menu_book Chapter 4

section four that which is seen and that which is not seen in the department of economy an act a habit an institution a law gives birth not only to an effect but to a series of effects of these effects the first only is immediate it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause it is seen the others unfold in succession they are not seen it is well for us if they are foreseen between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference the one takes account of the visible effect the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee now this difference is enormous for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable the ultimate consequences are fatal and the converse hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a present good which will be followed by a great evil to come

while the true economist pursues a great good to come at the risk of a small present evil in fact it is the same in the science of health arts and in that of morals it often happens that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is the more bitter are the consequences take for example debauchery idleness prodigality when therefore a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen he gives way to fatal habits not only by inclination but by calculation this explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind ignorance surrounds its cradle then its actions are determined by the first consequences the only ones which in its first stage it can see it is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others it has to learn this lesson from two very different masters experience and foresight

experience teaches effectually but brutally it makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action by causing us to feel them and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns if we have burned ourselves for this rough teacher i should like if possible to substitute a more gentle one i mean foresight for this purpose i shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen and those which are not seen i the broken window have you ever witnessed the anger of a good shopkeeper james b when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass if you have been present at such a scene you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators were there even thirty of them by common consent apparently offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation it is an ill wind that blows nobody good everybody must live and what would become of the glaciers if panes of glass were never broken

now this form of condolence contains an entire theory which it will be well to show up in this simple case seeing that it is precisely the same as that which unhappily regulates the greater part of our economical institutions suppose it costs six francs to repair the damage and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs i grant it i have not a word to say against it you reason justly the glazier comes performs his task receives his six francs rubs his hand and in his heart blesses the careless child all this is that which is seen but if on the other hand you come to the conclusion as is too often the case that it is a good thing to break windows that it causes money to circulate and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it you will oblige me to call out stop there your theory is confined to that which is seen it takes no account of that which is not seen it is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing he cannot spend them upon another

it is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace he would perhaps have replaced his old shoes or added another book to his library in short he would have employed his six francs in some way this accident has prevented let us take a view of industry in general as affected by this circumstance the window being broken the glacier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs this is that which is seen if the window had not been broken the shoemaker's trade or some other would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs this is that which is not seen and if that which is not seen is taken into consideration because it is a negative fact as well as that which is seen because it is a positive fact it will be understood that neither industry in general nor the sum total of national labour is affected whether windows are broken or not

now let us consider james b himself in the former supposition that of the window being broken he spends six francs and has neither more nor less than he had before the enjoyment of a window in the second where we suppose the window not to have been broken he would have spent six francs in shoes and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window now as james b forms a part of society we must come to the conclusion that taking it altogether and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours it has lost the value of a broken window whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end to break to spoil to waste is not to encourage national labor or more briefly destruction is not profit what will you say moniteur industriel what will you say disciples of good m f

who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of paris from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild i am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation but i beg him to begin them again by taking into account that which is not seen and placing it alongside of that which is seen the reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only but three concerned in the little scene which i have submitted to his attention one of them james b represents the consumer reduced by an act of destruction to one enjoyment instead of two another under the title of the glazier shows us the producer whose trade is encouraged by the accident the third is the shoemaker or some other tradesman whose labor suffers proportionably by the same cause it is this third person who is always kept in the shade and who personating that which is not seen is a necessary element of the problem

it is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction it is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction which is after all nothing else than a partial destruction therefore if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying what would become of the glaciers if nobody ever broke windows two the disbanding of troops it is the same with a people as it is with a man if it wishes to give itself some gratification it naturally considers whether it is worth what it costs to a nation security is the greatest of advantages if in order to obtain it it is necessary to have an army of a hundred thousand men i have nothing to say against it it is an enjoyment bought by a sacrifice let me not be misunderstood upon the extent of my position a member of the assembly proposes to disband a hundred thousand men for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of a hundred millions

if we confine ourselves to this answer the hundred millions of men and these hundred millions of money are indispensable to the national security it is a sacrifice but without this sacrifice france would be torn by factions or invaded by some foreign power i have nothing to object to this argument which may be true or false in fact but which theoretically contains nothing which militates against economy the error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody now i am very much mistaken if the moment the author of the proposal has taken his seat some orator will not rise and say disband a hundred thousand men do you know what you are saying what will become of them where will they get a living don't you know that work is scarce everywhere that every field is overstocked would you turn them out of doors to increase competition and to weigh upon the rate of wages just now when it is a hard matter to live at all it would be a pretty thing if the state must find bread for a hundred thousand individuals

consider besides that the army consumes wine arms clothing that it promotes the activity of manufacturers and garrison towns that it is in short the godsend of innumerable purveyors why any one must tremble at the bare idea of doing away with this immense industrial movement this discourse it is evident concludes by voting the maintenance of a hundred thousand soldiers for reasons drawn from the necessity of the service and from economical considerations it is these considerations only that i have to refute a hundred thousand men costing the taxpayers a hundred millions of money live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred millions can supply this is that which is seen but a hundred million taken from the pockets of the taxpayers cease to maintain these taxpayers and the purveyors as far as a hundred millions reach this is that which is not seen now make your calculations cast up and tell me what profit there is for the masses i will tell you where the loss lies

and to simplify it instead of speaking of a hundred thousand men and a million of money it shall be of one man and a thousand francs we will suppose that we are in the village of a the recruiting sergeants go there round and take off a man the tax-gatherers go their rounds and take off a thousand francs the man and the sum of money are taken to metz and the latter is destined to support the former for a year without doing anything if you consider metz only you are quite right the measure is a very advantageous one but if you look towards the village of a you will judge very differently for unless you are very blind indeed you will see that that village has lost a worker and the thousand francs which would remunerate his labour as well as the activity which by the expenditure of those thousand francs it would spread around it at first sight there would seem to be some compensation what took place at the village now takes place at metz that is all but the loss is to be estimated in this way

at the village a man dug and worked he was a worker at metz he turns to the right about and to the left about he is a soldier the money and the circulation are the same in both cases but in the one there were three hundred days of productive labor in the other there are three hundred days of unproductive labor supposing of course that a part of the army is not indispensable to the public safety now suppose the disbanding to take place you tell me there will be a surplus of a hundred thousand workers that competition will be stimulated and it will reduce the rate of wages this is what you see but what you do not see is this you do not see that to dismiss a hundred thousand soldiers is not to do away with a million of money but to return it to the taxpayers you do not see that to throw a hundred thousand workers on the market is to throw into it at the same moment the hundred millions of money needed to pay for their labor that consequently the same act which increases the supply of hands increases also the demand

from which it follows that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfounded you do not see that before the disbanding as well as after it there are in the country a hundred millions of money corresponding with the hundred thousand men that the whole difference consists in this before the disbanding the country gave the hundred millions to the hundred thousand men for doing nothing and that after it it pays them the same sum for working you do not see in short that when a tax-payer gives his money either to a soldier in exchange for nothing or to a worker in exchange for something all the ultimate consequences of the circulation of this money are the same in these two cases only in the second case the tax-payer receives something in the former he receives nothing the result is a dead loss to the nation the sophism which i am here combating will not stand the test of progression which is the touchstone of principles

if when every compensation is made and all interests satisfied there is a national profit in increasing the army why not enroll under its banners the entire male population of the country three taxes have you never chanced to hear it said there is no better investment than taxes only see what a number of families it maintains and consider how it reacts upon industry it is an inexhaustible stream it is life itself in order to combat this doctrine i must refer to my preceding refutation political economy knew well enough that its arguments were not so amusing that it could be said of them repetitions please it has therefore turned the proverb to its own use well convinced that in its mouth repetitions teach the advantages which officials advocate are those which are seen the benefit which accrues to the providers is still that which is seen this blinds all eyes but the disadvantages which the taxpayers have to get rid of are those which are not seen

and the injury which results from it to the providers is still that which is not seen although this ought to be self-evident when an official spends for his own profit an extra hundred sous it implies that a tax-payer spends for his profit a hundred sous less but the expense of the official is seen because the act is performed while that of the tax-payer is not seen because alas he is prevented from performing it you compare the nation perhaps to a parched track of land and the tax to a fertilizing rain be it so but you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up again you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation

there is one thing very certain that when james b counts out a hundred sous for the tax-gatherer he receives nothing in return afterwards when an official spends these hundred sous and returns them to james b it is for an equal value in corn or labour the final result is a loss to james b of five francs it is very true that often perhaps very often the official performs for james b an equivalent service in this case there is no loss on either side there is merely an exchange therefore my arguments do not at all apply to useful functionaries all i say is if you wish to create an office prove its utility show that its value to james b by the service which it performs for him is equal to what it costs him but apart from this intrinsic utility do not bring forward as an argument the benefit which it confers upon the official his family and his providers

do not assert that it encourages labour when james b gives a hundred sous to a government officer for a really useful service it is exactly the same as when he gives a hundred sous to a shoemaker for a pair of shoes but when james b gives a hundred sous to a government officer and receives nothing for them unless it be annoyances he might as well give them to a thief it is nonsense to say that the government officer will spend these hundred sous to the great profit of national labour the thief would do the same and so would james b if he had not been stopped on the road by the extra-legal parasite nor by the lawful sponger let us accustom ourselves then to avoid judging of things by what is seen only but to judge of them by that which is not seen last year i was on the committee of finance for under the constituency the members of the opposition were not systematically excluded from all the commissions

in that the constituency acted wisely we have heard m thierre say i have passed my life in opposing the legitimist party and the priest party since the common danger has brought us together now that i associate with them and know them and now that we speak face to face i have found out that they are not the monsters i used to imagine them yes distrust is exaggerated hatred is fostered among parties who never mix and if the majority would allow the minority to be present at the commissions it would perhaps be discovered that the ideas of the different sides are not so far removed from each other and above all that their intentions are not so perverse as is supposed however last year i was on the committee of finance every time that one of our colleagues spoke of fixing at a moderate figure the maintenance of the president of the republic that of the ministers and of the ambassadors it was answered for the good of the service it is necessary to surround certain officers with splendour and dignity as a means of attracting men of merit to them

a vast number of unfortunate persons apply to the president of the republic and it would be placing him in a very painful position to oblige him to be constantly refusing them a certain style in the ministerial saloons is a part of the machinery of constitutional governments although such arguments may be controverted they certainly deserve a serious examination they are based upon the public interest whether rightly estimated or not and as far as i am concerned i have much more respect for them than many of our catos have who are actuated by a narrow spirit of parsimony or of jealousy but what revolts the economical part of my conscience and makes me blush for the intellectual resources of my country is when this absurd relic of feudalism is brought forward which it constantly is and it is favourably received too besides the luxury of great government officers encourages the arts industry and labor the heads of the state and his ministers cannot give banquets and soirees without causing life to circulate through all the veins of the social body

to reduce their means would starve parisian industry and consequently that of the whole nation i must beg you gentlemen to pay some little regard to arithmetic at least and not to say before the national assembly in france lest to its shame it should agree with you that in addition gives a different sum according to whether it is added from the bottom to the top or from the top to the bottom of the column for instance i want to agree with a drainer to make a trench in my field for a hundred sous just as we have concluded our arrangement the tax-gatherer comes takes my hundred sous and sends them to the minister of the interior my bargain is at end but the minister will have another dish added to his table upon what ground will you dare to affirm that this official expense helps the national industry do you not see that in this there is only reversing of satisfaction and labor a minister has his table better covered it is true but it is just as true that an agriculturist has his field worse drained a parisian tavern-keeper has gained a hundred sous i grant you but then you must grant me that a drainer has been prevented from gaining five francs

it all comes to this that the official and the tavern-keeper being satisfied is that which is seen the field undrained and the drainer deprived of his job is that which is not seen dear me how much trouble there is in proving that two and two make four and if you succeed in proving it it is said the thing is so plain it is quite tiresome and they voted as if you had proved nothing at all End of section 4. Recording by Katie Riley. February 2010.