I'm utterly delighted to have just found on line a pdf version of Henry Martyn's 1701 pamphlet Considerations on the East-India Trade. This work was first brought to my attention by Doug Irwin's indispensable book Against the Tide (1996). Doug quotes much from Martyn and even suggests that Martyn's "analytical contribution to the case for free trade" might surpass even that of Adam Smith.
It's only now, though, that I found Martyn's pamphlet. I will read it ASAP.
Here's one of my favorites of the Martyn quotations appearing in Doug's book:
Things may be imported from India by fewer hands than as good wou'd be made in England; so that to permit the Consumption of Indian Manufactures, is to permit the loss of few Men's labour… a Law to restrain us to use only English Manufactures, is to oblige us to make them first, is to oblige us to provide for our Consumption by the labour of many, what might as well be done by that of few; is to oblige us to consume the labour of many when that of few might be sufficient.
….
If the same Work is done by one, which was done before by three; if the other two are forc'd to sit still, the Kingdom got nothing before by the Labour of the two, and therefore loses nothing by their sitting still.
….
If the same Work is done by one, which was done before by three; if the other two are forc'd to sit still, the Kingdom got nothing before by the Labour of the two, and therefore loses nothing by their sitting still.
(This quotation is found on page 57 of Doug's book, but it is quoted here as it appears in the on-line version of Martyn's pamphlet.)
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 27 comments }
What they got was an economy with full employment instead of having to tax the rich to feed the people who can't find jobs.
At some point, that has to be addressed.
We are seeing it now. Even the employed households are tapped out, and with stagnant wages, the paradox of thrift sets in. You can't extend credit to tapped out people.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Don. I'm surprised Martyn is not quoted more often.
I suppose Martyn figured that the workers who became unemployed as a result of Indians doing the work instead could always enter the priesthood like he did. It may have been the case that more Indians were employed to do the same work as the Britishers formerly did, but that they were paid far less. Martyn doesn't express an opinion on that, I guess. Martyn may have liked the idea high unemployment because it gave him a chance to moralize about the evils of idleness, and the godliness of austere, ascetic living. As a self-interested man of the cloth he would need a flock of parishioners to minister to – the needier the better to have their souls saved. Just wait until his congregation dumped Cristianity for Hinduism. Martyn would have to get retrained as a swami or risk being one of the unemployed, idle loafers that he likely condemned to hell.
I find it kind of tragic that you have to dig the bottom of the barrel to find obsure "economists" that say something that excites you, basically a reaffirmation of your way of thinking. Are you trying to start a Martyn fan club? You may have more luck forming a My Favorite Martian retro 60's geeky fan club. I would gladly join that club.
Instead of saying "aw those poor workers either lose their jobs or have to work for less" – why not try "those bastards were tricking me in providing 'make-work' employement or were way overcharging me for their labour"? This also raises the question of "what is the point of trade unions anyway?" Don't they just jack up the price of labour through the threat of force and to say that "as long as it's a voluntary-joined group and employers can ignore them" is akin to saying "as long as it's a voluntary-joined invasion army and the would-be 'invadees' can tell the would-be invaders to 'bugger off' and they would actually do so."
Still the problem of offshoring to find cheap labour is merely the problem of trade unions and employment regulations. If the West were a free market economy then wages would naturally fall in a way there'd be not incentive to offshore.
P.S. That was a pretty funny post, Trumpit.
"Still the problem of offshoring to find cheap labour is merely the problem of trade unions and employment regulations. If the West were a free market economy then wages would naturally fall in a way there'd be not incentive to offshore."
But watch how much companies end up paying in taxes as this recession drags out. Persistent high unemployment takes its toll. You can't get around that. You either have employment that pays a living wage, or you have a dysfunctional economy.
Quote from K Ackermann: "Persistent high unemployment takes its toll. You can't get around that. You either have employment that pays a living wage, or you have a dysfunctional economy."
What exactly is a living wage? I think the economy is only dysfunctional in that you don't like the outcomes.
Labor markets follow the same supply and demand rules as all markets. When wages are set artificially high, the result is decreased demand (i.e., unemployment). It is an economic fact and not liking it will not change it.
geoih, we just argued the same thing. I came at from the perspective of favoring a person, and you a company. That's all.
"What exactly is a living wage? I think the economy is only dysfunctional in that you don't like the outcomes."
Yeah problem of creating a productive system whereby everyone has a decent pay is still elusive.
K Ackerman-
The market favors neither the company nor the person. Wage agreements reached in a free labor market are not coerced which means that both parties freely accept the deal.
That's not the same as saying that each party wishes they got a better deal – just a deal that was acceptable.
K Ackerman,
"I came at from the perspective of favoring a person, and you a company. That's all."
You came at it from the perspective of favoring an unemployed person, and he favored an employed person, the people who invested in the company and the people who buy the products they produce.
"Economizing on Resource Use, Including the Use of Labor, Is Key to Prosperity"
Absolutely! If you are the head of an a multi-national. But some how a basic look around at our economy has me asking, " Are we prospering yet?" Where's those great real world results? I know you like what you've read in the pamphlet but look out the window at the real world.
Also the idea that it takes 3 Americans to be as productive as 1 Chinese worker is exactly the opposite of what's happening.
Again William Grieder speaks to the hypocrisy of he idea that exploiting labor is the same as increasing productivity. It's not. " The great multinationals are unwilling to face the moral and economic contradictions of their own behavior – producing in low-wage dictatorships and selling to high-wage democracies. Indeed, the striking quality about global enterprises is how easily free-market capitalism puts aside its supposed values in order to do business. The conditions of human freedom do not matter to them so long as the market demand is robust. The absence of freedom, if anything, lends order and efficiency to their operations."
William G
As for a living wage, well, enough money to feed a family, send a kid to college, and keep everyone healthy.
Less than that, and the 3rd world is drawing us closer instead of the other way around.
Where's the Vision!™
.
Who the hell is William Greider?
Greider is a journalist who has written for The Nation, Washington Post, and Rolling Stone. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about his credentials as an economic analyst well…
As far as that quote, the duck trots it out about twice a week as though it proves anything about corporations and free market economics. It does not. Its the rambling BS of a crank. Ignore it.
Muirgeo,
This is at least the third time you have repeated the same quote from William Greider. It does not get any better with repetition.
People are more or less free in various countries around the world. Their freedom is constrained by their governments in favor of special interests. Unfortunately, perfect freedom to do business and trade freely does not exist anywhere.
Entrepreneurs, whether in China or the US, will work within and around those constraints to make a living by trade. Doing business with those in countries less free than ours does not require putting aside free market values. To the contrary, it embraces those values.
The entrepreneur in China or other "low wage dictatorships" is looking to sell to the highest bidder. It is no surprise that the highest bidder often comes to him from "high wage democracies."
The idea that this trade is the result of some sort of planned exploitation by "global enterprises" displays ignorance of the tens of thousands of organizations and individuals involved in making these transactions possible.
Your quote from William Greider is nonsense. He speaks as if he values freedom but it seems that he would like to put additional constraints on entrepreneurs throughout the world. He would thereby make everyone less free and poorer.
K Ackerman-
Regarding that living wage:
How many kids?
What colleges?
Do you drink wine with dinner? Imported or domestic?
How many cars would you like?
What type of house would you like? Oceanfront or lakefront?
Just email your requirements and we will tailor your compensation accordingly.
I can't wait to hire you!
Your future employer
The Indians and the like probably use more hands than we "the civilised world" would.
Each pair of hands just gets paid a 10th of what we would.
That is a wonderful quote. But at the same time, it is a little depressing to realize that the common understanding does not seem to have improved much over the dozen generations since then.
"I suppose Martyn figured that the workers who became unemployed as a result of Indians doing the work instead could always enter the priesthood like he did."
Some questions for you:
Where do jobs come from, or why do they exist at all?
How many possible jobs are there?
One more: Who owes you a job?
Quote from K Ackermann: "geoih, we just argued the same thing. I came at from the perspective of favoring a person, and you a company. That's all."
It has nothing to do with perspective. You're ignoring the facts. Wages (prices) artificially raised higher than what employers (buyers) will pay (because it isn't productive) only results in more supply than demand (unemployment). When you succeed in changing that fact, let us know.
Quote from K Ackermann: "As for a living wage, well, enough money to feed a family, send a kid to college, and keep everyone healthy"
A classic example of somebody spending somebody else's money. I suggest you hire these people at whatever this "living wage" might be. Demanding that others do it simply makes you a hypocrite, or worse a thug (or at least a supporter of thugs).
A classic example of somebody spending somebody else's money
If I work for the money, how is it somebody elses?
Are you saying that no matter what my compensation is, it will always be too much?
I do not understand how wanting to feed a family and send a kid to college is spending someone elses money. Do you not want the same things?
I do not understand how wanting to feed a family and send a kid to college is spending someone elses money. Do you not want the same things?
Of course, that depends on whether you are productive enough to feed your family and send a kid to college.
It is indeed our good fortune to live in a time where the production of food is so much higher than even a century ago.
Aw, come on, admit it – wages don't come just from productivity but are also (and mainly) determined by how easy or hard it is to find someone else to replace you. Productivity is asking "Do you have skills that we want?" Marginal worth is asking "Why should we pay you $10 per hour when this other guy will do the same work for $5 per hour."
P.S. Complaints about minimum wage comes about from the fact that employers want to pay less than the minimum wage. I can't employers getting worked up over a minimum wage of 1 cent per hour.
. . . I can't imagine employers . . .
Quote from K Ackermann: "If I work for the money, how is it somebody elses?"
When you plunder my money, either through taxes or regulations (like a "living wage"). If you wish to give somebody a "living wage", then give it with your money and leave everybody elses money alone.
Quote from K Ackermann: "Are you saying that no matter what my compensation is, it will always be too much?"
No, that's what you're saying. You feel free to make and spend whatever you like, however you like. Just let everybody else do the same.
Quote from K Ackermann: "I do not understand how wanting to feed a family and send a kid to college is spending someone elses money. Do you not want the same things?"
Because those things are not free. If you wish somebody to eat or go to college, then you pay for it. Don't expect other people to pay for somebody's food or college or whatever through government coercion (taxes, regulations, etc.). That's simply theft by the majority.
{ 4 trackbacks }