投资 · 西方古典
弗雷德里克·巴斯夏：经济诡辩·摘录 254
弗雷德里克·巴斯夏《经济诡辩》· Economic Sophisms · 投资
Thus far we see that M. de Saint-Cricq has the best of the argument; that the value of raw materials, like that of manufactured commodities, represents the cost of production, that is to say, the labour worked up in them; that it is not possible to conceive of a product possessing value, which has had no human labour bestowed on it; that the distinction made by the petitioners is futile in theory; that, as the basis of an unequal distribution of favours, it would be iniquitous in practice, since the result would be that one-third of our countrymen, who happened to be engaged in manufactures, would obtain the advantages of monopoly, on the alleged ground that they produce by labour, whilst the other two-thirds--namely, the agricultural population--would be abandoned to competition under the pretext that they produce without labour.
出处：
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44145
定位：Excerpt 254 · 核对日期：2026-10-19 · 核验：短摘录
白话
至此，巴斯夏认为圣克里克先生占理：原料和工业品的价值都代表生产成本，即凝结的劳动；不可能想象有价值却无人类劳动的产品；请愿者的区分在理论上无用，在实践中作为不平等优待的基础更不公正。因为结果会是：三分之一从事制造业的同胞以“生产靠劳动”为由获得垄断优势，而三分之二农业人口以“生产不靠劳动”为借口被抛入竞争。这显然偏袒一方。
上下文
巴斯夏引用圣克里克的观点，批评请愿者要求对工业品保护、对原料自由进口的双重标准，指出其不公。
今日一问
你支持的某项政策，是否在无意中给某些群体特权，而让另一些群体承担代价？
公版作品；原文逐字取自 Project Gutenberg，仅摘录段落并附全书链接。
你的邮箱
只用于发送原典。不发广告，不卖名单。
本文本为公版；底本与原文链接见上。 版权