To take first the question of the order or hierarchy of wealth-producing employments. Now there can be little doubt that if each nation were regarded abstractly as a separate isolated economic unity, there would be an ideal hierarchy of wealth-producing employments proper to that nation; and that when this were once ascertained, the investment of the capital and labour of individuals in them in that order would be for the best economic interests of the nation as a whole. But far from that order being stereotyped for each nation, as Adam Smith would have us believe, it must be as different for each nation as is the geographical situation of that nation, its natural resources, or the genius and environment of its inhabitants. In one nation, the fertility and special characteristics of its soil would claim first consideration in the hierarchy, - whether as corn-growing, fruit-growing, wine or tobacco-growing, sugar-growing, or what not; in another, its mineral wealth or the special character of these minerals, as gold, silver, iron, or copper; in another its geographical position as a trading centre among the other nations, its facilities for transport, its access to the sea, and the like; in another the particular form of artistic or mechanical skill peculiar to the race of men who inhabit it; and so on.

But although as abstract potentialities, nations would be right, - at any rate in the beginning of their careers and when they were feeling their way as it were, - in following the order of these special excellences in the investment of their capital, still, when once all tariff barriers had been thrown down and the free interchange of commodities between nations was given full play, there would be no more guarantee that by following this absolute or ideal order they would accumulate the greatest amount of wealth, than in the parallel case of individuals. For the question would now be, not so much of any abstract hierarchy or order of excellence proper to a nation itself, as of the order of its relative superiorities when drawn into the whirl of competition with other nations; not of what it most prizes itself, but of what is most in demand by others; not of separate single excellences, but of combinations or special peculiarities which make them acceptable over a wider field; not, in a word, of 'values in use,' but of 'values in exchange.'

It is precisely the same as in the case of the individual, whose pecuniary success in life will depend not on the absolute superiority of one over another of his various qualities - whether of intellect or heart, of courage, of tenacity, of physical prowess, or what not, - but on those combinations or peculiarities which find the greatest favour among his fellow-men. In the natural order, the strength of a man's bent may lie in the higher domain of intellect proper, - as of poet, philosopher, scientist, artist, or musician, - but he may find it more to his pecuniary advantage when he has to compete with a better man than himself in any of these lines of work, to mingle his proper superiority with strains of a lower nature, like gold with the baser metals, to give it a wider currency or working efficiency; and so may do 'pot-boilers' instead of masterpieces, or turn society novelist, popular preacher, peripatetic lecturer, music hall entertainer, or even fall back on still lower planes and become a jockey, clown, professional sculler, footballer, or cricketer. It is the same in commerce and industry.

Land, manufactures, and the wholesale trade may stand higher in rank than other employments, owing to the greater amount of the 'values in use' which they supply, but so far as any individual is concerned, he may make his fortune as easily out of stock-exchange speculations as out of land; out of gambling as out of manual labour: out of drugs or drinks as out of food; out of a good voice as out of a good estate. It is precisely the same with an individual nation standing in trade relations with other nations. For it may gather to itself more wealth from its diamond fields than from its corn lands, from the flavours of its wines or tobaccos than from its coal or iron, from its carry-ing trade than from its manufactures, from its supply of luxuries for the few than of necessities for the many. All will now depend, not on the absolute superiority of the commodities in which it deals judged by the standard of their ' values in use,' - as would be the case if the nation stood alone by itself, - but on the relative superiority of these commodities to those of the same class in other nations, as measured by the extent of the market they can make for themselves there, owing to the cheapness of the cost with which they can be produced and delivered; in other words, on their 'values in exchange' - an entirely different category of economic science.

Or take again the case of gold. If a nation stood alone by itself and had nothing to depend on but its gold mines, gold would take its place at the lowest point in the hierarchy of wealth-producing assets; for it could neither support life like corn, nor give warmth and comfort like the produce of manufactures, nor transport like horses and carriages, nor be made into useful implements or utensils, like iron or tin, and if it were produced beyond a certain amount would have little more value than the stones in the street. And so too in the world as a whole conceived as a single political and economic unit; for as a medium of exchange the use-value of gold would be of little account. But observe how different is the position it occupies in a nation standing in trade relations with other nations. For now, gold will take its place at the top of the hierarchy of wealth assets, however much of it (or its credit equivalents redeemable in it) may be accumulated, or by what employments, services, or business functions soever it may have been acquired; all of which as well as the agriculture, manufactures, home trade and shipping, on which Adam Smith laid so much stress, must now take their places below it, their order in the hierarchy being now a matter of indifference; for each and all of them will have much, little, or no value at all, precisely according to the amount of this gold or its credit equivalents which they can command.