"If we were left to ourselves, unfettered by legislative enactments, we should gradually withdraw our capital from the cultivation of such lands, and import the produce which is at present raised upon them"
About this Quote
Ricardo targets the protectionist agricultural policies that dominated early 19th-century Britain, especially the Corn Laws. By speaking of "such lands", he points to marginal, low-quality soils that only remain in cultivation because tariffs and other legislative barriers keep domestic grain prices artificially high. If markets were left to operate without these constraints, capital would flow out of unproductive agriculture and into sectors with higher returns, while cheaper grain would be imported from countries with a natural advantage in growing it.
The argument draws on his theory of rent and diminishing returns. As population grows and demand for food rises, cultivation extends from fertile to inferior land, raising costs and prices. Landlords benefit through higher rents on superior plots, while workers face high food prices and industrial capitalists see profits squeezed by rising wage pressures. Protectionism locks this structure in place by preventing cheaper foreign supplies from lowering domestic prices. Removing the legislative props would shrink the area under cultivation on poor soil, reduce rents, and free capital to accumulate in manufacturing and other productive activities.
The logic also aligns with comparative advantage, a principle Ricardo helped establish. Countries prosper by specializing according to their relative efficiencies and trading for the rest. For Britain, that meant importing grain from places where it could be produced at lower cost and focusing domestically on industries where British productivity was strongest. The social and political stakes were clear: landlords favored protection to preserve rents, while the industrial and urban classes pushed for free trade to lower living costs and boost profits.
Ricardo thus links microeconomic adjustments in land use to macroeconomic growth. Let prices convey true scarcity, let capital seek its best uses, and living standards rise through specialization and exchange. Legislative enactments that prevent this reallocation do not secure national strength; they entrench inefficiency and privilege.
The argument draws on his theory of rent and diminishing returns. As population grows and demand for food rises, cultivation extends from fertile to inferior land, raising costs and prices. Landlords benefit through higher rents on superior plots, while workers face high food prices and industrial capitalists see profits squeezed by rising wage pressures. Protectionism locks this structure in place by preventing cheaper foreign supplies from lowering domestic prices. Removing the legislative props would shrink the area under cultivation on poor soil, reduce rents, and free capital to accumulate in manufacturing and other productive activities.
The logic also aligns with comparative advantage, a principle Ricardo helped establish. Countries prosper by specializing according to their relative efficiencies and trading for the rest. For Britain, that meant importing grain from places where it could be produced at lower cost and focusing domestically on industries where British productivity was strongest. The social and political stakes were clear: landlords favored protection to preserve rents, while the industrial and urban classes pushed for free trade to lower living costs and boost profits.
Ricardo thus links microeconomic adjustments in land use to macroeconomic growth. Let prices convey true scarcity, let capital seek its best uses, and living standards rise through specialization and exchange. Legislative enactments that prevent this reallocation do not secure national strength; they entrench inefficiency and privilege.
Quote Details
| Topic | Investment |
|---|---|
| Source | David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). Passage appears in Ricardo's discussion of importation/foreign produce and the effects of legislative restrictions on cultivation. |
More Quotes by David
Add to List
