[39] ‹Nouvel essai sur la Richesse des Nations›, p. 438.
[40] ‹Ib.›, p. 263.
[41] ‹Ib.›, p. 456.
[42] ‹Ib.›, p. 456.
[43] ‹Nouvel essai sur la Richesse des Nations›, p. 161.
[44] ‹Ib.›, p. 168.
[45] ‹Ib.›, p. 168
[46] ‹Ib.›, p. 63.
[47] The Earl of Lauderdale, from adopting the false principle
which the author here exposes, fell into the same error, maintaining
that “‹an increase of riches›, when arising from alterations in
the quantity of commodities, is always a proof of the immediate
‹diminution of wealth›,” and that a diminution of riches is evidence
of an immediate increase of wealth; and that “in proportion as the
‹riches› of individuals are increased by an augmentation of the
‹value› of any commodity, the wealth of the nation is generally
diminished; and in proportion as the mass of individual ‹riches›
is diminished by the diminution of the ‹value› of the commodity,
the national opulence is generally increased.” This melancholy
paradox Lord Lauderdale maintained stoutly in a set treatise.
See ‹Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth by the
Earl of Lauderdale›. Edition 1804, p. 50. Mr Ricardo has given an
exposition of the “Distinctive Properties of Value and Riches” in
his work on the ‹Principles of Political Economy›. Third Edition, p.
320.—«Translator.»
[48] “Do you take the side of Competition, you are wrong—do you
argue against Competition, you are still wrong; which means that you
are always right.”—P. J. Proudhon, ‹Contradictions Économiques›, p.
182.
[49] Always this perpetual and lamentable confusion between
Value and Utility? I can show you many utilities which are not
appropriated, but I defy you to show me in the whole world a single
‹value› which has not a proprietor.
[50] What follows is the commencement of a supplementary note found
among the papers of the author.—«Translator.»