148 POLITICAL ECONOMY 



from their own productions and from the productions of those 

 who, like themselves, make improvements. The relative gain 

 of various classes may be very different, but it is clearly possible 

 that one class may gain much more than others if its goods are 

 much desired. That class may then become rich and remain 

 rich and injure no one, but benefit all. If then any youthful 

 Jack asks us whether a man who gets rich does so at the expense 

 of others, we must answer he may ; and again he may not. We 

 must ask him to read this article and then to remember that 

 the existing state of society with limited land, with capitalists 

 and classes who are commonly called non-producing, is far more 

 complex than that of our ideal island. Nevertheless, if he 

 follows us so far, we may venture to tackle the complications 

 introduced by these additions to the problem. The closed barter 

 circuit, as a graphic conception, is a useful device for disen- 

 tangling this complexity. 



Poverty, take it as you will, must be hard to bear, but much 

 harder if we think we have been robbed ; that the rich fellows 

 have got our share of the world's goods by some hocus-pocus which 

 is morally theft. Now this conception of poverty would be im- 

 possible in our ideal island. No hunter was robbed. There were 

 no monopolies. There was land enough. And yet the hunter 

 was poor till that lucky chance of the embroidered cap turned 

 up. Vice, idleness, sickness and infirmity, all cause poverty. 

 Bad laws, bad government, an over-population may cause poverty, 

 and have caused poverty, but the main cause of this great evil 

 is the same in our Great Britain as in the little fancied island. 



The bulk of our poor are poor because they produce the wrong 

 things. What then are the right ones ? Trade is always working at 

 this problem, solving it ill or well as our traders are wise or foolish. 



The question whether one man really could under a system 

 of pure barter be rich at the expense of his neighbour is altogether 

 of secondary importance and greatly a matter of words. The 

 man who produced much would be rich, but his produce would be 

 enjoyed by all who gave him what they valued less. Neverthe- 

 less if by producing much he threw others out of work, he might 

 be said to be rich at their expense ; but this would be a very 

 unfair way to word it, since when they found out new right 

 things to make, they would all be rich and be richer than before. 



