17: Defining wealth of a state
Economists differ as to what, exactly, constitutes wealth, particularly on the grand scale of nations. It's generally taken to mean "the exchangeable value of the annual produce of the land and labor." But this is not universally accepted.
The increase of wealth results in better conditions for the people of that nation - but only where the population remains fixed. There can be some argument, therefore, of whether all the production of a land should be considered to be part of its wealth, or only the production above the level that is necessary to the subsistence of the people.
For example, the French economists consider all labor involved in agriculture is productive, whereas labor in manufacturing is nonproductive, as the latter creates nothing, but merely transforms material from one state to another. There is also the notion that those involved in manufactures, particularly those who manufacture luxury items, are merely gratifying the vanity of rich people, and greater benefit to society would be gained if they applied themselves to work that produced food and other necessities.
This seems sound enough logic, but much is lost in aggregation - chiefly, the division and specialization of labor. If a man can produce greater wealth by manufacturing luxury goods than by farming - if his labor can produce silk that can be traded for more food than he would have produced by working in agriculture, it seems logical he should do so. This is as true of 200,000 men as it is of a single individual. (EN: I think I may have misinterpreted that, as Malthus then seems to take the opposite position in the following paragraph.)
A capital employed upon land may be unproductive to the individual, yet highly productive to the society; and a capital employed in manufacturing and trade may be highly productive to the individual, yet unproductive to society. For this reason, Malthus agrees with the conclusion of the French economists, but for somewhat different reasons.
The production of goods for domestic production seems, to Malthus, to be more productive of real prosperity than the manufacture of luxuries for trade. Luxury goods give benefit to the wealthy, but not to all of society, and therefore should not be considered as important as food, which benefits the great mass of people rather than a select few. A nation where the poorest class of laborer enjoys more of the necessities is to be considered wealthier than a nation where a smaller number of men enjoy great luxuries while the greater part of the population suffers for want.
(EN: This seems terribly tangled up in itself, as the facts presented seem to point to the opposite of the conclusion Malthus draws from them - per my earlier misinterpretation. I'm still led to the conclusion that a society in which each person attended to the task at which he was most productive would be better off than one in which people were compelled to perform a task at which they were inept for "the social good." I'd have to concede a society in which everyone made luxuries and no-one farmed would die of starvation in a short time, but a society in which everyone farmed would end up with a surplus of food and, per Malthus's earlier point, the population would then expand to consume the surplus until it became an insufficiency. In the end, it seems a matter of proportion: once a society creates enough food to feed itself, it makes little sense to devote additional resources to agriculture. The decision of how many should produce luxuries and how many should produce necessities is subject to some debate - but once again, Malthus's previous point about prices and wages driving men to the most beneficial activities should be taken to mean the market will balance the equation: when "too many" are producing food, manufacture will become more rewarding; when "too few" are producing food, agriculture will become more rewarding. So, ultimately, the argument is completely academic.)
He then turns to the assertion by "Dr. Price" (EN: No luck finding out exactly who this is, "price" being a common noun) who asserted that great cities are "the graves of mankind" where there is greater misery than can be seen in the rural areas. Between famine, disease, crime, and generally unhealthy conditions, people are less happy and virtuous than country folk.
Price also maintains that people are happiest when they have the natural resources to be productive, and the civil liberty to do so - and that the latter generally depends on the former. Malthus reckons resources are the driving factor, as it is mainly in situations in which there are not enough resources for men to maintain themselves and their families that politicians step in to determines what is to be done to address the problem. Where men can maintain themselves, there is little excuse for anyone to do so.
He looks again to the American colonies, and the happiness of the people there, who have both the resources and the liberty necessary to achieve for themselves a great prosperity. Price might suggest that their state of happiness can be preserved by preventing the introduction of manufactures and luxuries, but Malthus considers this as foolish as attempting to prevent a "mistress from growing old by never exposing her to the sun or air." As the society progresses, manufacturing will arise, towns and cities will grow, and the new world will become a civilized as the old, and suffer much the same problems.
Malthus considers it a "disheartening reflection" that we can never hope to overcome the natural tendency among man to increase his population as he increases his production. That is, when a society produces more than it needs to sustain its present population, it then becomes more populous until the excess is consumed.
(EN: And this takes me back to the periodic argument of this chapter - likely of the book, and of economics in general. The solution to Malthus's paradox is balance of population and production. Success is not maximum production of food, because that merely leads to the maximum increase of population, as Malthus rightly acknowledges. Rather, success is a matter of balancing production, producing as much as is needed rather than as much as possible, and finding other things to do with the excess time and labor rather than producing more food to perpetuate the cycle. Once sufficient food is produced to sustain the population, the manufacture of luxury goods is as good, and likely better, a use of the spare resources than alternatives.)