Monnaies, 697; Trade and money (1705) 117; _Mélon_, Essai politique sur le Commerce, 1734, ch. 22; _Galiani_, Della Moneta, IV, 1, 3; _Blackstone_, Commentaries, 1764, II, 456; _Genovesi_, Economia civile, II, 2, 18, 13; _Stewart_, Principles, IV, 1, ch. IV; _Verri_, Meditazioni, XIV; _Büsch_, Geldumlauf, V. 14; _A. Young_, Political Arithmetics (1774), 1, ch. 7. _Hume_, on the other hand, Discourses (1752), No. 4 (on interest), shows, that the rate of interest is dependent, not as _Locke_ supposed, on the abundance or scarcity of money, but on the state of profit and on the relation between the demand and supply of capital. Similarly, _J. Massie_, An Essay on the governing Causes of the Rate of Interest (1750). _Quesnay_, Dialogue sur le Commerce, 173 (ed. Daire), shows that he had a very clear conception of the operation, and of the principal component parts of capital. _Turgot_, Sur la Formation et la Distribution des Richesses, § 14, 54-79, came very near the truth, and yet missed it. He recognized the necessity of advances which, as a rule, are the result of saving, in every case of production. He also distinguishes in the product of the soil, besides the _produit net_ and the _subsistance du laboureur_, the _profit_ of the latter. He likewise points out a great number of differences between the “price of money” considered in its relation to trade, and in its relation to loans. He explains the interest on capital, as _Schröder_, in his Schatz-und Rentkammer, 231, and _Benjamin Franklin_, in his Inquiry into the Nature of a Paper Currency (1729) had done before, by the fact that the owner of capital can purchase a piece of land with his capital, and thus draw an income without working. Money, he said, was indeed not productive, but neither was any other thing that could be loaned or leased, with the exception of land and cattle. _Adam Smith_ deserves the greatest credit for his analysis of the idea of capital, although he opposes “capital” to what the Germans call capital-in-use, the “stock for immediate consumption.” When _Canard_, Principes d’Economie politique (1801) and _J. B. Say_, Cours pratique, 1828, I, 285, included man’s power of labor in capital, they took a retrograde step. “Labour is Capital, primary and fundamental.” _Colton_, 275. Every grown-up individual, says _McCulloch_, Principles, 1825, II, ch. 2, may be looked upon as a machine which has cost several years of continued care and a considerable sum for its construction. It is only another side of this same perversity, when _McCulloch_ seeks to force the results produced by animals and machines into the definition of labor. _Schlozer_, Anfangsgründe (1805), I, 21, goes so far as to