The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-02-26

and it has cheaper and batter wool, fol
otherwise the sheep owners would no
have been compelled to go out of WOO
raising. Conversely, defy any one &c
show that the wealth of the country car
be increased without increasing the
wealth of one or more Of its inhabit-
ants; for the wealth of the nation q t
large is simply the aggregate wealth oil
its citizens. Ii the wool men can dc
nothing but raise sheep, and will refuse
to go out of this bushes because uu-
profitable, then. and only then, will
they lose anything. and simply because
of their own stupidity.
But go a step further, and assert
that when we pay $l00, 0O0, 900 to sheep
men for wool, they are not 500 900 200
richer bv that circumstance, Mr..
Thompson to the contrary, notwith-
standing. 1t must have cost them
most of this amount 10 produce the
wool, and they are richer to just this
extent of the difference between cost
and price. Mr.. Thompson says. 1--WE
would have its value in wool just the
same and we would have the money
also; therefore, 1 say there would be
that much saved to the country. or,
rather, that much lost to the country
each year if we import our wool in
stead or growing 1t ourselves" Ii the
country is that much richer, where has
the extra richness come from? The
money has simply changed hands.
The only thing the wool-growers have
done is that they have stopped pro-
ducing wheat, cattle, horses, etc., and
have produced wool instead; and the
only gain to the whole country or to
themselves, if, indeed, there is any
gain, is the TACT that their wool is
| worth more than their former products.
l know men in this city, however.
who have Withdrawn their capital from
various other industries and have in
vested it in sheep instead, and some of
them say they have lost by it.
But should Mr.. Thompson refuse to
follow up his rather ambiguous argu =
ment to its legitimate conclusion, and
insist that even though the sheep
owners, who received the money, are
not that much richer, but that the
country at large is. desire no easier q
PROPOSITION to refute than this is. 1t
Will cost any person exactly as much TO
get 81 back from the sheep man as it
costs TO get new dollar from the mint,
or dollar from abroad, or dollar in
gold or silver from the mines. Money,
| SGiCU. Is COuSuIu6u cdCu tlulb IL 10
spent; it cannot be spent twice by the
same owner until he again pays fall
value for it. The fact that money re-
mains in the co lntry is advantageot at
some times, and then only as matter
of convenience. Ii any person could be
compelled to keep his money, he might
as well be without it altogether. and it
would be Just as ruinous for Utah to
keep the gold and silver she produces,
as i: would be for 3 miner to do So
And it matters not whether Utah digs
the money from the earth. or exchanges
other products for it; in both cases she
may be said to have produced the money !;
that is. money in the earth and els a.
| where is OF no use until one possesses it.,
| and whoever accomplshes this, whether
b. mining, agriculture, or manufac-
ture, makes himself (and, incidentally,
the country also, richer. But NO sooner
does he get the money than he invests
it, showing that he does not want the
money, but the things that he can get
with it. He therefore buys other pro-
ducts with his own products or
labor, and the money is only
convenient means bv which the ex-
change is effected. Money disappears
from every commercial transaction
products are bought with products. To
Import foreign goods. therefore. is to
create foreign market for our pro-
ducts. .-.--------
Mr.. Thompson says: What is MOS
scarce in our country is cash, and the
tree trader would have US ship this ar
tlole out of the country, and import
something 70 its stead that the country
!is alFs'.Iy flooded with" Apart from
pe absurdity that we are likely to "im-
port something the country is already
flooded with" is the fact that money
is not scarce in this country. The
. various banks of Utah have large
} amounts to loan on approved seGuri-
ties: and if money is scarce at all, that
scarcity is due to the scarcity Of our
products. Money may always be had
when We have an abundance of staple
products to offer in exchange for it.
In the abstract, Mr.. Thompson's pro-
position is simply this: whoever sells
for money enriches the country to the
exact amount he gets for the article he
sells; but whoever sends out monsy, no
matter if he gets twice its worth in re-
turn, robs the country of all the money
he thus disposes of. 1t is a great dis
covery he has made; and if he could
| OAiy SO1 PCOH1C W DCllcto IL, Lu6 COIL
merce OF the globe might be revolution
lied.
Itwould be cruel to pursue this in
vestigation of Mr.. Thompson's logic
much further, but for the benefit Of
class of readers who are interested in
this discussion, l now quote from a
more elementary work than before, and
perhaps the remarks will penetrate
even Mr.. Thompson's Uranium:
"This popular opinion is, perhaps, q
survival of the old belief that wealth
consists in money, belief which led
the English Parliament in the times of
the Tudors, to prohibit the export of
gold from the country on the pain of
death.
"AlI trade, foreign and domestic, is
Individual; for nations do not make
exchanges. In fair exchanges, both
parties are benefited; and this is as
true in trade across the seas as across
the street. When foreign trade ceases
to be profitable to our merchants, they
will doubtless abandon it, and if it is
profitable to them, 1t is difficult to see
why it is not also profitable to the
country.
'If an American trader sends to Eng.
land o 90 IF rr-ha