The name is absent



624


THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL


being as 10 to 20. Similarly OS in the figure, the tangent of
SOX being τ⅛, and the cost of the production of linen com-
paratively with that of cloth in England being as 10 to- 1,
represents those states of trade in which England would be no
better off than if there were no foreign trade. The determination
of the point of equilibrium involves what may be called ‘ the
comparative utility of the commodities x and y to the consumers
in B ’ [our ‘ England ’] ; in the same sense, I think, whether
‘ B is able to produce y at the amount of 15 per unit of pro-
ductive power . . . [15 of linen at the same cost of 10 of
cloth] or can only win from its own resources a very small
amount, say 1 y for each unit ’ [1 of linen at the same cost as
10 of cloth],

I do not understand the difficulty raised by Cournot1 to which
Professor Bastable makes reply in the passage just referred to in
quite the same sense as Professor Bastable. Cournot’s difficulty
is only, I think, that which Professor Bastable considers at his
p. 44 : the difficulty of understanding Mill’s rule for the division
of the gain by trade. As I have already pointed out,2 Cournot
hits an inaccuracy on a very plausible interpretation of Mill ; on
any interpretation, an inelegancy. I do not understand Professor
Bastable’s reply at the latter passage3 to Cournot.

The relation of import to export duties is another point with
respect to which the Ricardian and the mathematical methods
lead to somewhat different results. The ‘ kind of symmetry,’ the
‘ parallelism,’ which Professor Bastable predicates in his paper on
The Incidents and Effects of Import and Export Duties, is not in
conformity with the propositions which I have attempted to prove.4
The symmetry in the action of the two kinds of taxes leads, ac-
cording to Professor Bastable, to a marked discrepancy in their
results. Eor ‘ the essential point of difference is that the export
duty affects a limited area of production, the import one a limited
area of consumption ; ’5 and since, as a, matter of fact, the area of
production is much more frequently limited than the area of con-
sumption,6 ‘ it would therefore appear that it is almost impossible
to tax foreigners by the instrumentality of duties on imports.’
This conclusion is at variance with that which has been above
deduced from first principles. Provided that the area of pro-

1 Principes de la théorie des richesses, 1863, pp. 344, 345.

2 Above, p. 609.

3 International Trade, p. 44, note.

4 See ante, pp. 434, 435.

5 Incidents and Effects, p. 4, note.

6 International Trade, p. 114 and context.



More intriguing information

1. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
2. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. LIMITS OF PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
7. The name is absent
8. Two-Part Tax Controls for Forest Density and Rotation Time
9. Who runs the IFIs?
10. Parent child interaction in Nigerian families: conversation analysis, context and culture
11. Learning-by-Exporting? Firm-Level Evidence for UK Manufacturing and Services Sectors
12. Geography, Health, and Demo-Economic Development
13. THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: COMPUTER USE, BASIC SKILLS AND EMPLOYMENT
14. The Demand for Specialty-Crop Insurance: Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard
15. Monetary Policy News and Exchange Rate Responses: Do Only Surprises Matter?
16. The name is absent
17. Foreign direct investment in the Indian telecommunications sector
18. Reconsidering the value of pupil attitudes to studying post-16: a caution for Paul Croll
19. Ultrametric Distance in Syntax
20. Announcement effects of convertible bond loans versus warrant-bond loans: An empirical analysis for the Dutch market