HKB
Question of the proper definition of the wealth of a state--Reason given by the French economists for considering all manufacturers as unproductive labourers, not the true reason--The labour of artificers and manufacturers sufficiently productive to individuals, though not to the state--A remarkable passage in Dr Price's two volumes of Observations--Error of Dr Price in attributing the happiness and rapid population of America, chiefly, to its peculiar state of civilization--No advantage can be expected from shutting our eyes to the difficulties in the way to the improvement of society.
A question seems naturally to arise here whether the exchangeable value of the annual produce of the land and labour be the proper definition of the wealth of a country, or whether the gross produce of the land, according to the French economists, may not be a more accurate definition. Certain it is that every increase of wealth, according to the definition of the economists, will be an increase of the funds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently will always tend to ameliorate the condition of the labouring poor, though an increase of wealth, according to Dr Adam Smith's definition, will by no means invariably have the same tendency. And yet it may not follow from this consideration that Dr Adam Smith's definition is not just. It seems in many respects improper to exclude the clothing and lodging of a whole people from any part of their revenue. Much of it may, indeed, be of very trivial and unimportant value in comparison with the food of the country, yet still it may be fairly considered as a part of its revenue; and, therefore, the only point in which I should differ from Dr Adam Smith is where he seems to consider every increase of the revenue or stock of a society as an increase of the funds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently as tending always to ameliorate the condition of the poor.