I send for a workman; he brings a saw with him; I pay him two dollars for his day's labor, and he saws me twenty-five boards.

If the saw had not been invented, he would perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would none the less have paid him for his day's labor.

The _usefulness_, then, of the saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather, is a portion of the inheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I have received from the genius of my ancestors.

I have two workmen in my field; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade.

The result of their day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the [time, and] labor given to attain it.
I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I have not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportioned to the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, but to the [time and] labor required for their production._[B] [Footnote B: It is true that [time and] labor do not receive a uniform remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous, skilful, &c., [and time more or less valuable.] Competition establishes for each category a price current: and it is of this variable price that I speak.] I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go on to speak of natural advantages.
In every article of production, nature and man must concur.