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 manufacturers' 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.[1] "What supports and employs productive labour is the capital expended in setting it to work, and not the demand of purchasers for the produce of the labour, when completed." 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 in 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 production 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 remuneration 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.
