摘要：保护性照护最引人注目的两个对象是糖和玉米。除了生产者之外，与它们相关的还有船主、商人、经纪人、代理商、磨坊主、面包师、杂货商等等，所有这些人都经常被点名，仿佛他们与维护法律规定的限制有着直接的利益关系；许多人表现出极大的不愿采纳自由贸易原则，仅仅是因为这些原则

- （下文附有英文原版）

- 原文翻译整理：一派老胡言

目前，公众的注意力都集中在贸易限制所带来的弊端和损害上，因此，我们应该考虑社会或其任何部分在多大程度上获得了相应的补偿利益，这一点至关重要。

保护性照护最引人注目的两个对象是糖和玉米。除了生产者之外，与它们相关的还有船主、商人、经纪人、代理商、磨坊主、面包师、杂货商等等，所有这些人都经常被点名，仿佛他们与维护法律规定的限制有着直接的利益关系；许多人表现出极大的不愿采纳自由贸易原则，仅仅是因为这些原则会给他们带来所谓的损害。因此，我们建议就“谁从垄断中受益”展开一项简短的调查。首先，以糖为例：消费者接触到的第一个人是杂货商。只要每个有钱有志的人都能成为杂货商，长期竞争就必然会阻止该行业的利润高于其他行业；如果他以高价出售糖，那只是因为他必须支付高价：批发杂货商也是如此；进口商也是如此；经纪人不会因为糖生产商垄断了市场而获得更高的佣金；船主发现竞争会将他的运费降至最低，而与向消费者收取的价格无关。简而言之，所有这些人都直接受到限制的损害，而不是因为争夺的是规模小且有限的贸易而受益。每个船主都知道歉收对运费的影响。同样数量的船只需要雇用。对船只的需求减少了，而且，产量减少导致糖价越高，生产商就越能与船主达成更好的交易，将糖运回家。与自由开放的贸易相比，限制每年的产量都少；产量的增加只会增加对船舶的需求和运费，增加商人和经纪人的业务和佣金，增加批发和零售商的贸易和利润。但是，从商人的角度，我们再回到种植园主，如果限制在任何地方都能带来好处，那也应该在这里。英国市场的垄断使得我们殖民地的种植园主能够获得至少是其他国家种植园主两倍的价格。但看起来，即使是种植园主也并没有从垄断中获益。从他们自己的角度来看，这种贸易并非有利可图，而是恰恰相反；高昂的价格被贫瘠贫瘠土地上高昂的租金或购买金所抵消，被他们之间为争夺不足的劳动力而进行的过度竞争所抵消；而且，无论价格多么高，实际上都是亏本的。因此，尽管整个社会因糖的限量和高价而遭受重创，却无人承认由此带来的好处；垄断的唯一实际效果，就是迫使人们在诸多不利因素下在贫瘠的土地上种植糖，而不是利用更好的土壤和环境来确保更廉价、更充足的供应；这仅仅是因为前者是英国殖民地，而后者是外国。

再说谷物：面包师、磨坊主、谷物商人，甚至农场主，都无法从限制中获得任何好处；它们都是开放的行业，与其他行业一样面临同样的竞争，并且无论如何都不可能获得更高的利润率。面包师以高价出售面包，但他却以高价购买面粉；磨坊主以高价出售面粉，但他却以高价购买小麦；农场主以高价出售小麦，但他却在高租金的土地上种植小麦。在面包师和磨坊主之间，购买面粉和小麦的竞争与出售面包和面粉的竞争一样激烈；在农民之间，也同样存在着获取土地和处置土地产品、冰块的竞争；公众在所有这些竞争中都能确保免受任何不当利润的侵害。如果土地更多、竞争更少，农民只会受益；如果有更多的小麦可供研磨、面粉可供出售，磨坊主也会受益；如果面粉更便宜、面包消费量更大，面包师也会受益。所有这些人都希望自由贸易，而不是限制；但就土地本身而言，竞争就停止了。土地数量是固定的，产品价格越高，所有者的收入就越高。这就像半个世纪前通过了一项法律，宣布当时的面包师和磨坊主的数量不得增加一样。这样的法律将产生一直以来，随着人口的增长，对面粉和面包的需求也随之增加，面包师和磨坊主的信誉会越来越高，争夺这些商品的竞争会导致价格高昂，以至于所有者有时只能获得与其资本相当的回报。土地的情况正是如此；其数量是固定的；随着对其产品的需求增加，地租上涨；而随着地租上涨，购买货币，或者说地产的信誉，也会随之上涨。因此，投资土地的资本家支付的价格与上涨的地租相对应，因此，唯一能从中获利的人，就是土地的原所有者，他通过了法律，使其财产免受竞争；而且很容易证明，即使是他，由于他给国家造成的损害，间接损失也大于所得。

1843年10月7日《经济学人》第00007期对应本文页面

WHO ARE BENEFITED BY MONOPOLY?

At the present moment, when the public mind is directed so much to the evils and injuries arising from restriction of trade, it is an important matter that we should consider to what ex-tent the community, or any part of it, receives any countervailing benefit.

a The two most striking objects of protective care are sugar and corn. Connected with which, independent of the producers, we have shipowners, merchants, brokers, factors, millers, bakers, grocers, and others, all of whom are often named as if they had direct interest in the maintenance of the restriction established by law; and many have shown great disinclination to adopt the principles of Free Trade, only from the supposed injury they would produce to those classes. We, therefore, propose to institute a short inquiry as to "Who are benefited by monopoly?" First, take the article of sugar: the first person with whom the consumer comes in contact is the grocer. As long as every man can become a grocer who has the means and inclination, so long competition must prevent the profits of that trade being any larger than other trades; if he sells his sugar at high prices, it is only because he has to pay high prices: this is the same with the wholesale grocer; it is the same with the import merchant; the broker receives no higher commission on sugar because the producer has a monopoly of of the market; the ship-owner finds that competition reduces his freight to the lowest rate, without any reference to the price charged to the consumer. In short, all these parties are injured directly by the restriction instead of being benefited by having a small and limited trade to contend for instead of a large one. Every shipowner knows the effect of a failing crop on the rate of freights. The same number of ships require employment. There is less demand for them, and d the higher the price of sugar brought about by diminished quantity, the better bargain will the producer be able to drive with the shipowner to carry it home. Restriction has the effect of making every year a short crop compared with what a free and open trade would produce; an increase of quantity could only increase the demand for ships and the rate of freight, the business and commissions of merchants and brokers, the trade and profits of the wholesale and retail dealers. But from the merchant we go back to the planter, and if restriction could produce benefit anywhere, it should be found here. The monopoly of the British market enables the planter in our colonies to command a price at least double that which the planter in other countries can obtain. But it would appear that even the planters have no benefit from monopoly. It would appear from their own account that the trade, instead of being a profitable one one, is the contrary; that the high price is more than cancelled by the extravagant rents or purchase-money of poor and exhausted soils; by an undue competition among themselves for an insufficient quantity of labour; and that the price, however high, is really a losing one. So that while the whole community is seriously injured by the restricted quantity and high price of sugar, no one acknowledges a benefit from it; and the only practical effect of the monopoly is to compel the growth of sugar on poor exhausted soils, under many disadvantages, instead of availing ourselves of better soils and circumstances, by which a cheaper and more plentiful supply might be secured; and only because the former are British colonies, while the latter are foreign countries.

Then with respect to corn:

There is no pretence to say that the baker, the miller, the corn-merchant, nor even the farmer, is in any way benefited by restriction; they are all open trades,exposed to the same competition as other trades, and cannot by any principle command higher rates of profit. The baker sells dear bread, but he buys dear flour; the miller sells dear flour, but he buys dear wheat; the farmer sells dear wheat, but he grows it upon high-rented land. Among the bakers and millers there is equally a competition to buy flour and wheat, as there is to sell bread and flour; among the farmers there is equally a competition to get the land and dispose of its produce; ice; and and the public are quite secure among all this competition against any undue profits. It could only be beneficial to the farmers, were there more land and less competition; to the miller, were there more wheat to grind and flour to sell; to the baker, were flour cheaper and the consumption of bread greater. These par-ties are all interested in a free trade instead of restriction; but coming to the land itself, there competition ceases. the quantity is fixed, and the higher the price of the produce, the higher the income of the owner. It is precisely the same as if half a century ago a law had been passed to declare that the number of bakers and millers then existing should not be increased. The effect of such a law would have been, that as the population increased, and with it the demand for flour and bread the good-will of the bakers' and millers' shop would sell for more and more a competition to purchase them would cause so high a price to be paid, that the owner from time to time would only be fairly paid for his capital. It is precisely so with land; the quantity is fixed; with an increased demand for its products, the rent rises; and as the rent rises the purchase-money, or good-will of the estate, rises too. The capitalist, therefore, who invests money in land pays a price corresponding to the increased rent, and thus the only person to whom the slightest advantage can be traced, is the original owner of the land, who passed passed the law to exempt his property from com-petition; and it could easily be shown, that even he has lost more indirectly than he has gained, by the injuries that he has thus inflicted on the country.

《经济学人》集锦

来源：一派老胡言