I answer, that this consequence _would_ be just, were all trade carried on with borrowed money, and were the difference of the price of the materials or first matter, the ease in procuring them, the promptitude of payments, the industry of the manufacturer, and his dexterity, reckoned for nothing. But such advantages are frequently found in these articles, as to be more than sufficient to counterbalance the additional interest which is paid for the money employed in trade. This is so true, that we see the dexterity alone of the workman (living in an expensive capital, where the charge of living may be double of what it is in the country) enabling him to undersell his competitors every where: the same may be true with regard to the other articles. Farther, how far is it not from truth to say, that all _trade_ is carried on with borrowed money? When the term _trade_ here made use of, is properly understood, we shall see, that a very inconsiderable part of its object is carried on with borrowed money, in any country in Europe; and that part which is carried on with borrowed money is not so much clogged by the high rate of interest, as by want of punctuality in payments. A merchant who can turn his money in three months, borrows as cheaply at 6 _per cent._ as another who turns his in six months, when he borrows at 3 _per cent._ The object of trade is produce and manufacture. If any one will consider the value of these two articles, before they come into the hands of merchants, and compare this with the money borrowed by farmers and manufacturers, in order to bring them to market, the proportion will be very small. Do we not see every day, that ingenious workmen, who obtain credit for very small sums, are soon enabled, by the means of their own industry, to produce a surprizing value in manufactures, and not only to subsist, but to increase in riches? The interest they pay for the money borrowed is inconsiderable, when compared with the value, created (as it were) by the proper employment of their time and talents. If it be said, that this is a vague assertion, supported by no proof; I answer, that the value of a man’s work may be estimated by the proportion between the manufacture when brought to market, and the first matter. Nothing but the first matter, and the instruments of manufacture, can be considered as the objects of borrowed money; unless we go so far as to estimate the nourishment, and every expence of the manufacturer, and suppose that these are also supplied from borrowed money. To affirm that, would be turning arguments into cavil.