It has been remarked that all games or sports are imitations either of
_war_ or _commerce_. The imitations of war are sufficiently obvious;
some, such as the combats of the gladiators in ancient Rome, were
exhibitions of actual fighting; others, such as the bull-fights of
Spain, the elephant and tiger-fights of India, the cock-fights,
dog-fights, badger-baits, &c. of England and other countries, are
exhibitions of the combats of animals. In these cruel sports, the men or
animals are made to fight for the amusement of the lookers-on, who
sympathize in the exertions of skill, power, and courage which they
behold. More frequently, however, the pleasure is derived from being,
not a spectator, but an actor in the contest; as in all field-sports,
such as hunting, shooting, and fishing; or in bloodless games, such as
cricket, football, prisoners-base, chess, draughts, &c.; in which the
gratification arises from a sense of the skill exercised, from the love
of emulation, and the feeling of superiority. The games which appear to
be imitations of mercantile dealings are, without exception, _games of
chance_ or _gambling games_, such as games with dice and cards,
lotteries, raffles, &c. In games of this kind there is usually a stake
to be played for, which is like the sum that a trader hopes to gain by
an adventure or speculation; and either chance alone, or a mixture of
chance and skill, determines the winner. In some games of cards the
resemblance is still further increased by the players _exchanging_ some
of their cards, as in the well-known game of _commerce_.
But in noting the _resemblance_ between trade and games of chance, it is
also important to note their _difference_. At games of chance there is a
certain stake made up by the contributions of the players; and when the
game is over, whatever is gained by one player is lost by another. There
can be no gain without a corresponding loss. In trade, however, this is
far otherwise. _Every voluntary exchange must necessarily be for the
benefit of both parties._ It would be an absurdity to suppose that both
parties to an exchange are not gainers. No man exchanges merely for the
sake of _changing_: for example, no man gives a shilling in order to get
a shilling, or gives a copy of a book in order to get an identical copy
of the same book. Still less does any one exchange in order to give away
something which is more valuable to him than that which he gets in
return. No man gives a horse worth £30 for a bushel of corn worth 10_s._
No man gives a cargo of cotton goods worth £500 for a pipe of wine worth
£50.
Some of our readers may perhaps be inclined to exclaim that they need
not to be informed of a maxim which is never formally stated, only
because it is universally admitted; and may think that in telling them
that neither party loses by an exchange, we adhere strictly to our
character of not admitting _news_ into our magazine. Nevertheless this
axiom, however evident and undeniable, is impliedly rejected by many of
those persons who consider free trade as injurious to the wealth of a
country. For in whatever manner merchants are permitted to trade it is
quite certain that they will never give more than they get--in other
words, never voluntarily make a losing bargain. Sometimes indeed it
happens that goods are voluntarily sold _at a loss_, but it is evident
that no merchant will long continue to make exchanges by which he is a
loser. Those persons, therefore, who maintain that if we trade freely
with a foreign country our merchants will lose, unless that country
trades freely with us, maintain that one of the parties to a voluntary
exchange may be a loser. For as no considerable trade can be carried on
by means of the precious metals by a country in which they are not
produced, it is obvious that if we import a large quantity of goods from
a foreign country, we must either give in exchange goods of less value
to us than those which we part with, or that if they will not take our
goods and do not want bullion, they must give us their goods for
nothing. The latter supposition is, we fear, too favourable to ourselves
to be very probable, or, as is commonly said, it is _too good to be
true_; but at any rate it is as likely that foreigners will give us
_their_ goods for nothing, as that we will give foreigners _our_ goods
for nothing; which would be the case if it were true that a free trade,
or any other trade, is a losing trade.
---------------------