The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith (ereader that reads to you TXT) 📗

doctrine, of which some part is, perhaps, not a little doubtful, were supposed ever so certain, the manner in which the par of exchange has hitherto been computed renders uncertain every conclusion that has ever yet been drawn from it.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “standards” here and seven lines lower. ↩

See above here. ↩

This erroneous statement has already been made, here; see below, here, for details. ↩

Already mentioned above, here. ↩

Ed. 2 and later Eds. read erroneously “of the two.” ↩

See the preface to the 4th ed., above. ↩

Ed. 1 reads “Those deposits of coin, or which.” ↩

Eds. 1⁠–⁠3 have the more correct but awkward reading “than of those of gold.” ↩

The following are the prices at which the bank of Amsterdam at present (September 1775) receives bullion and coin of different kinds:

Silver Mexico dollars Guilders. B⁠—22 per mark French crowns English silver coin Mexico dollars new coin 21 10 Ducatoons 3 Rix dollars 2 8

Bar silver containing ¹¹⁄₁₂ fine silver 21 per mark, and in this proportion down to ¼ fine, on which 5 guilders are given.

Fine bars, 23 per mark.

Gold Portugal coin B⁠—310 per mark Guineas Louis d’ors new Ditto old 300 New ducats 4 19 8 per ducat

Bar or ingot gold is received in proportion to its fineness compared with the above foreign gold coin. Upon fine bars the bank gives 340 per mark. In general, however, something more is given upon coin of a known fineness, than upon gold and silver bars, of which the fineness cannot be ascertained but by a process of melting and assaying. ↩

Ed. 1 reads “it” here. ↩

Lectures, pp. 193, 194. The story is doubtless in Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV, chap. x, and is quoted thence by Anderson, Commerce, AD 1672. ↩

N. Magens, Universal Merchant, ed. Horsley, pp. 32, 33, who also protests against the common exaggeration, gives 3,000 as a maximum estimate for the number of accounts, and 60,000,000 guilders as the utmost amount of the treasure. ↩

Ed. 1 runs on here as follows, “But though the computed exchange must generally be in favour of the former, the real exchange may frequently be in favour of the latter.” ↩

In place of this part heading (see this note) ed. 1 reads, in square-bracketed italics, “End of the Digression concerning Banks of Deposit.” ↩

In place of this first line ed. 1 reads, “Though the computed exchange between any two places were in every respect the same with the real, it would not always follow that what is called the balance of trade was in favour of that place which had the ordinary course of exchange in its favour. The ordinary course of exchange might, indeed, in this case, be a tolerable indication of the ordinary state of debt and credit between them, and show which of the two countries usually had occasion to send out money to the other. But the ordinary state of debt and credit between any two places is not always entirely regulated by the ordinary course of their dealings with one another, but is influenced by that of the dealings of both with many other countries. If it was usual, for example, for the merchants of England to pay the goods which they buy from Hamburg, Danzig, Riga, etc., by bills upon Holland, the ordinary state of debt and credit between England and Holland would not be entirely regulated by the ordinary course of the dealings of those two countries with one another, but would be influenced by that of England with those other places. England might, in this case, be annually obliged to send out money to Holland, though its annual exports to that country exceeded the annual value of its imports from it, and though what is called the balance of trade was very much in favour of England.

“Hitherto I have been endeavouring to show.” See this note. ↩

Below, here through here. ↩

Ed. 1 does not contain “and preparing for the market.” ↩

Above, here. ↩

Eds. 1 and 2 read “make.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “from either.” ↩

Lectures, p. 179. ↩

Above, here. ↩

Below, here. ↩

See below, here. ↩

See below, here. ↩

This and the preceding paragraph appear first in Additions and Corrections and ed. 3. ↩

Above, here; Lectures, p. 207. ↩

This paragraph was written in the year 1775. —⁠Smith

But not exactly as it stands, since ed. 1 reads “the late disturbances” instead of “the present disturbances.” We can only conjecture that Smith thought that the disturbances were past either when he was writing or when he returned the proof to the printers, or that they would be past by the time his book was published. The alteration of “late” to “present” was made in ed. 2, and the footnote added in ed. 3. In vol. ii all Eds. read “present disturbances” on pp. 75, 86 and 115 and “late disturbances” on p. 79. The two expressions could scarcely have been used at the same time, so we must suppose that “late” was corrected into “present” on pp. 75, 86 and 115, or that “present” was corrected into “late” on p. 79, but we cannot tell for certain which of the two things happened. —⁠Cannan ↩

Eds. 1 and 2 read “go to it.” ↩

The next three pages are