Butsupposingthevalueofthewroughtlacetobesuchasthat，besidespayinginthemostcompletemannertheworkmanandhisemployer，itcouldaffordaclearrenttoathirdperson，itappearstomethat，incomparisonwiththelabouremployeduponland，itwouldbestillasunproductiveasever。Though，accordingtothereasoningusedbytheFrencheconomists，themanemployedinthemanufactureoflacewould，inthiscase，seemtobeaproductivelabourer。Yetaccordingtotheirdefinitionofthewealthofastate，heoughtnottobeconsideredinthatlight。Hewillhaveaddednothingtothegrossproduceoftheland：hehasconsumedaportionofthisgrossproduce，andhasleftabitoflaceinreturn;andthoughhemaysellthisbitoflaceforthreetimesthequantityofprovisionsthatheconsumedwhilsthewasmakingit，andthusbeaveryproductivelabourerwithregardtohimself，yethecannotbeconsideredashavingaddedbyhislabourtoanyessentialpartoftherichesofthestate。Theclearrent，therefore，thatacertainproducecanafford，afterpayingtheexpensesofprocuringit，doesnotappeartobethesolecriterion，bywhichtojudgeoftheproductivenessorunproductivenesstoastateofanyparticularspeciesoflabour。
Supposethattwohundredthousandmen，whoarenowemployedinproducingmanufacturesthatonlytendtogratifythevanityofafewrichpeople，weretobeemployeduponsomebarrenanduncultivatedlands，andtoproduceonlyhalfthequantityoffoodthattheythemselvesconsumed;theywouldbestillmoreproductivelabourerswithregardtothestatethantheywerebefore，thoughtheirlabour，sofarfromaffordingarenttoathirdperson，wouldbuthalfreplacetheprovisionsusedinobtainingtheproduce。Intheirformeremploymenttheyconsumedacertainportionofthefoodofthecountryandleftinreturnsomesilksandlaces。Intheirlatteremploymenttheyconsumedthesamequantityoffoodandleftinreturnprovisionforahundredthousandmen。Therecanbelittledoubtwhichofthetwolegacieswouldbethemostreallybeneficialtothecountry，anditwill，Ithink，beallowedthatthewealthwhichsupportedthetwohundredthousandmenwhiletheywereproducingsilksandlaceswouldhavebeenmoreusefullyemployedinsupportingthemwhiletheywereproducingtheadditionalquantityoffood。
Acapitalemployeduponlandmaybeunproductivetotheindividualthatemploysitandyetbehighlyproductivetothesociety。Acapitalemployedintrade，onthecontrary，maybehighlyproductivetotheindividual，andyetbealmosttotallyunproductivetothesociety：andthisisthereasonwhyIshouldcallmanufacturinglabourunproductive，incomparisonofthatwhichisemployedinagriculture，andnotforthereasongivenbytheFrencheconomists。Itis，indeed，almostimpossibletoseethegreatfortunesthataremadeintrade，andtheliberalitywithwhichsomanymerchantslive，andyetagreeinthestatementoftheeconomists，thatmanufacturerscanonlygrowrichbydeprivingthemselvesofthefundsdestinedfortheirsupport。Inmanybranchesoftradetheprofitsaresogreataswouldallowofaclearrenttoathirdperson;butasthereisnothirdpersoninthecase，andasalltheprofitscentreinthemastermanufacturer，ormerchant，heseemstohaveafairchanceofgrowingrich，withoutmuchprivation;andweconsequentlyseelargefortunesacquiredintradebypersonswhohavenotbeenremarkedfortheirparsimony。
Dailyexperienceprovesthatthelabouremployedintradeandmanufacturesissufficientlyproductivetoindividuals，butitcertainlyisnotproductiveinthesamedegreetothestate。
Everyaccessiontothefoodofacountrytendstotheimmediatebenefitofthewholesociety;butthefortunesmadeintradetendbutinaremoteanduncertainmannertothesameend，andinsomerespectshaveevenacontrarytendency。Thehometradeofconsumptionisbyfarthemostimportanttradeofeverynation。