Now, I want to know what it matters to "Economist," or to the Economical Society he (as I understand) represents, or to the British nation generally, whether Lord A. has the bit of colored paper and I the £300, or Lord A. the £300 and I the bit of paper. The pounds are there, and the paper is there: what does it nationally matter which of us have which? Farther: What does it nationally matter whether Lord A. gives me £30 or £300 on the exchange? (Mind, I do not say it does not matter--I only want "Economist" to tell me if it does, and how it does.) In one case my lord has £270 more to spend; in the other I have. What does it signify which of us has? Farther: To us, the exchangers, of what use is "Economist's" information that the rate of exchange depends on the "demand and supply" of colored paper and pounds? No ghost need come from the grave to tell us that. But if any economical ghost would tell my lord how to get more pounds, or me how to get more drawings, it might be to the purpose. But yet farther, passing from specialties to generals: Let the entire property of the nation be enumerated in the several articles of which it consists--_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, etc.; we will say only three, for convenience sake. Then all the national property consists of _a_ + _b_ + _c_. I ask, first, what _a_ is worth. "Economist" answers (suppose) 2 _b_. I ask, next, what _b_ is worth. "Economist" answers (suppose) 3 _c_. I ask, next, what _c_ is worth. "Economist" answers--_a/b_. Many thanks. That is certainly Cocker's view of it. I ask, finally, What is it _all_ worth? "Economist" answers, 1⅔ _a_, or 3⅓ _b_, or 10 _c_. Thanks again. But now, intrinsic value not being in "Economist's" domain, but--if I chance to be a philosopher--in mine, I may any day discover any given intrinsic value to belong to any one of these articles. Suppose I find, for instance, the value of _c_ to be intrinsically zero, then the entire national property = 10_c_ = intrinsically 0. Shall I be justified in this conclusion?