expenses: and thus if everybody pays as consumer, everybody also
receives as producer."

All this is nonsense, and not science.

The simple truth is, that whether men destroy their corn and cloth by
fire, or by use, the effect is the same as regards price, but not as
regards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use, that
riches--in other words, comfort, well-being--exist.

Restriction may in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of
things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich,
_numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we
put down in an inventory three bushels of corn at $1, or four bushels
at 75 cents, and sum up the nominal value of each inventory at $3,
does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing to
the necessities of the community?

To this truthful and common-sense view of the phenomenon of
consumption it will be my continual endeavor to lead the
protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the solution
of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that restriction,
by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by forcing it
to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in its
results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor.
And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced under
the protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as the greater
quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live on
_nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the more
abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the