M'Culloch goes still further; he says that man is as much a productof labour as the machine which he produces, and it appears to himthat in all economical investigations he must be regarded from thispoint of view.He thinks that Smith comprehended the correctness ofthis principle, only he did not deduce the correct conclusion fromit.Among other things he draws the conclusion that eating anddrinking are productive occupations.Thomas Cooper values a cleverAmerican lawyer at 3,000 dollars, which is about three times asmuch as the value of a strong slave.
The errors and contradictions of the prevailing school to whichwe have drawn attention, can be easily corrected from thestandpoint of the theory of the productive powers.Certainly thosewho fatten pigs or prepare pills are productive, but theinstructors of youths and of adults, virtuosos, musicians,physicians, judges, and administrators, are productive in a muchhigher degree.The former produce values of exchange, and thelatter productive powers, some by enabling the future generation tobecome producers, others by furthering the morality and religiouscharacter of the present generation, a third by ennobling andraising the powers of the human wind, a fourth by preserving theproductive powers of his patients, a fifth by rendering humanrights and justice secure, a sixth by constituting and protectingpublic security, a seventh by his art and by the enjoyment which itoccasions fitting men the better to produce values of exchange.Inthe doctrine of mere values, these producers of the productivepowers can of course only be taken into consideration so far astheir services are rewarded by values of exchange; and this mannerof regarding their services may in some instances have itspractical use, as e.g.in the doctrine of public taxes, inasmuch asthese have to be satisfied by values of exchange.But whenever ourconsideration is given to the nation (as a whole and in itsinternational relations) it is utterly insufficient, and leads toa series of narrow-minded and false views.
The prosperity of a nation is not, as Say believes, greater inthe proportion in which it has amassed more wealth (i.e.values ofexchange), but in the proportion in which it has more developed itspowers of production.Although laws and public institutions do notproduce immediate values, they nevertheless produce productivepowers, and Say is mistaken if he maintains that nations have beenenabled to become wealthy under all forms of government, and thatby weans of laws no wealth can be created.The foreign trade of anation must not be estimated in the way in which individualmerchants judge it, solely and only according to the theory ofvalues (i.e.by regarding merely the gain at any particular momentof some material advantage); the nation is bound to keep steadilyin view all these conditions on which its present and futureexistence, prosperity, and power depend.
The nation must sacrifice and give up a measure of materialproperty in order to gain culture, skill, and powers of unitedproduction; it must sacrifice some present advantages in order toinsure to itself future ones.If, therefore, a manufacturing powerdeveloped in all its branches forms a fundamental condition of allhigher advances in civilisation, material prosperity, and politicalpower in every nation (a fact which, we think, we have proved fromhistory); if it be true (as we believe we can prove) that in thepresent conditions of the world a new unprotected manufacturingpower cannot possibly be raised up under free competition with apower which has long since grown in strength and is protected onits own territory; how can anyone possibly undertake to prove byarguments only based on the mere theory of values, that a nationought to buy its goods like individual merchants, at places wherethey are to be had the cheapest -- that we act foolishly if wemanufacture anything at all which can be got cheaper from abroad --that we ought to place the industry of the nation at the mercy ofthe self-interest of individuals -- that protective dutiesconstitute monopolies, which are granted to the individual homemanufacturers at the expense of the nation? It is true thatprotective duties at first increase the price of manufacturedgoods; but it is just as true, and moreover acknowledged by theprevailing economical school, that in the course of time, by thenation being enabled to build up a completely developedmanufacturing power of its own, those goods are produced morecheaply at home than the price at which they can be imported fromforeign parts.If, therefore, a sacrifice of value is caused byprotective duties, it is made good by the gain of a power ofproduction, which not only secures to the nation an infinitelygreater amount of material goods, but also industrial independencein case of war.Through industrial independence and the internalprosperity derived from it the nation obtains the means forsuccessfully carrying on foreign trade and for extending itsmercantile marine; it increases its civilisation, perfects itsinstitutions internally, and strengthens its external power.Anation capable of developing a manufacturing power, if it makes useof the system of protection, thus acts quite in the same spirit asthat landed proprietor did who by the sacrifice of some materialwealth allowed some of his children to learn a productive trade.
Into what mistakes the prevailing economical school has fallenby judging conditions according to the mere theory of values whichought properly to be judged according to the theory of powers ofproduction, may be seen very clearly by the judgment which J.B.