MY DEAR SIR,

I received your letter last Sunday, and in the evening of that day Mrs.

Ricardo and the rest of my family arrived here. I have been showing them

all the beauties of this place, and my time has been pretty well

engrossed by them these three last days.... The fall in Omnium is I

believe to be attributed to our continued expenses, and the expectation

of another loan before the payments on the present are completed. The

present state of the Exchanges seem[s] to indicate a real fall in the

value of foreign currencies; it cannot be attributed to any change of

taste for particular commodities, or any other caprice. I expected that

Peace would lower the value of foreign currency, but I confess not in

the degree which has taken place. It leaves the question between us

undecided--namely, whether the exchange is not operated upon solely by

the relative preponderance of currency. Peace has rendered the currency

of the continent much more efficacious to the business to be done.

With regard to our present question, we differ as to effects which must

_necessarily_ follow from restrictions on the importation of foreign

corn. I do not think that a diminution of capital is a _necessary_, but

a probable effect. We agree as to the consequences which will attend a

diminution of capital, but I should say that a real diminution of

capital will diminish the work to be done, and consequently will affect

the wages of labour, and the demand for food. In the case supposed,

restrictions on importation of corn, encouragement is given to the

further cultivation of our own land,--but _if_ accompanied by a

diminution of capital a discouragement is also given to the cultivation

of the land, and whether profits rise or fall must in my opinion depend

upon the degree of these contra-operating causes. It is true that the

woollen or cotton manufacturer will not be able to work up the same

quantity of goods with the same capital if he is obliged to pay more for

the labour which he employs, but his profits will depend on the price at

which his goods when manufactured will sell. If every person is

determined to live on his revenue or income, without infringing on his

capital, the rise of his goods will not be in the same proportion as the

rise of labour, and consequently his percentage of profit will be

diminished if he values his capital, which he must do, in money at the

increased value to which all goods would rise in consequence of the rise

of the wages of labour. In such case I should say that the effective

demand had diminished, because the same quantity of commodities could

not be annually consumed. If the same quantity of commodities continued

to be consumed, then it must be evident that it would be at the expense

of capital. In such case capital would diminish faster than demand,

which would tend to keep up profits. But how long will [people] continue

to indulge in luxuries at the expense of a continual diminution of

capital? It is the road to ruin, and, though frequently persisted in by

a few individuals, it is not often found to be the folly of nations. On

the contrary, if any causes interrupt the progress of nations, if

restrictions on their trade, or expensive wars, tend to diminish their

capital, at such times more economy is practised, and, as Adam Smith has

observed, the profusion of governments is counteracted by the frugality

of individuals. If so, I cannot be incorrect in saying that, though for

a short period capital and produce may diminish faster than demand,--yet

in the long run effective demand cannot augment or continue stationary

with a diminishing capital. You say, what I did not before understand

you to admit, 'that the whole amount of demand will from advanced prices

diminish of course, but the proportion of demand to supply, which is

always the main point in question, as determining prices and profits,

may continue to increase, _as it does in all countries the capital of

which is retrograde_;' but I do not agree even to this explanation, and

it appears to me to be at variance with an opinion which I have often

heard you express, viz. The temptation to save from revenue to augment

capital is always in proportion to the rate of profits, and, if from

accumulation of capital profits and interest should fall very low

indeed, at that point accumulation would nearly stop, because it would

be almost without an object. In this opinion I most cordially agree, and

I cannot help thinking that it is at variance with the above sentence

which I have quoted from your letter. I maintain, as I think you have

done, that consumption as compared with production is always greatest

where capital is most accumulated. Diminish the capital of England one

half, and you undoubtedly augment profits, but it will not be in

consequence of a greater proportion of demand but of a greater

proportion of production; demand as compared with production could

hardly fail to diminish. Individuals do not estimate their profits by

the material production, but nations invariably do. If we had precisely

the same amount of commodities of all descriptions in the year 1815 that

we now have in 1814, as a nation we should be no richer; but, if money

had sunk in value, they would be represented by a greater quantity of

money, and individuals would be apt to _think_ themselves richer. I

shall be in town either next week or the week after. I wish you would

return here with me. We would discuss these important points in our

shady groves. With kind regards to Mrs. Malthus,

I am, yours truly,

DAVID RICARDO.

Letters of David Ricardo to Thomas Robert Malthus, 1810-1823 · 第 49 / 225 题