It is a good thing for him, and an advantage to
the nation as a whole."
Indeed, it is no such thing; it is no advantage to the nation, for there
is something behind _which is not seen_.
_It is not seen_, that the plough is in the hands of James, only because
it is not in those of John.
_It is not seen_, that if James farms instead of digging, John will be
reduced to the necessity of digging instead of farming.
That, consequently, what was considered an increase of loan, is nothing
but a displacement of loan. Besides, _it is not seen_ that this
displacement implies two acts of deep injustice.
It is an injustice to John, who, after having deserved and obtained
_credit_ by his honesty and activity, sees himself robbed of it.
It is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made to pay a debt which
is no concern of theirs.
Will any one say, that Government offers the same facilities to John as
it does to James? But as there is only one plough to be had, two cannot
be lent. The argument always maintains that, thanks to the intervention
of the State, more will be borrowed than there are things to be lent;
for the plough represents here the bulk of available capitals.
It is true, I have reduced the operation to the most simple expression
of it, but if you submit the most complicated Government institutions of
credit to the same test, you will be convinced that they can have but
one result; viz.
Pages:
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112