國富論筆記4.1-4.2

4.1 Of the principle of the commercial or mercantile system

作者對認為金銀是財富的觀念進行了精彩絕倫的諷刺。

For some time after the discovery of America, the first inquiry of the Spaniards, when they arrived upon any unknown coast, used to be, if there was any gold or silver to be found in the neighbourhood? By the information which they received, they judged whether it was worth while to make a settlement there, or if the country was worth the conquering. Plano Carpino, a monk sent ambassador from the king of France to one of the sons of the famous Gengis Khan, says, that the Tartars used frequently to ask him, if there was plenty of sheep and oxen Spaniards. They wanted to know if the country was rich enough to be worth the conquering. Among the Tartars, as among all other nations of shepherds, who are generally ignorant of the use of money, cattle are the instruments of commerce and the measure of value. Wealth, therefore, according to them, consisted in cattle, as according to the Spaniards, it consisted in gold and silver. Of the two, the Tartar notion, perhaps, was the nearest to the truth.

在這個錯誤的財富觀念下，葡萄牙等國家都禁止金銀出口，或者對金銀出口徵收重稅，以保護國家財富。但是在商業時代，這種禁令不便於商業貿易，因此商人極力反對並提出了理由。商人認為，如果是對外貿易是順差的話，實際上是給國家帶來額外的金銀貨幣，只有在逆差的時候要注意。還有，金銀很容易走私，禁止實際上很難做到。

在論述戰爭期間的花費最終是通過出售本國產品的方式支付而非通過金銀支付的過程中，作者論述了戰爭是如何讓本國產業繁榮這一反直覺現象的。

The manufacturers during the war will have a double demand upon them, and be called upon first to work up goods to be sent abroad, for paying the bills and provisions of the army; and , secondly, to work up such as are necessary of purchasing the common returns that had usually been consumed in the country. In the midst of the most destructive foreign war, therefore, the greater part of manufactures may frequently flourish greatly; and, on the contrary, they may decline on the return of peace. They may flourish amidst the ruin of their country, and been to decay upon the return of its prosperity.

接著，作者又論述了這種能夠長時間支撐戰爭的產品，必定是工業品，而非農業品。這個又看嗨了。而這種工業品，作者前面講到過，必定是高附加值的工業品。如果只是很粗糙的低級工業品，那麼和農產品就差不多了。

No foreign war, of great expense or duration, could conveniently be carried on by the exportation of the rude produce of soil. The expense of sending such a quantity of it into a foreign country as might purchase the pay and provisions of an army would be too great. Few countries, too, produce much more rude produce than what is sufficient for the subsistence of their own inhabitants. To send abroad any great quantity of it, therefore, would be to send abroad a part of the necessary subsistence of the people. It is otherwise with the exportation of manufactures. The maintenance of the people employed in them was kept at home, and only the surplus part of their work is exported.

作者對比古代的戰爭在沒有外來幫助下通常無法持續多久，來駁斥金銀支撐戰爭，因為古代也是通過金銀交易，數量和現在沒有相差那麼多。根源在於缺乏高級工業品。作者還認為，古代戰爭主要依靠君主平時積蓄的財富來維持。這也是農業國家強調節儉的經濟根源。因為農業國家的人在災荒來臨時缺乏其他救濟手段。

Among nations to whom commerce and manufactures are little known, the sovereign, upon extraordinary occasions, can seldom draw any considerable aid from his subjects, for reasons which shall be explained hereafter. It is in such countries, therefore, that he generally endeavours to accumulate a treasure, as the only resource against such emergencies.

原先看這章時，想著，不就是駁斥金銀財富論嘛，前面已經講過了。想不到另有一番精彩。這就是我有時願意忍受一時的艱澀或者平庸的敘述，因為斯密定不負我，必有一番精彩在不遠的前面等我。

接著又論述了美洲大發現以及遠東貿易的開通對歐洲的真實意義。兩者的對比也非常有趣，美洲的金銀礦藏，給歐洲輸送了大量金銀，而對中國，印度等地的貿易，又從歐洲輸出了大量金銀。而在社會總產品不變的情況下，金銀數量的變化對國家財富的意義，作者之前已經論述過了，放在這裡的結論就是，美洲金銀對歐洲的意義在於，幾乎沒有意義，除了銀盤子便宜了些，而交易所需的金銀變多了些，前者對歐洲人而言是便利的，後者又是麻煩的，總體而言是無關緊要的，而對遠東輸出金銀，則是有利於國家增富的。又是反直覺。

It is not by the importation of gold and silver that the discovery of America has enriched Europe.

The discovery of America, however, certainly made a most essential one. By opening a new and inexhaustible market to all the commodities of Europe, it gave occasion to new divisions of labour and improvements of art, which in the narrow circle of the ancient commerce could never have taken place, for want of a market to take off the greater part of their produce… The commodities of Europe were almost all new to America, and many of those of America were new to Europe. A new set of exchanges, therefore, began to take place, which had never been thought of before, and which should naturally have proved as advantageous to the new, as it certainly did to the old continent. The savage injustice of the Europeans rendered an event, which ought to have been beneficial to all, ruinous and destructive to several of those unfortunate countries.

The discovery of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, which happened much about the same time, opened perhaps a still more extensive range to foreign commerce, than even that of America, notwithstanding the greater distance… But rich and civilised nations can always exchange to a much greater value with one another, than with savages and barbarians.

這兩個例子其實放在第一章邏輯上更順，勞動分工和市場的關係。但放在這裡的好處是，好久不見，還是令人激動。理論運用到實際，讓人再一次受到洗禮。

4.2 Of restraints upon importation from foreign countries of such goods as can be produced at home

通過設立關稅等貿易壁壘，禁止外國產品進入本國市場，無疑可以讓本國的產業對本國市場實行壟斷，從而導致更多的資本，土地和勞動力等資源進入行業。然而在考慮到本國的資本，土地和勞動力等資源有限的情況下，這種傾斜是否有利於本國總體財富的增長，則仍然是可疑的。

作者認為，每個人都在追逐自己的利益最大化，而這種人人逐利的行為，客觀上卻造成了整個國家的繁榮。因此，在資源有限的情形下，市場本身可以最優化的配置資源，而國家通過設置貿易壁壘，則人為的給一些行業造成了壟斷地位，從而歪曲了市場的自由配置能力，最終可能造成整體財富的損失。在這個論述過程中，作者提出了「無形的手」這個在後面給他帶來無限聲譽的片語。

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; 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. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

又是反直覺，和另外一句名言交相輝映：通過地獄的道路往往是好心鋪設的。

另外，這裡還有一句話我覺得也值得深思，主要是前半段：

Home is in this manner the centre, if I may say so, round which the capitals of the inhabitants of every country are continually circulating, and towards which they are always tending, though, by particular causes, they may sometimes be driven off and repelled from it towards more distant employments.

這句讓我想到的是，為什麼英國和美國依然是全球的金融中心。

接著作者認為有兩種貿易壁壘是例外，是有利於國家的。第一種是出於政治目的打擊敵對國家的，比如針對航運業，禁止敵對國家的船運輸貨物，但作者依然認為這種限制不利於經濟發展，只是在政治上有利；作者這裡跨界為政治評論員；第二種是當某種特定商品在本國徵稅後，通過對外來同類產品徵收關稅的方式，讓國內外的商品有同樣的稅收負擔，保證公平競爭。作者後面又針對普遍徵收關稅的觀念進行了駁斥，不是很懂。應該會在後續論關稅里講的更詳細吧。

接著又講了貿易戰對本國的影響，很應景啊。

這裡先摘抄一段作者罵政客的一段精彩語錄。

To judge whether such retaliations are likely to produce such an effect, does not, perhaps, belong to so much to the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles, which are always the same, as to the skill of that insidious and crafty animal vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs.

When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may, no doubt, give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and, by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in home market. Those workmen however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition, will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they, and almost all the other classes of our citizens, will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country…

最後講了當關稅扭曲了市場配置後，要取消關稅卻不能操之過急，否則會引起經濟動蕩。因為過多的資源進入被保護的行業後，要撤出來需要時間。順帶又抨擊了下學徒制和英國「戶籍制度」，阻礙了勞動力的自由流動。這裡還生動闡述了什麼叫「觸及利益比觸及靈魂更難」。

The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more, if has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the great public services, can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists.