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.  Countries, therefore, which do not enjoy these advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the exchanges of commerce are between labor and labor, subtraction being made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors; and it is evidently the most favored countries which can incorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these natural advantages.  Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense; in other words, is cheaper.  If then all the liberality of Nature results in cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming country, which profits by her benefits.

Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, which rejects produce precisely because it is cheap.  It is as though we should say:  “We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you.  You ask of us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with produce only attainable at home by an effort equal to four.  You can do it because with you Nature does half the work.  But we will have nothing to do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more inclement, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we can treat with you upon an equal footing!”