[55] ‹Wealth of Nations› (Buchanan’s 2d edit.), vol. ii. p. 53.
[56] ‹Ib.›, vol. ii. p. 54.
[57] ‹Ib.›, vol. ii. p. 55, note.
[58] ‹Ricardo’s Political Works› (M’Culloch’s edit.), pp. 34, 35.
[59] The words in ‹italics› and ‹capitals› are thus printed in the
original text.
[60] ‹Alterner un champ›, is to rear alternate crops of corn and
hay in a field.—«Translator.»
[61] On the subject of Rent, and the constituent elements of the
Value of Land, Bastiat would seem to have adopted, though perhaps
unconsciously, the theory of Mr Carey, in his able and original work
on ‹The Principles of Political Economy› (Philadelphia, 1837-38).
Practically, no doubt, Mr Carey’s view of the subject to a great
extent holds true. If we take into account all the labour and
capital laid out in permanent ameliorations upon a field or a farm,
from its first clearance to the present moment, it may be true that
there is scarcely any land now under cultivation which is worth
what it cost; and that the Rent yielded by such land, consequently,
resolves itself into the remuneration of anterior labour. But
the sweeping assertion of Bastiat, that “land which has not been
subjected, directly or indirectly, to human action is everywhere
destitute of value,” is certainly not correct as a “matter of fact;”
for from the spot where I am now writing, I can see thousands of
acres which have never since the creation had a spade, or a plough,
or a human hand applied to them, which nevertheless do yield a
Rent—a small rent, a shilling, a penny an acre, it may be—but a
return which can by no process of analysis be resolved into the
remuneration of anterior labour or capital. With regard to such
land, the question of rent or no rent would seem to depend on the
current and usual rate of profits.
Land in its natural state, and without cultivation, is capable
of producing grass for the food of cattle, and other products
capable of rendering service to man. Suppose, for example, that the
agriculture of a country has reached the least productive corn-land,
which yields a return of £120 for each £100 of capital employed in
its cultivation, and that much of the remaining land is incapable of
cultivation,—a tract of moorland, or rough pasture, for instance,
like some parts of the Highlands of Scotland. Whether such land
will or will not yield a rent must depend on whether the return,
in sheep, cattle, copsewood, or other produce, after replacing the
capital employed, exceeds or falls short of 20 per cent.
Suppose that a person possessed of a capital equal to £100, instead
of applying that capital to the cultivation of the least productive
corn-land, with a return equal to £120, employs his £100 in
purchasing, tending, and bringing to market 100 sheep,—if the annual
produce and increase of his flock, over and above his necessary
outgoings, amounts only to 10 per cent. on his capital, of course he
will find the rearing of sheep unprofitable, and give up the trade.
He can in that case pay no rent, for his return is not equal to
even the ordinary profits. But if the increase of his flock, over
and above his outgoings, amounts to 30 per cent. on the capital
employed, then the land to which we refer will yield a rent equal
to 10 per cent. on that capital. Whether this shall be the rent of
10, of 50, or 100, or 1000 acres of land, depends entirely on how
much land is required to feed 100 sheep; the greater the extent of
land, the less will be the rent of each acre; it may be a pound, or
a shilling, or a penny an acre; still every acre, and every part of
every acre, will yield a ‹rent›. Nor does the question of rent or no
rent depend on the amount of the capital employed; for if a capital
of £100 employed on 10,000 acres of land yields a clear return of
£130 when profits are at 20 per cent., the surplus £10 clearly
constitutes rent. Rent depends on the ratio of the product to the
capital employed, and if that product, or its value, exceed the
capital, or its value, by more than the ordinary rate of profits,
a rent, greater or less in amount, according to the value of the
capital and the extent of surface over which that capital is spread,
will be yielded by every inch of land capable of giving nourishment
to a blade of grass.
On a searching analysis of rent, then, we always find a ‹residuum›
which cannot be resolved into the remuneration of anterior labour or
capital; and as the value of land in its natural and uncultivated
state depends on the amount of this residuum, or rent, if that
value is to be brought within the limits of Bastiat’s theory, we
must apply to it the same principle which he applied (Chap. V.,
pp. 139-141 ‹ante›) to the case of a diamond found by accident,
and resolve it, not into service rendered by undergoing labour,
or ‹making an effort›, for another, but into service rendered by
‹saving› another from undergoing the labour or making the effort
for himself. Bastiat seems to have felt this as he approached the
conclusion of the present chapter. (See ‹post›, p. 282.)
In this part of his work, Bastiat, in his desire to refute the
fallacies of the Socialists and Communists on the subject of
property, seems to have gone beyond the proper domain of Political
Economy; for in strictness it is not the business of that science
to vindicate the institution of property, or to explain its origin.
It is enough for the Economist that property ‹exists›, and all that
he is concerned to do is to explain the laws which regulate the
production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.—«Translator.»
[62] Ricardo.