CHAPTER I.
PLENTY AND SCARCITY.
Which is better for man and for society--abundance or scarcity?
What! Can such a question be asked?
Has it ever been pretended, is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is better than plenty?
Yes: not only has it been maintained, but it is still maintained.
Congress says so; many of the newspapers (now happily diminishing in number) say so; a large portion of the public say so; indeed, the _city theory_ is by far the more popular one of the two.
Has not Congress passed laws which prohibit the importation of foreign productions by the maintenance of excessive duties?
Does not the _Tribune_ maintain that it is advantageous to limit the supply of iron manufactures and cotton fabrics, by restraining any one from bringing them to market, but the manufacturers in New England and Pennsylvania?
Do we not hear it complained every day: Our importations are too large; We are buying too much from abroad?
Is there not an Association of Ladies, who, though they have not kept their promise, still, promised each other not to wear any clothing which was manufactured in other countries?
Now tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goods offered for sale.

Therefore, statesmen, editors, and the public generally, believe that scarcity is better than abundance.
But why is this; why should men be so blind as to maintain that scarcity is better than plenty?
Because they look at _price_, but forget _quantity_.
But let us see.
A man becomes rich in proportion to the remunerative nature of his labor; that is to say, _in proportion as he sells his produce at a high price_.

The price of his produce is high in proportion to its scarcity.

It is plain, then, that, so far as regards him at least, scarcity enriches him.

Applying, in turn, this manner of reasoning to each class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deduced from it.