“As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can...to employ his capital [in] that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry...and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it..”

• Explodes mercantilist “balance of trade” doctrine via his great “price-specie flow mechanism”:

“Suppose four-fifths of all the money in Great Britain be annihilated in one night...what would be the consequence? Must not the price of all labour and commodities sink in proprtion, and everything be sold as cheap? What nation could then dispute with us in any foreign market...which to us would afford sufficient profit? In how little time, therefore, must this bring back the money which we had lost, and raise us to the level of all the neighbouring nations? Where, after we arrived, we immediately lose the advantage of the cheapness of labour and commodities; and the farther flowing in of money is stopped by our fulness and repletion,” (pp.146-147 in Reader)

• Gives the example inversely to underline the process:

“Again, suppose, that all the money of Great Britain were multiplied fivefold in a night, must not the contrary effect follow? Must not all labour and commodities rise to such an exorbitant height, that no neighbouring nations could afford to buy from us; while their commodities, on the other hand, became comparatively so cheap, that, in spite of all the laws which could be formed, they would be run in upon us, and our money flow out; till we fall to a level with foreigners, and lose that great superiority of riches, which had laid us under such disadvantages?” (p.147 in Reader)

“Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium. Both suppositions are false. A trade which is forced by means of bounties and monopolies may be and commonly is disadvantageous to the country in whose favour it is meant to be established, as I shall endeavour to show hereafter. But that trade which, without force or constraint, is naturally and regularly carried on between any two places is always advantageous, though not always equally so, to both.”

From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, Candlesticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers and Extinguishers, and from the Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honorable Members of the Chamber of Deputes. We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a foreign rival who apparently works under conditions far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bulls'-eyes, deadlights, and blinds - in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

[This will] encourage industry and increase employment...If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day...we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax...and moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

“It is thus that every system which endeavours, either by extraordinary encouragements to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it, or, by extraordinary restraints, force from a particular species of industry some share of the capital which would otherwise be employed in it, is in reality subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society towards real wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour.”

“All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society,"

“According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; second, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, third, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”

• Smith gave two exceptions for when we should not have free trade:

“The first is when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defense of the country...Defense...is of much more importance than opulence”

• The second is when domestic goods are subject to taxes not levied on imported goods; imposing equivalent tariffs equalize the tax base

“[Such a tariff] would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”

“[T]he economical benefits of commerce are surpassed in importance by those of its effects which are intellectual and moral. IT is hardly possible to overrate the value, for the improvement of human beings, of things which bring them into contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar...it is indispensable to be perpetually comparing [one’s] own notions and customs with the experience and example of persons in different circumstances...there is no nation which does not need to borrow from others”

“[Domestic protection would] render the labour and capital of the country less efficient in production than they would otherwise be; and compel a waste...All is sheer loss, to the country as well as to the consumer.”

“The alternative is not between employing our own country-people and foreigners, but between employing one class and another of our own country-people [because] the imported commodity is always paid for, directly or indirectly, with the produce of our own industry.”

“Let us suppose, that there are, in England, unreclaimed districts, from which corn might be raised at as small an expense of labour and capital, as from the fertile plains of Poland. This being the case, and all other things the same, the person who should cultivate our unreclaimed districts, could afford to sell his produce at as cheap a rate as the cultivator of Poland; and it seems natural to conclude, that if industry were left to take its most profitable direction, capital would be employed in raising corn at home, rather than bringing it in from Poland at an equal prime cost, and at much greater expense of carriage.”

“But this conclusion, however obvious and natural it may, at first sight, appear, might, on closer examination, be found entirely erroneous. If England should have acquired such a degree of skills in manufacturews, that, with any given portion of her capital, she could prepare a quantity of cloth, for which the Polish cultivator would give a greater quantity of corn, than she [England] could, with the same portion of capital, raise from her own soil, then, tracts of her territory, though they should be equal, nay, even though they should be superior, to the lands in Poland, will be neglected; and a part of her supply of corn will be imported from that country.”

“To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the ame country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place, notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the manufacture of cloth.”

• Even in the presence of absolute advantage (one country is more efficient at producing all goods), still better for them to specialize

  • A high opportunity cost of producing everything

• Pay others to perform a task, or purchase a good, and specialize in producing goods where you have the lowest opportunity cost

• This is the principle of comparative advantage

• Ricardo called this the principle of “comparative cost”; Torrens calls it “comparative advantage” (and to be fair, Torrens wrote about it first)

  • in favor of free trade (import cheaper corn!)
  • preventing imports is like preventing superior production at home!

“When a country can either import a commodity or produce it at home, it compares the cost of producing at home with the cost of procuring from abroad; if the latter cost is less than the first, it imports. The cost at which a country can import from abroad depends, not upon the cost at which the foreign country produces the commodity, but upon what the commodity costs which it sends in exchange, compared with the cost which it must be to produce the commodity in question, if it did not import it.”

“[I]f there were nothing in the whole process but a transfer; if whatever is lost by the consumer and by the capitalist were gains by the landlord; there might be robbery, but there would not be waste, there might be a worse distribution of the national wealth, but there would be no positive diminution of this aggregate wealth.”

“[But the Corn Laws] occasion in all cases an absolute loss, greatly exceeding the gain which can be derived from them by the receivers of rent; and for every pound which finds its way in the pockets of the landlords...the community is robbed of several.”

“It would be better, however, to have a repeal of the Corn Laws, even clogged by a compensation [to landlords], than to not [repeal] at all; and if [reapeal with compensation to landlords] were our only alternative, no one could complain of a chance, by which, though an enormous amount of evil would be prevented, no one would lose.”

"[Repealing the Corn laws would solve four problems.] First, it would guarantee the prosperity of the manufacturer by affording him outlets for his products. Second, it would relieve the Condition of England question by cheapening the price of food and ensuring more regular employment. Third, it would make English agriculture more efficient by stimulating demand for its products in urban and industrial areas. Fourth, it would introduce through mutually advantageous international trade a new era of international fellowship and peace. The only barrier to these four beneficent solutions was the ignorant self-interest of the landlords, the "bread-taxing oligarchy, unprincipled, unfeeling, rapacious and plundering."