those who pocketed the profit, which went in part only to farmers, and
the rest went to the monopolists, dealers, regraters, forestallers, &c.
who advanced money to keep up the price. To the public who paid,
the matter is the same, and, to the business itself, there is little
difference as to who profited, or who found capital; for, as they shared
the profit amongst them, and as they received three times as much as
in an ordinary year, they could, out of the sales of the first four or five
months, make all the payments [end of page #153] for the whole year
to the landlord; and, therefore, could have the means of keeping the
remainder, just as long as they thought proper.

Thus, then, while there is any degree of scarcity, the provisions of a
country are at a monopoly-price; and the dealers act, though
individually, as if they enjoyed one general monopoly. {130}

Before leaving his important subject, it is necessary to observe, that,
though dealers in provisions, in times of any degree of scarcity, that is,
when there is not quite enough fully to supply the consumption of the
country, act, in keeping up prices, as if they had an exclusive privilege
for monopoly, yet that is the only cases =sic= in which they do so. A
single monopolizer can diminish the quantity, and perhaps destroy a
part of it with advantage to himself. Thus the Dutch East India
company were said to have done with the spices. {131} But the
individual dealer, though he is interested in a general high price and
monopoly, is still more interested in selling as much as he can; and the
higher the price, the more careful he is not to waste or consume more
than he can help. In this respect, the monopoly of the many is not half
so hurtful as the individual monopoly. This proves that all the vulgar
errors, which occasion reports of farmers and dealers destroying their
corn, are not only without foundation, but would produce an effect