3.4 Unproductive Consumption
Unproductive consumption, undertaken not for the production of a different value but in satisfaction of a want or need, is the ultimate object of all production. It is essentially the goal of gratifying the desire to avoid displeasure or achieve pleasure. And it necessarily requires, to some degree, the destruction of some thing that delivers a benefit.
The sole object of inquiry in unproductive consumption is the nature and degree of gratification resulting from the act of consumption. Judicious consumption, lie judicious production, is an assessment of efficiency: to be an efficient consumer requires consumption to seek the greatest degree of gratification in exchange for the effort given.
In general, it is taken that the consumption in avoidance of displeasure is to be preferred over consumption in pursuit of pleasure. And it can be seen that in any market, the demand for the basic necessities of life - food, warm clothing, and the like - is generally greater and more compelling than the consumption of luxuries. Unit the survival needs of a community are met, there is little market for luxury.
It is also seen that men grant preference for products of the best quality, in terms of their suitability to satisfaction of a given want, and in consideration of their durability over ostentation. The notion of fashion leads men to seek items that are less serviceable and durable, or to discard items that are serviceable long before they have lost their utility.
The cost premium of quality items is in the cost of their fabrication. The cost of transportation and other tasks necessary to make a bolt of cloth available to a buyer remain the same, whether the cloth in question is coarse linen or silk. (EN: There are exceptions - the cost of shipping a crystal goblet is more costly than that of transporting a pewter one, as the former requires more care in packing and handling - but my sense is the difference is negligible for most items.)
The price of luxury items, and the profit in making them, also derives from scarcity, which in turn arises from their lack of necessity. The more necessary an item, the greater the interest in producing it, the greater the supply of it, and the lesser the price.
The interference of public authority in regulating the details of manufacture, with an intent or ensuring goods of a given quality reach the consumer, is very problematical: it leaves the customer with no alternatives and as such no appreciation of the quality of the articles, nor the ability to purchase an item of less quality if it is sufficient to his needs. Neither does this practice consider the consumers ability to afford the mandated level of quality - and as such it does less to guarantee that all citizens should have food of a certain quality than it does to ensure that citizens who cannot afford the prescribed level of quality shall not have food.
Say also marks the widespread problem of individuals who seek to obtain luxuries at the cost of necessities: the stereotypical prodigal spends great sums on distractions and fashionable habitations, even to the point of selling his land to finance self-indulgence.
Governments tend to be far worse than individuals in injurious consumption. Say remarks upon the villages that have held festivals at great expense while neglecting basic needs such as their water supply. The cost of dredging a channel to bring water to the town is spent instead on a single day's revelry, and the peasants return the next day to carrying water in buckets over a distance of some miles.
This is largely a matter of impatience: if the funds were spent on a canal rather than a festival, the increase in production in the same village would well cover the cost of celebration in the following year, and for years to come. But yet, each year the mayor of the village makes the same unfortunate decision.
Another consideration is "the collective consumption of numbers" - or "Economies of scale" by another name. One cook can prepare a meal for one person or a dozen using the same fire and grate. Once can witness the efficiency of operation in the cafeteria of a college or monetary or the mess of a military regiment. For each person to have invested the time in preparing his own meal would be an enormous waste.
On the topic of wastefulness, it is noted that the opportunities for consumption of luxuries are more boundless than those for consuming necessities. A man needs only a small amount of food to persist, and could not make use of much more, but the variety of ways in which he is able to squander his money are limited only by the amount of money he has to waste. From the patricians of Rome to the courtiers of the author's time, history has shown that there seem to be no bounds to the amount of money that can be wasted or the inventiveness of man in finding ways to waste it.
But the propensity of citizens to squander money is dwarfed by the propensity of government to do the same. The citizen is cautious of his budget, and must undertake great pains to restore any sum he spends on self indulgent. Government may tax as it will, and should it be indiscreet in its spending, may tax even more. Historically, few governments have shown the good judgment and reserve to spend the public fund wisely until they found themselves on the verge of revolt.