"There remains an income of twenty-six thousand francs due to the personal talents given him by Nature." (Say,--as above quoted.) Reasoning from this premise, Say concludes that our physician's talent is equivalent to a capital of two hundred and sixty thousand francs.
This skilful calculator mistakes a consequence for a principle.

The talent must not be measured by the gain, but rather the gain by the talent; for it may happen, that, notwithstanding his merit, the physician in question will gain nothing at all, in which case will it be necessary to conclude that his talent or fortune is equivalent to zero?
To such a result, however, would Say's reasoning lead; a result which is clearly absurd.
Now, it is impossible to place a money value on any talent whatsoever, since talent and money have no common measure.

On what plausible ground can it be maintained that a physician should be paid two, three, or a hundred times as much as a peasant?
An unavoidable difficulty, which has never been solved save by avarice, necessity, and oppression.

It is not thus that the right of talent should be determined.

But how is it to be determined?
4.