If I profit on the transaction of buying 1000 quarters of wheat for
gold, I do so irrespectively of all other exchanges by others.
Whether the firm next door to me has succeeded in selling to a Boston
house L2000 worth of Sheffield cutlery or no is a matter entirely
beside my bargain. My profit will depend practically on the movements
in the English corn trade: a small rise in the price of wheat at Mark
Lane between the date of my purchasing by cable the wheat in America
and my selling it at Mark Lane, may give me a large profit, or _vice
versa_. But my exchange of gold for the wheat is a separate
transaction of itself: it stands entirely on its own bottom.

It is perfectly true that if my neighbour in Threadneedle Street does
succeed in selling L2000 worth of cutlery to the New Englander, there
is another distinct national profit to England and to America.
[Footnote: I am assuming for simplicity throughout that every
exchange made by private merchants in this foreign trade is a
successful speculation; if in any particular speculation a merchant
loses, his country loses the same amount. As foreign trade, on the
whole, is an enormous national profit, I am justified in sinking the
particular cases of loss. It may be said, "But perhaps all your
exchange of gold for wheat is a national loss": it is evident that
when the trade takes this form the merchants who import foreign corn
stop their operations instantly; in practice they stop them with
prescient instinct.] But whether he succeeds in making a bargain or
not, I object to being interfered with by Government, and prevented
making my own little profit. If my neighbour is practically deprived
of his profitable bargain by Government action on the part of the
Americans--if they are Protectionists and believe that gold is the
only National Wealth, and put a heavy duty on cutlery--if by doing
this they prevent an exchange profitable to both nations--they stop