The Same Subject Continued.
In this matter, again, there is an important difference to be observed between private or individual economy and economy in its widest sense, in the sense of a world-economy. The productiveness of labor is estimated in the case of the former, according to the value in exchange of its result; in the case of the latter, according to its value in use. There is a great number of employments which are very remunerative to private individuals, but which are entirely unproductive, and even injurious, so far as mankind is concerned; for the reason that they take from others as much as, or even more than they procure to those engaged in them. Here belong, besides formal crimes against property, games of chance,[332] usurious speculations (§ [113]) and measures taken to entice customers away from other competitors. Again, scientific experiments, means of communication etc., may be entirely unproductive in the individual economy of the undertaker, and yet be of more profit to mankind in general, than they have [pg 180] cost the former.[333] In this respect the nation's economy holds a middle place between individual economy and the world's economy.[334] Strictly speaking, only those employments should be called productive which increase the world's resources. Hence, the work of government should be called so, only in so far as its expenses are covered by the taxes paid willingly by the more reasonable portion of the citizens; and also only in so far as its work is really necessary to the attainment of its end.[335] The productiveness of an employment supposes, also, that it is not carried on at the cost of other employments which it is more difficult to do without. In a healthy nation we may, in this matter, rely, to a certain extent, on the judgment of public opinion, which knows how to appreciate, at their just value, professional gamblers, pettifoggers and the luxury of soldiers. The greater, freer and more cultivated a nation is, the more probable is it that the productiveness of private economy is also national-economical productiveness, and that national-economical productiveness is world-economical productiveness.[336]
Section LIV.
Importance Of A Due Proportion In The Different Branches Of Productiveness.
Much always depends on the due proportion of the different branches of productiveness to one another. Thus, Spain, for instance, has remained poor under the most advantageous [pg 181] circumstances in the world,[337] because it allowed a disproportionate preponderance of personal services. The character of the Spanish people has always given them a leaning towards aristocratic pride and economic idleness. Tradesmen, in that country, sought, as a rule, to amass merely enough to enable them to live on the interest of their capital; after which they, by way of preference, removed it into some other province, where they might be considered as among the nobility; or they withdrew into a monastery. Even in 1781, the Madrid Academy thought it incumbent on it to propose a prize for the best essay in support of the thesis: “The useful trades in no way detract from personal honor.”[338] During the century in which the country was in its greatest glory, the whole people were bent on being to all Europe what nobles, officers and officials are to a single nation. “Whoever wishes to make his fortune,” said Cervantes, “let him seek the church, the sea (i.e., go as an adventurer to America) or the king's palace.” Under Philip III., there were in Spain nine hundred and eighty-eight nunneries, and thirty-two thousand mendicant friars. The number of monasteries trebled between 1574 and 1624, and the number of monks increased in a yet greater ratio. A great many of its manufactories, much of its commerce, and not a few of its most important farms were controlled by foreigners, especially by Italians. There were, it seems, in 1610, one hundred and sixty thousand foreign tradesmen living in Castile. In 1787, there were still 188,625 priests, monks, nuns, etc.; 280,092 servants; 480,589 nobles; 964,571 day laborers; 987,187 peasants; 310,739 mechanics and manufacturers; [pg 182] 34,339 merchants.[339] As a counterpart to this, the United States had, in 1840, about 77.5 per cent. of its population engaged in agriculture, 16.8 in manufactures and mining, 4.2 in shipping and commerce, 1.3 in the learned professions.[340]
We might be tempted, in view of this contrast, to return once more to the unproductiveness of personal services. It is not, however, the direction given to the forces of production, but the squandering of them, that is injurious. When the Magyar, through mere vanity, drives a yoke of from four to six horses where two are enough; or when, as in 1831, Irish agriculture employed 1,131,715 workmen to produce a value of thirty-six million pounds sterling, while that of Great Britain[341] produced one hundred and fifty millions a year, and employed only 1,055,982 workmen, these causes are as sure to impoverish the country, as the waste of the Spaniards in supporting such an army of clergy and servants. Of course, the temptation to waste wealth on parks is greater than to waste it in vegetable gardens! The probability that a man will ruin himself by keeping too many servants is greater than that he [pg 184] will do the same by employing too many operatives.[342] And all the more, as there are many and especially important services which regulate their own remuneration: thus, as a rule, those of the statesman, those of the military in times of war, and those of the priest in the age of superstition.[343]