But as matter of comprehensive Economics, in which not only bankers and exporters but also all the other Wealth-producers of a country are concerned, it cannot be true that a perpetual credit balance of international trade is a favorable balance. In international trading, as in trading between individuals (which, by the way, international trading in the last analysis is), the aggregate of exports and of imports must counter-balance. Otherwise the producers of the exports, considered as a whole, must be engaged in foreign trade at a loss. They give more Value than they get. Surely, trading at a loss is not favorable trading. Would a farmer prosper if every year he sold a thousand dollars’ worth of his products and got back only eight hundred dollars’ worth of other products? Wouldn’t that depend upon how much credit to him had piled up in account-books as a result? If none, wouldn’t he have exchanged his products at the rate of $10 for $8? How long would a farmer prosper if he considered that kind of balance of trade as favorable? Precisely so with international trading. The only difference is that in the farmer illustration we have a solitary individual, whereas in international trade we have many individuals grouped in national wholes. In comprehensive Economics that difference is no difference at all. A credit balance between national communities is simply the difference in Value remaining after all international trading to a given date has been entered in the books of account. If that balance be on the credit side of one of the nations, the creditor individuals of the creditor nation may draw against it. To them it is a favorable balance, in book-keeping terms. But if it is never to be paid off with imports, which seems to be the aspiration of those who applaud so-called “favorable balance of trade” theories, is it not in truth an unfavorable balance? If the reply be that the balance will be paid in gold, what difference does that make in any comprehensive Economic sense? Gold itself is a product of Labor applied to and upon Land. To import it in payment of international balances would be precisely the same, Economically, as importing other products of Labor. Some private businesses may prosper through “favorable” balances of trade, but Business everywhere and as a whole, Business in the comprehensive sense of the science of Economics, must find “favorable” balances of that unbalanced kind extremely unfavorable to the people of every nation as a whole and to most producers individually.