According to Th. Cooper, Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy, (1726), 1, 15 ff. 117, the wealth of society is nothing but the aggregate wealth of all the individuals that compose it. Each individual looks out best for his own interests, and, hence, that nation must be the richest, in which each individual is most completely left to himself. (If this were so, savage nations would be the richest!) Cooper goes so far as to disapprove of the protection afforded to commerce on the high seas by a national navy; no naval war is worth what it costs, and merchants should protect themselves. He says, too, that the word “nation” is an invention of the grammarians, made to save the trouble of circumlocution, a nonentity! Adam Smith is, as might be expected, far removed from such absurdities. (Compare Wealth of Nations, IV, ch. 2, and the end of the fourth book.) But, even he is of opinion that men, in the study of their own advantage are led “naturally, or rather necessarily” (IV, ch. 2), to the employment which is most useful to society. But here Adam Smith overlooks the fact, that every individual nation strives after earthly immortality, and is, in consequence, frequently compelled to make immediate sacrifices for the sake of a distant future, a thing which can never be to the private interest of the mortal individuals who compose it. And thus, D. North, Discourses upon Trade (1691), 13 seq., says, that in commercial matters, different nations stand in precisely the same relation to the whole world, that individual cities do to the kingdom, and individual families to the city. Similarly, Boisguillebert, Factum de la France, ch. 10, 327, Daire's edition. Benjamin Franklin (ob. 1790), Political Papers, § 4. And J. B. Say, Traité d'Economie politique (1802) I, 15: every nation is, in relation to neighboring nations, in the situation of a province in relation to neighboring provinces. Unfortunately, such doctrine is only too palpably refuted by every war! J. Bentham's saying: Les intérêts individuels sont les seuls intérêts réels (Traité de Législation, I, 229). Infra § [98].
Among those who, in antiquity, most energetically maintained that the idea of national economy is not a merely nominal one, is Plato (De Republ., IV, 420, I, 462); more recently, Fichte (Der geschlossene Handelstaat, 1800), although, in general, the socialists attach as little importance to nationality as their most decided opponents. Adam Müller is a writer who deserves recognition for his advocacy of national economy, and of the state as a whole, paramount to individuals, and even generations. He gives war the credit of causing the scientific knowledge of the state to cast deeper roots, and of enlightening individuals in the most forcible way, that they are parts of one great whole. (Elemente der Staatskunst, 1809, I, 7, 113). He calls public economy, as a whole, the product of all products. What, he inquires, is the use of all wealth, if it does not guarantee itself? And this, it can do, only through the organization of the whole people, that is, through the nation (I, 202). Adam Smith's theory of labor would be correct if it considered the entire national life of a people itself as one huge piece of labor. (II, 265). And so, Müller directs his polemics against Adam Smith's premise of a merely mercantile world-market. (II, 290). Similarly, the protective tariff theoreticians, Ganieh, Théorie de l'Economie politique (1822), II, 198 ff. and Fr. List, Nationales System der politischen Oek. (1842), I, 240 ff. Colton, Political Economy of the United States, 1853. Sismondi, Nouveaux Principes (1819), I, 197, ridicules the opinion which resolves the public interest into merely private interests: It is A's interest to rob B; B, the weaker, is equally interested to let himself be robbed, that he may fare no worse. But the state—?!
John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848), I, p. 25, draws a distinction between the physical conditions which influence the economic situation of a people, and the moral and psychological conditions; which last have their origin in social institutions or in the fundamental principles of human nature. Only the latter belong to the domain of Political Economy. According to J. B. Say, Traité, Introd., this science embraces at once agriculture, manufactures and commerce, but only in their relation to the increase or diminution of wealth, and does not concern itself with the means employed to reach the desired end. As a rule, says Arndt (Naturgemässe Volkswirthschaft, 1851, p. 16), it takes into consideration not so much things themselves as their exchange value. Lotz (Handbuch, I, p. 6 seq.), in like manner, defines Political Economy—the science of the one activity which constitutes the basis of all industries etc. F. G. Schulze (Ueber volkswirthschaftliche Begründung der Gewerbswissenschaften, 1826), characterizes Political Economy as the science of the fundamental conditions of the well-being of a people, in so far as they lie in human nature.
When Adam Smith (book IV, c. II) says that the government in respect to matters of economy is inferior to the first best person engaged in industrial pursuits, he is right only from a technic point of view. And when Stewart, on the other hand, vindicates for the state the office of a pater-familias (book II, ch. 13), he evidently means only in national economical matters.
It is of great importance to calculate here the number of days in the year in which the laborer is compelled to be idle on account of sickness. Fenger, (Quid faciant ætas annique tempus ad frequentiam et diuturnitatem morborum, Hafniæ 1840), finds the following result:
Between 15 and 19 years, 7.2 days. Between 35 and 39 years, 7.8 days.
Between 20 and 24 years, 10.3 days. Between 40 and 44 years, 8.3 days.
Between 25 and 29 years, 9.5 days. Between 45 and 49 years, 11.6 days.
Between 30 and 34 years, 7.6 days. Between 50 and 59 years, 14.1 days.
According to Villermé, in the Annales d'Hygiène, II,
At 60 years, 16 days. At 67 years, 42 days.
At 65 years, 31 days. At 70 years, 75 days.
The latter table is the result of a comparison made of the tables of seventy Scotch mutual aid societies. Compare Digler, Polyt. Journal, XXIV, 168.
Tucker, Progress of the U.S., 137. The following data also will serve for a comparison: In Belgium, in 1856, it was estimated that, leaving persons sans profession out of consideration, 45.6 per cent. were agriculturists, 37.2 industrials, 6.7 in commerce, 2.8 in the liberal professions, 1.5 force publique, 2.1 propriétaires, rentiers, pensionnés, 3.7 domesticité. In Prussia, in 1871, of the entire male population, 28.6 per cent. were engaged in agriculture, forest-culture, hunting and fishing: 32.3 per cent. in mining, industry, building, and in founderies: 8.56 in trade and commerce; 20.3 in personal services and handiwork not belonging to any of the groups above mentioned; 2.3 in the army and navy; 3.7 in other callings; 2.7 were renters, pensioners, and persons who lived by selling or renting houses, reserving lodgings for themselves therein, and persons who gave no account of their calling. (Preuss. statisc. Zeitschr., 1875, 32. ff.) It is, however, surprising that Engel's Amtl. Jahrbuch, III, 1867, gives only 48 per cent. as belonging to the first category, and 25 to the second. In the kingdom of Saxony in 1861, 25.1 per cent. of the population were agriculturists and foresters; 56.1 were engaged in industry; 7.7 in trade and commerce; 6.8 in art, science, the service of the state and of private persons; while 4.1 per cent were without any particular calling, or returned none. Bavaria, in 1852, had 67.9 per cent. of its population engaged in agriculture; 22.7 in the trades and in manufactures; 5.5 per cent., persons living on the interest of their money, and by performing the higher class of personal services; 1.9 in the army; and 2 per cent. of listed poor. In Hermann, Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern. In France, according to the official reports, there were: