Definitions in Political Economy, / Preceded by an Inquiry Into the Rules which Ought to Guide Political Economists in the Definition and Use of Their Terms; with Remarks on the Deviation from These Rules in Their Writings

by T. R. Malthus

[31]. Principles of Polit. Econ., part iv. p. 410.

[32]. Principles of Polit. Econ., part ii. p. 71. This language has absolutely no meaning, if all labour be equally productive in regard to national wealth.

[33]. Mr. Macculloch dwells very much upon the extreme importance of accumulation to the increase of national wealth. But how are the gratifications afforded by menial servants to be accumulated?

[34]. Principles of Polit. Econ., part ii. p. 92.

[35]. Principles of Polit. Econ., part ii. p. 114.

[36]. This is very justly stated in Mr. Mill’s “Elements of Political Economy,” ch. iv. sec. i. p. 219, 2d edit.: both Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Mill, indeed, fully allow the distinction between productive and unproductive labour. M. Say, though he calls the labour of the menial servant productive, makes a distinction between the labour which is productive of material products and the labour which is productive of immaterial products. Of the latter products he says, “En favorisant leur multiplication, on ne fait rien pour la richesse, on ne fait que pour la consommation.”—Table Analytique, liv. i. ch. 13. This is a most characteristic difference; and though I prefer the classification of Adam Smith, as more simple, I should allow that, on these principles, the causes of the wealth of nations may be clearly explained. But I own myself utterly at a loss to conceive how they can be explained, if all labour be considered as equally productive.

[37]. Elem. of Polit. Econ. part ii. p. 93.

[38]. Princip. of Polit. Econ., part iv. p. 409.

[39]. Princip. of Polit. Econ., part iv. p. 411.

[40]. Principles of Polit. Econ., part iii., pp. 313, 317.