146 POLITICAL ECONOMY 



demand for them. He benefits those who buy from him and 

 those who sell to him, but the goods which he receives might 

 have gone to his competitors if he had been less strong and 

 clever. He does not get rich at the expense of the weavers or 

 carpenters ; to them he is a pure benefit, but he is a nuisance to 

 the weak and stupid farmers. They receive less clothes and 

 carpentry than they would if he were no better than they. If 

 the productions of those with whom he trades be a fixed 

 quantity, then the whole excess of wealth which one producer 

 of a given class obtains beyond that reaped by his competitors 

 must be at their expense. 



It is the knowledge of this which makes workmen of one 

 class agree to work at one rate of wages. The clever strong man 

 takes his advantage in ease of work and certainty of employ- 

 ment, not in extra wealth. This is commonly thought very 

 wicked by those who are not workmen. 



If we now pass from the individual to the class, we may 

 easily suppose one class, say that of the farmers, to be richer 

 than the others at the outset of our story. Were they rich at 

 the expense of their neighbours ? No. Their riches benefited 

 all their neighbours : as a class they would have more barter 

 lines going out and coming back than any other class ; that is 

 to say, they could have plenty of the productions of all other 

 classes, whereas the fishers might have to do without game and 

 to be content with poor clothes. Nevertheless the fishermen 

 would be the richer for being able to barter their fish for plenty 

 of meat and corn. It seems pretty clear that the rich might 

 exist as a useful class on two conditions ; that they shall only be 

 rich in proportion to the value of what they produce ; and that 

 their productions shall not compete with those of any other 

 class. A stickler for equality might even under these circum- 

 stances insist that the poorer members of the community ought 

 to take to the business of the rich until these are brought down 

 from their eminence, but we found that the plan did not answer 

 for the hunters and it would not have answered for the poor 

 weavers either. This plan only benefits the poor at the expense 

 of the rich, and injures the whole community besides. 



We found that an improvement in production did not neces- 

 sarily act well in an otherwise stationary community. It ruined 



