Notes
1 Cited, in French, by J. Hollander (1928, lxxix).
2 For a different view, see Paglin (1961, 116-17).
3 Schneider (2008, 456-57), too, notes this incongruity.
4 See Torrens (1821, 399-430) and also Torrens (1819, 75-76).
5 See, for example, Dow (1977) and Kates (1998, chap. 6).
6 See Keynes (1936, chap. 23, sec. 7: 222-24).
7 See Laffemas (1597) and my introduction to his English translation.
8 For all these authors, see Perrotta (2004, chaps. 9 and 11). Keynes himself is more moderate than the attitude he wrongly attributes to pre-Smithian authors. He writes, ‘At the same time we must recognise that only experience can show how far the common will, embodied in the policy of the State, ought to be directed to increasing and supplementing the inducement to invest; and how far it is safe to stimulate the average propensity to consume, without foregoing our aim of depriving capital of its scarcity-value within one or two generations” (Keynes, 1936, ch. 24, sec. 2: 377).
9 For example, Houghton (1677, 261-62), Mandeville (1705, 25 and 1714, 107ff) and Voltaire (1738, 358).
10 See Lauderdale (1804a, especially ch. 4 and 1804b, 59ff). On the sinking fund, see Lauderdale (1829, 79-117).
11 See also Paglin (1961, 118-19).
12 Chalmers (1832, 249; chaps. 1 to 5). See also, in general, Chalmers (1808).
13 See, for example, Ganilh (1809, 1: 97-127 and 252-73; 1815, 2: 413-44; 1835, 304-18).
14 See Ganilh's (1826, 159-61) entry “Consommations.”
15 Malthus (1820, bk. 1, chap. 4, sec. 2: 223-31; bk. 2, chap. 1, sec. 2: 311-14; bk. 2, chap. 1, sec. 3: 318-20). See also Torrens (1815, 62-64).
16 The author of Inquiry (1821, 19-23) agrees with Malthus. Salim Rashid (1977, 226-27) grasps that the solution to underconsumption consists in new consumption goods, but he erroneously attributes this view to Malthus. He also believes that, for Malthus, one of the remedies to gluts is “the redistribution of wealth from the rich [...] to the poor, who had an abundance of wishes yet to fulfil.” However, from his words it appears that the supposed redistribution is in fact an increase in the number of workers hired for the leisure of the rich (ibid., 232-33).
Nor does Malthus ever attribute to workers the wish to increase and vary their comforts, as Rashid thinks (ibid., 229-30).17 See the clear synthesis given by Paglin (1961, 117).
18 It consists of a short introduction and a conclusion, written for the 1827 edition, and two essays first appeared, respectively, in 1820 and 1824.
19 Patten (1899, 317) maintains that after landlords were defeated by capitalists—due to the Free Trade policy adoption—James Mill's extreme defense of profits (against rent) went to the detriment of workers.
20 It is the title of section 2 in chapter4.
21 Quoted in detail by Sismondi (1820-27, first article).
22 See Say (respectively, 1803, bk. 1, chap. 11, fn93: 72-73 and 1820, 72: second letter).
23 See Say (1803, bk. 1, chap. 15: 87-88; 1820: first letter, and 1828-29, part 3, chap. 2: 341-42).
24 See Barton (1817,40-45; 1814-17, 182-88).
25 St. Clair (1957, chaps. 11-13, esp. 256-57) drives to the extreme Ricardo's arguments, ending by deforming them.
26 McCulloch (1821, 102-3) had repeated the argument of the previous Ricardo's edition. His refusal of Ricardo's self-criticism is—it seems—in the Edinburgh Review, n. 69. See Torrens (1821, Preface: xi-xii fn). For the positive effects of technical progress on labor, see also Torrens (1834, 33-44).
27 This is also stressed by Bonar (1885, 296).
28 See also O' Brien (1975, 353).
29 See also Faucci and Pesciarelli (1976, 57-64:“Introduction”).