If, on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were suddenly to deteriorate, the share of nature in production would be less, that of labor greater, and the result would be higher prices.
I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomena find their solution.

As long as we fail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at _immediate_ effects, which act but upon individual men or classes of men _as producers_, we know nothing more of political economy than the quack does of medicine, when instead of following the effects of a prescription in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate and the throat.
The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves but little for labor to accomplish.

But who reaps the advantage of this liberality of Nature?
NOT THESE REGIONS, for they are forced by competition to receive remuneration simply for their labor.
It is MANKIND who is the gainer; for the result of this liberality is _cheapness_, and cheapness belongs to the world.
Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore on the surface of the soil; we have but to stoop and take them.

At first, I grant, the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance.

But soon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this gift of nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid according to the general rate of profits.
Thus, natural advantages, like improvements in the process of production, are, or have, a constant tendency to become, under the law of competition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, of society, of mankind.