Caeriithers. — On Mill's Fourth FundamentaJ Theorem respecting Capital, 31 



The wealth which has been produced to replace that consumed by- 

 all the workmen concerned is also much the same as if no change had 

 taken place in our philanthropist's expenditure. Had no such change 

 taken place there would have been employed a certain number of velvet 

 makers whose produce would have been quite useless to the working classes. 

 There would also have been employed an equal number of manufac- 

 turers' men, whose produce might or might not have been useful, according 

 to their employment. 



The change having taken place, there are employed the same number 

 of gardeners, whose produce is nil, also the same number of velvet-makers 

 who, having been thrown out of employment, have taken to some other 

 trade, where their produce, like that of the manufacturer, may or may not 

 be useful to workmen. 



The nett results of these endeavours to do good are — when charity is 

 tried, a reduction in the poor rates ; when keeping retainers is tried, a 

 slight derangement of trade. 



As to the theorem itself, the illustration of which we have now discussed, 

 it is partly a truism, partly an error. 



It will perhaps be best to examine separately the two sentences of which 

 it is composed.''' " What siqyports and ewploys j^frodiictive labour is the capital 

 expended hi setting it to work, and not the demand of purchasers for the produce 

 of tlie labour, irhen com2^letedy In other words, the labourer is supported 

 by the food and other things he gets while at work, and this food is part of 

 the food at the time iu the world. This, of course, is a truism. The 

 velvet- weaver is supported by the food he gets, and if he got no food he 

 would make no velvet, however strong the demand for velvet might be. 



" Demand for commodities is not demand for labour. The demand for 

 commodities determines in what particular branch of p)t'oduction the labour and 

 capital shall be employed ; it determines the direction of the labour ; but not the 

 more or less of the labour itself, or of the maintenance or payment of the labour. 

 These depend on the amount of the capital, or other funds directly devoted to the 

 sustenance and remimeration of labour." This sentence is very confused. 

 The capitalist's own demand for commodities is the only cause of the 

 employment of labour. The demand of others may decide the direction of 

 that labour. A farmer, for instance, of a backwoods farm in Canada, with 

 his stock of potatoes and pork, is a capitalist. He knows that his stock 

 will soon be exhausted, and therefore labours to replace it. He consumes 

 his present stock, not for the purpose of renewing it, but to keep himself 

 alive. His own demand for commodities is the sole cause of his labour, 

 and it gives also the direction of his labour. He meets the demand by 

 growing more potatoes and pork. If he has neighbours who can produce 



*Part 9, Chap. V., Book I., p. 49, People's Ed., 1869. 



