Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/534

15 o. D. THOMPSON excess of exports a 1oss,--which is of course the exact opposite of. the Mercautilist position, but migh? be true for s gold-mining country. Those men are rare indeed who see, like the Hon. Pt. Madan Mohsn Malsviys, that the development of industries will only increase trade, trade will be profitable harmony of interests does one way or the other. The exaltation of foreign is also based on a England, and is of to India. publicists of foreign while and that the increase of to both nations, that the not depend upon balances th&t false entirely Yet we have heard trade over analogy from wrong when one of the home trade the case applied foremost Northern India declaring that it is only trade that increases the wealth of internal trade merely re-arranges already a country, the wealth existed. This is equivalent to saying that if Bombay and Madras and Bengal were seperste foreign countries (with export and import duties), the trade between them would increase wealth, but present does not. But within a country may permit new industries and the re-arrangement of increase productivity, new wealth, as much as st goods and their. re-arrangement between countries,--especislly if the country be ? large one like India, with ?11 sorts of climates and ?11 sorts of products to be exchanged snd i?tilizod in the most productive industries without ever crossing her own borders. Nothing could be more inconsistent with the svowed ?im o[ working up our own raw materials, and saving the cost of the jo?urney across seas. is probably due to the The strength of the underlying idea that double feeling can over?eaeh one's neighbors, but cannot one over- is sre capita as reach one's self. But I suspect that this fallacy largely the work of the British statisticians who for ever using statistics of' foreign trade per