100 



covers them all ; all at least with (so far as I can see) one 

 solitary exception. As to the exclusion of things the value of 

 which "is determined by scarcity, the doctrine of demand 

 and supply is that the value of everything is determined 

 by its scarcity as compared with the demand for it. If there 

 is no demand for it it will have no value, no matter how 

 scarce it may be. But the exclusion is evidently meant to 

 apply to things that are wanted, and that are obtainable to a 

 certain extent, yet the supply of which cannot be increased. 

 But the disturbances and interferences with free production 

 are not confined to these articles (if any such articles there 

 be), they appear everywhere. Food, clothing, and houses, for 

 instance, are typical examples of the things that, in theory at 

 any rate, can be increased indefinitely. There is no natural 

 scarcity of these things, but there is a terrible artificial 

 scarcity. This is why we are saddened with the sight of 

 unemployed men, without food, which they could and gladly 

 would produce ; without clothes (beyond what is on their 

 backs), which they would gladly make ; without homes, which 

 they would gladly build— if they were allowed. All these, 

 and nearly every other theoretically obtainable good thing 

 which men cannot get are scarce because the opportunities to 

 produce them are made scarce ; and the man who could but may 

 not produce them, if he is to get them at all, must pay a high 

 price for them ; not perhaps a high price measured in money, 

 but a high price measured in labour, that is, he must give 

 many more hours' work for them, or for the money to buy 

 them, than he need give but for obstruction. Now we want 

 a law that shall cover all these cases. The law of demand and 

 supply is the only one that does so. Now take the three 

 examples given to dethrone demand and supply from its 

 hitherto recognised position : 1st. "Wheat, the demand for 

 Mhich, as indicated by consumption, rose, after 1840, in 47 

 years by one-third, while its price fell to half. "Why ? 

 Through the law of demand and supply. Because increased 

 supply (no matter from what cause) had brought down price, 

 and in doiDg so had stimulated demand. For it was about that 

 time that the prairie lands of North America began pouring 

 their supplies into the English market. It was the increased 

 supply as such, not the diminished cost as such, that pro- 

 duced the result, for if a ring had bought up the imports and 

 held back half, or if foreign war vessels had intercepted half, 

 the price would not have fallen as it did, notwithstanding the 

 diminished cost of production. And here I may say, though 

 it is not strictly relevant to the question before us, that I 

 doubt whether there was any diminished cost of v production 

 measured in labour. I doubt much whether it took any less 

 labour to raise a bushel of wheat on the prairie, send it 

 by cart to the railway, by rail to the seaports, and by 



