Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume [? This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts [!
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies. You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices.
You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a Economics essay competition opportunity for your — what shall we call it? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications Economics essay competition innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation.
This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion excellent diplomacy nowadays! We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support. First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?
If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.
Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.
The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc. But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture?
Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls. There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.
It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition. We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade.
We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy. Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready: You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer.
You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment.JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. The School of Economics, University of Nottingham Malaysia campus, is organising an Economics essay competition.
The topic of the essay competition is: “Discuss critically if minimum wage in Malaysia should be set according to the 'living wage' concept?
The winning essay and runner(s) up will also be published on the IEA website. The deadline for submissions is Sept 1, More information on the competition can be found here.
On Competition, a collection of works by Michael E. Porter, is a critical examination of the dog-eat-dog international economy.A Harvard Business School professor, Porter is one of the most respected and innovative economists of his time.
Author of 15 books, he advises key elected officials and business leaders in all parts of the world. The Marshall Society Essay Competition The Marshall Society, the Economics society of the University of Cambridge, is pleased to announce the opening of its annual essay competition.
Essays should answer the question by taking a stance and making a case based on argument and facts.
The best essay in each category will be published on The Economist’s Open Future website and.