1
an immediate impetus; by their deep poverty “ submissive ser-vants ” were formed from the working classes. In fact, competitionbetween the workers in such times caused cheap wages. Whenleft to itself, development moved in a circle. Cheap pricesinduced laziness; this, in turn, want and dearness; the latterindustry and abundance. If, on the other hand, by wise govern-mental regulations high prices of food could be permanentlyfixed, it would also enforce application to be constant, and therebya permanent surplus of production would be attained, whichcreates the opportunity for the conquest of foreign markets.
Therefore, let it be the duty of the King to keep the price ofwheat high by the re-introduction of bounties or export-premiums (8).
II. There had already arisen during the last century, inopposition hereto, defenders of cheap food, especially opposers ofthe artificial raising of prices. The first defender of this stand-point, as far as I know, is Josiah Child , as early as 1693. Heattacks the custom of fixing remuneration, which was made inthe interest for low wages. This was possible as long as England was not a country with handicrafts. At that juncture, however,low wages must cause the emigration of the cleverest artisans tobetter-paying countries, as already, indeed, numerous English seamen had withdrawn to Holland (9).
More in detail Jacob Vanderlint advances the same view in“ Money Answers all Things ” (London , 1734). This writer assertsthat double proposition which has ever since been taken as anaxiom by the adherents of high wages and low prices of food. Atsome time or other—and herein he has a forcible argument onhis side—a population capable of consuming is necessary for thedevelopment of trade. He turns against the writers of that daywho opposed the raising of the people’s needs as being luxurious.This was not the reason of the low ebb of trade—muchrather was it the lack of means of the great masses of consumers(pp. 21, 160). In addition to this, Vanderlint also casually drawsattention to the fact that higher wages for the working man arean incentive for more work (p. 122).