Now, although this falling off in production has occurred in one group only, the loss which results from it is felt by the entire community.

The total output has sunk from sixty loaves to forty; and the members of the group which retains its old efficiency, no less than those of the group which has lost so much of it, have to be content, with a dividend, not of three loaves, but two.

Finally, let us suppose that, owing to a continued deterioration in management, the ten men of whom the first group is composed are able to produce daily, not ten loaves, but only five.

That is to say, the number of loaves which they produce comes to no more than half of the minimum they are obliged to eat.

Here it is obvious that, unless one-half of the population is to die, it can only be kept alive by being given a supply of loaves which, in consequence of its own inefficiency, must be taken out of the mouths of others.
[11] A similar drama enacted itself in London more than two centuries ago.