Analogy will show us, that under the influences of an unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be produced in every portion of the world; and if any nation were induced to entirely abandon the cultivation of it, this would only be because it would _be her interest_ to otherwise employ her lands, her capital, and her labor.

And why does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one?
Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, _a self-levelling power_, which seems to escape the attention of the school of protectionists.

They accuse us of being theoretic, but it is themselves who are so to a supreme degree, if the being theoretic consists in building up systems upon the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the experience of a series of facts.

In the above example, it is the difference in the value of lands which compensates for the difference in their fertility.

Your field produces three times as much as mine.
Yes.