"_consequently_" of Mr. Protectionist, and to convince oneself that
the price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is
a question of fact. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I
think that the price of labor, like everything else, is governed by
the proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can
perfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supply
of produce, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly
see that it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate
of wages. This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor
required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and
protection, while it may change the direction of capital, and transfer
it from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny.

This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine
elsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and
declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious
by such reasoning as that which is commonly resorted to by
protectionists.

Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and
every year wantonly burning the half of its produce; I will undertake
to prove by the protective theory that this nation will not be the
less rich in consequence of such a procedure. For, the result of the
conflagration must be, that everything would double in price. An
inventory made before this event, would offer exactly the same nominal
value as one made after it. Who, then, would be the loser? If John
buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price; and
if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains it back
by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase of the
price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of his