be operated in any considerable degree.

    Let us suppose (A) to be a proprietor of a bit of land, and (B) an industrious workman; in order that (B) may purchase the land of (A), it must be supposed that (A) is very extravagant, and that he inclines to consume a much greater proportion of work than what is equivalent to all the surplus produce of his land. Now in order to supply (A) to the value of the land itself, (B) must distribute his work to many different persons, and take in exchange, not such things as he has use for himself, but such as may be found useful to (A). But so soon as (A) has paid to (B) the whole surplus of his land, what fund of credit will he find in order to engage (B) to furnish more? He cannot pay him in land, because this fund is not susceptible of circulation; and every expedient that could be fallen upon to keep accounts clear between them, is neither more or less than the introduction of money, either real or symbolical.

    By real money, is meant what we call coin, or a modification of the precious metals, which by general agreement among men, and under the authority of a state, carries along with it its own intrinsic value.

    By symbolical money, I understand what is commonly called credit, or an expedient for keeping accounts of debt and credit between parties, expressed in those denominations of money which are realized in the coin. Bank notes, credit in bank, bills, bonds, and merchants' books (where credit is given and taken) are some of the many species of credit included under the term symbolical money.

    In the example before us, we may suppose that (A) having no more circulating equivalent to give (B) for his work, and being desirous to consume of it to the value of his land, shall agree to issue notes of hand, every one of which shall carry in it a right to an acre of land, to a fruit tree, to ten yards of the course of a river, &c. and that every such parcel of property, shall be esteemed at a certain proportion of work. This agreement made, he goes on with his consumption, and pays regularly, and adequately, the value of what he receives; and in proportion as consumption proceeds on the side of (A), the balance of wealth must turn in favour of (B); whereas while (A) kept his bit of land, and (B) his faculty of working up an equivalent for the surplus of it, the balance stood even: because the land on one hand, and the industry on the other, produced adequate equivalents for each other. The produce of both was consumable, and was supposed to be consumed; which operation being over, the land and the industry remained as before, ready to produce anew. Here then is the effect of credit or symbolical money. Now I ask, whether the notes of hand given by (A) to (B), do not contain as real a value, as if he had given gold or silver? and farther, whether it appears, that the country where they live becomes any richer by this invention? does this note any more than declare, who is the proprietor of the value contained?

    Nothing is so easy as to invent a money which may make land circulate as well as houses, and every other thing which is of a nature to preserve the same value during the time of circulation. Whatever has a value, may change hands for an equivalent, and whenever this value is determined, and cannot vary, it may be made to circulate, as well as a pound of gold or silver made into coin, and in the circulation to produce a vibration in the balance of wealth.

    Those nations, therefore, who circulate their metals only, confine industry to the proportion of the mass of them. Those who can circulate their lands, their houses, their manufactures, nay their personal service, even their hours, may produce an encouragement for industry far beyond what could be done by metals only. And this may be done, when the progress of industry demands a circulation beyond the power of the metals to perform.

    This anticipation of the subject of the following books, is here thrown in merely to enable my reader to form to himself an idea of the extent of the subject we are at present upon, and to help him to judge to what length luxury, that is consumption, may be carried. Since, by what we have said, it appears that there is no impossibility for a people to throw the whole intrinsic value of their country into circulation. All may be cut into paper, as it were, or stamped upon copper, tin, or iron, and made to pass current as an adequate equivalent for the produce of industry: and as there are no bounds to be set to consumption and prodigality, it might be possible, by such an invention, in the compass of a year, to circulate an equivalent in consumable commodities produced by industry, for the whole property of the most extended and most wealthy kingdom. That this is no chimerical supposition, appears plain by the activity of many modern geniuses, who, in an inconsiderable space of time, find means to get through the greatest fortunes; that is to say, in our language, they throw them into circulation by the means of the symbolical money of bonds, mortgages, and accounts. But does this species of circulation increase the riches of the state? surely no more than it would increase the riches of France or England, to carry all the plate in the two kingdoms to be coined at the mint. The use of symbolical money is no more than to enable those who have effects, which by their nature cannot circulate (and which, by-the-bye, are the principal cause of inequality), to give, to the full extent of all their worth, an adequate circulating equivalent for the services they demand. In other words, it is a method of melting down, as it were, the very causes of inequality, and of rendering fortunes equal.

    The patrons therefore of Agrarian laws and of universal equality, instead of crying down luxury and superfluous consumption, ought rather to be contriving methods for rendering them more universal. If they blame what is called perpetual substitutions of property or entails (made by parents in favour of their posterity as yet unborn), because they are in some respects prejudicial to industry; they should not, I think, find fault with this charming leveller dissipation, the nurse of industry, and the only thing intended to be prevented by such entails.

    Some have persuaded themselves, that an equality of fortune would banish luxury and superfluous consumption. Among the rest, is M. de Montesquieu, an author for whom I have the highest esteem, and who has, in this respect, been copied by many others. But I never found his idea set in a clear light. Equality of fortune would certainly change the nature of luxury, it would diminish the consumption of some, and would augment the consumption of others; but without making people idle, it could never destroy industry itself, and while this subsists in an equal degree, there must be the same quantity of what it produces regularly consumed. Farther this proposition never can be advanced, but on the supposition that the luxurious person, that is, the consumer, must be richer than he who supplies him. This I cannot by any means admit to be true. Must the carter who drinks a pot of beer be richer than the ale-houseman? Must a country-girl, who buys a bit of ribband, be richer than the haberdasher who sells it? Must the beau be richer than his taylor? the traveller than the banker who gives him his money? the client than the lawyer? the sick than the physician?

    How then does it appear that equality must prevent luxury, unless we suppose every one confined to an absolute physical-necessary, and either deprived of the faculty of contriving, or of the power of acquiring any thing beyond it. This principle Lycurgus alone laid down for the basis of his republic; and yet riches were known in Sparta, as well as poverty.

    Absolute equality, de facto, is an absurd supposition, if applied to a human society. Must not frugality amass, and prodigality dissipate? These opposite dispositions are of themselves sufficient to destroy, at once, the best regulations for supporting equality; and, when carried to a certain length, must substitute in its place as great an inequality as the quantity of circulation is capable to produce. Whatever circulates may stagnate. Why was there so great an equality at Sparta? because there was little circulation. Why are the Capucins in a state of perfect equality? because among them there is no circulation at all.

    If therefore such variations in the balance of wealth depend on the difference of genius among men, what scheme can be laid down for preserving equality, better than that of an unlimited industry equivalent to an universal circulation of all property, whereby dissipation may correct the effects of hoarding, and hoarding again correct those of dissipation? This is the most effectual remedy both against poverty and overgrown riches; because the rich and the poor are thereby perpetually made to change conditions. In these alterations in their respective situations, the parties who are changing by degrees, must surely in their progress towards a total alteration, become, at one time or other, upon a level, that is, to an equality; as the buckets in a well meet, before they can pass one another.

    Thirdly, The first species of things incorporeal, which may be purchased with money, is personal service; such as daily labour, the attendance of a menial servant, the advice of a physician, of a lawyer, the assistance of skilful people in order to acquire knowledge, the service of those employed in the administration of public affairs at home and abroad, or for the defence of a kingdom by sea or land; the residence of great men at court, who do honour to princes, and make their authority respected; and even when money is given to procure amusement, pleasure, or dissipation, when no durable and transferable value is given in return.

    There is a kind of resemblance between the species here enumerated, and what we called the useful value in consumable commodities. In the one and the other, there is an equivalent given for a man's time usefully employed; but the difference between them lies in this: that the useful value being supported, or having for a substratum, as the schoolmen call it, the intrinsic substance, is thereby rendered permanent and vendible; whereas here, for want of a permanent and transferable substance, the personal services, though producing advantages which are sufficiently felt, cannot however be transferred for the adequate price they cost.

    The circulation produced by this third species of acquisition, operates an instantaneous vibration of the balance. The moment the personal service is performed, it may be said to be consumed; and although the purchaser has received a just equivalent for the money given, and in some cases may even be thereby put in a situation to indemnify himself of all his expence, by performing the like services to others, yet every body must perceive that such services cannot properly be considered as a circulation of the former.

    Fourthly, The acquisition of the other species of things incorporeal, that is, rights, produces little more balance, when an adequate circulating equivalent is given for them, than the sale of land; because a right implies no more than a power to use, that is, to consume; and, by the use, the right is not diminished: it is balanced by the use of the money; the money therefore and the right being both permanent, there is no vibration in the scales. Of this species are all servitudes; the purchasing of privileges or immunities, even the lending of money at interest, may here not improperly be classed.

    Here it will, perhaps, be alleged, that an example may be given, where the creation of such a right, though purchased with an adequate circulating equivalent, produces the greatest vibration possible in the balance of wealth. It is when a state contracts debts, and when the public creditors acquire a right to general impositions on the people for the payment of their interest. This objection requires a little explanation in order to be removed and I have proposed it chiefly for the sake of introducing an illustration of my subject.

    If it be said, that in this example a vibration in the balance of wealth within the state is implied, then I say that it must take place either, first, between the creditors and the state, or, secondly, between the state and the people, or, thirdly, between the creditors and the people. But,

    First, The creditors acquire no balance against the state because they have given one inconsumable commodity for another; to wit, money for an annual income. The money is worth the income, the income is worth the money. If therefore any change in the balance comes afterwards to take place, it must be in consequence of other operations quite independent of this transaction. But let us suppose, which is but too frequently the case, that here money must be considered as a consumable commodity, because it is only borrowed in order to be spent. In this light does not the creditor seem to acquire a balance in his favour against the state, so soon as the money is actually spent? I answer in the negative: because a state, by expending the money borrowed remains with respect to the creditors just as wealthy as before. It is the people who pay the interest, for which the state gives them in return no adequate transferable equivalent.

    Secondly, Here it is urged, that this being the case, the state has acquired a balance against the people according to the principles above laid down, where it was said, that upon occasions, where money is given for personal service, and where nothing transferable is given in return, the balance turns instantaneously in favour of him who received the money.

    To this I answer, that as to the interest paid by the people, the state does not receive it for herself, but for the creditors. The personal services are then supposed to be already paid for, and the vibration has taken place before the interest becomes due. Therefore the balance does not turn between the state and the people.

    In the levying of taxes which are destined to pay the interest of money already spent, the public gives no adequate equivalent on one hand; and on the other, it is not enriched with respect to the people, any more than it was impoverished with respect to the creditors, by spending the money borrowed; and since there is no reciprocal change in the situation of the two parties, I do not see how we can infer any vibration in the balance of wealth between them. We shall presently see between whom the balance is made to vibrate.

    Thirdly, The balance between the creditors and the people is what at first sight appears to be principally affected; because the first receive a constant retribution from the latter, in consequence of the loan. But neither is any true vibration found here, either adequate to the loan, or to the money spent. First, because the creditors themselves are part of the people who contribute towards all impositions on consumptions, which are commonly the most regular, the most permanent, the most generally appropriated for the payment of the interest. Secondly, because the money spent by the state, if spent at home, returns to other hands indeed, but still returns to the people, of whom we are here speaking. And, thirdly, because there is no transaction at all between the creditors and the people.

    Objection. By this way of reasoning it would appear, that the exhausting of a people by taxes, makes no vibration in the balance of their wealth.

    Answer. If the people be exhausted, it must be by enriching strangers. This case should at present be excluded, as we have laid aside the consideration of foreign relations. But allowing this circumstance also to be implied in the objections made, I agree that every penny of money sent out of a country, for no real and permanent equivalent received in return, operates a vibration in the wealth between nation and nation; but none between subject and subject. To this it is answered, that when taxes are high, many people are ruined while others are enriched: this operates a vibration. I allow it; but then I reply, that by the very supposition in every such case, the money must remain at home; whereas in the former, it was supposed to be expended abroad. Now we are not at present examining the effects of debts and taxes, in changing the balance between man and man, but only between the three cumulative interests above specified, the state, the people and the creditors.

    Let me now ask, what is the effect of taxes on the vibration of the balance of wealth between individuals?

    I answer, that whoever pays a tax, appears to pay for a personal service. He receives no corporeal equivalent which can be alienated by him for the same value; and he who is employed by the state, and is paid with the produce of taxes, acquires a balance in his favour against those who pay them. When the amount of taxes goes abroad for foreign services, there can be no alteration upon the balance at home, as has been said; neither is there any when it remains at home: the people, that is, the whole nation taken together, and the creditors, are as rich as before. Let this suffice at present, as to the effects of debts and taxes upon the balance of national wealth.

    Industry is the only method of making wealth circulate, so as to change its balance between the parties; all kinds of circulation which produce no such change, are foreign to the present purpose.

    A man dies and leaves his wealth to another, nobody loses by this, but he who is no more; a second pays his debts, neither debtor, or creditor can be said to change circumstances by the operation. A merchant buys a quantity of merchandize for ready money, he thereby loses no balance of his wealth; it is true he has given money for consumable effects; but the balance does not operate until the consumption takes place, and as he is not supposed to buy in order to consume, I rank this branch of circulation among those which do not influence the balance.

    Thus we find two different kinds of circulation in a state; one which makes the balance turn, and one which does not. These objects are of no small consequence to be attended to in the right imposition of taxes, as shall, in its proper place, be more fully explained. At present it is sufficient to observe, that the proper time of laying On taxes is at the time of circulation: because the imposition may then be always exactly proportioned to the sum circulating; consequently, to the faculties of the persons severally interested.

    In all excises, or taxes upon consumption, it is the money of the consumer which is taxed, in the instant of the payment; so that he against whom the balance is to turn, has the additional load to pay. This species of tax, imposed at the time of circulation, is what produces the largest sums to a state. I never heard of a proper expedient for taxing the person in whose favour the balance is to turn, though from the principles which are afterwards to be laid down, we may perhaps discover one.

    As for the other species of circulation, where the balance does not turn, it is not so much the custom to impose very considerable taxes upon it: there are however several examples to be met with, which point out how they may be imposed. The casualities paid upon the change of vassals or upon the fall of lives, in leases upon lands in England; the confirmation of testaments in Scotland; investitures in Germany; the centiéme denier, the lods et ventes, and the control upon the acts of notaries in France; the emoluments of the Rota in Spain, and in many Roman Catholic countries, are of this species. Upon the same principle, taxes more or less considerable might be laid upon every branch of this kind of circulation; for which purpose, it would be highly necessary to find out all the ramifications of it, by analysing it to the bottom, as we have hitherto run through it very superficially.