WCP2624

[1]

July 1: 1879

My dear Sir,

Forgive me, I beg: but I must reply again that you fail totally to grasp the truth that all trade is an exchange of goods for goods, and that to whatever export England buys from abroad she sells to abroad. She does not grow gold in her fields: if she buys with gold, some one must have sold her gold for her goods. Your letter¹ does not touch this [2] truth: nay it utterly ignores it.

[Three words illeg.]

2: F: D stronger in old Euclid.

The remark about investments referred to the inequality between exports and imports. England's imports consist of two parts: trade-imports, of equal for equal, and payment of non-trade debt, paid in goods. The former part here enters into our discussion.

No doubt under free trade "it is certain" that our means backing may be largely sup [3] planted by foreign goods if they are cheaper: and right good for both sides it is [illeg.] it shd. be so. But then other manufactures will be made in England to ^buy those foreign goods with: and there is no loss of employment for labour and capital. Here comes the gain cheaper goods — which means more wealth produ created & the same cost of production.

I do not touch upon the question of the transition [4] period from manufacturers which, free trade says, ought to cease to other manufacturers to supply their plan. That is the statesmen's affair. I do not at all ignore that a great loss of fixed capital might be incurred: but that is outside of our argument. [illeg.] debating on what principle trade should be funded, hypothetically upon the basis that no decision has yet been [5] taken. If industries have been [illeg.] up, which can produce only dearer goods, it is no argument that they must continue on down the ages, because simply that they exist and have been built up at much cost. How to supersede them, I repeat is the task of [6] the statesman.

On your proposal I shall read with much interest your reply in the 19th century.

Yrs very faith^y | B Price² [signature]