"The upshot of your so-called science is this, that you increase the wealth of a nation by increasing in it the quantity of things which are produced by labour: no matter what they are, no matter how produced, no matter how distributed. [...] Now, I say, if this be so, riches are not the object for a community to aim at. I say, the nation is best off, in relation to other nations, which has the greatest quantity of the common necessaries of life distributed among the greatest number of persons; which has the greatest number of honest hearts and stout arms united in a common interest, willing to offend no one, but ready to fight in defence of their own community against all the rest of the world, because they have something in it worth fighting for. The moment you admit that one class of things, without any reference to what they respectively cost, is better worth having than another; that a smaller commercial value, with one mode of distribution, is better than a greater commercial value, with another mode of distribution; the whole of that curious fabric of postulates and dogmas, which you call the science of political economy, and which I call politicæ oeconomiæ inscientia, tumbles to pieces."
Reverend Doctor Folliott
Member for 3 years, 11 months
42 profile views
Last seen Oct 20 '17 at 14:09
Top Network Posts
- 110 How to change y axis range to percent (%) from number in barplot with R
- 83 How to miss my own stag/bachelor party?
- 79 How is no password more secure than username+password?
- 70 Why doesn’t every company and individual use tax-havens to pay less taxes?
- 67 Can I give flowers to a feminist as a present for hosting a party?
- 58 Should I monetarily reward the person who found my phone?
- 47 Why does the UK Labour Party support Brexit?
- View more network posts →