Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will bewell to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely thesame as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of oureconomical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that theaccident brings six francs to the glazier's trade--that it encouragesthat trade to the amount of six francs--I grant it; I have not a word tosay against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task,receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses thecareless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too oftenthe case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes moneyto circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will bethe result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! yourtheory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of thatwhich is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon onething, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if hehad not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced hisold shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would haveemployed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by thiscircumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouragedto the amount of six francs: this is that which is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other)would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is thatwhich is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because itis a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is apositive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general,nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows arebroken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that ofthe window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more norless than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, hewould have spent six francs in shoes, and would have had at the sametime the enjoyment of a pair o shoes and of a window.
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to theconclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of itsenjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.
Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the valueof things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maximwhich will make the hair of protectionists stand on end--To break, tospoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly,"destruction is not profit."
What will you say, Moniteur Industriel--what will you say, disciplesof good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision howmuch trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of housesit would be necessary to rebuild?
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as theirspirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to beginthem again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, andplacing it alongside of that which is seen.
The reader must take care to remember that there are not two personsonly, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted tohis attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced,by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another,under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade isencouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some othertradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. Itis this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who,personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of theproblem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profitin an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is notless absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all,nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only goto the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, allyou will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying-- What wouldbecome of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?
zpostcode
Recruit
weather
mreligion
Yellowpages
sport
constellation
shopping
name
game
directory
literature
Word
tour
furnish
Lottery
tftnews
lyrics
News
digital
car
dir
Edu
Finance
