Сейчас он, похоже, забыт, а в свое время был очень популярен. Это следует из того, что все его книги оперативно переводились на английский. Сейчас они доступны на архиве.орг, в частности:
- Yves Guyot "Principles Of Social Economy" Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1892
- Yves Guyot "The Tyranny of Socialism" (Edited, with an introduction by J.H.Levy) Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1894
- Yves Guyot "Where and Why Public Ownership Has Failed" The Macmillan Company. 1914
- Yves Guyot "The Sugar Question in 1901" Hugh Rees, Ltd. 1901
- Yves Guyot "Socialistic Fallacies" The Macmillan Company. 1910
- Yves Guyot "The Causes and Consequences of the War" Hutchinson & Co. 1916
- Yves Guyot "Economic Prejudices" Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Limited. 1910
Кусок, напрямую относящийся к известной глупости, которую написал Най и более чем убедительно опроверг Ирвинг, содержится в книге "Economic Prejudices". Это короткая главка-диалог экономиста ("г-н Фобер") и одного из его многочисленных оппонентов ("мелинист" - т.е. сторонник Жюля Мелина, французского политика-протекциониста 80-90-х годов XIX века). Судя по всему, ни Най, ни Ирвинг о Гюйо не слыхали.
Что характерно, несмотря на все аргументы "г-на Фобера", "мелинист" все равно остается при своем твердом убеждении - точно так же, как и бедолага Най :)
Вот эта главка:
"ENGLAND IS A PROTECTIONIST COUNTRY, THOUGH SHE PRETENDS TO HAVE ADOPTED FREE TRADE"
M. Faubert. — Indeed?
The Melinist. — Certainly; she taxes wines and dried fruit.
M. Faubert. — But does she produce wine?
The Meunist. — No ; she imports it from Australia, however.
M. Faubert. — Are Australian wines taxed less than French or other wines?
The Melinist. — No, they pay exactly the same tax.
M. Faubert. — Then why do you say that England is a protectionist country?
The Melinist. — Because she has customs
M. Faubert. — Yes; but they have been established for the collection of fiscal taxes, the whole of which go into the Treasury. They were created for the help they gave the Budget, not to protect any particular industry. In 1897 there were only nine articles taxed by the customs. The duty on sugar, restored on April 19, 1901, slightly increased the number, because it involved duties on glucose, confectionery, preserves. All these duties, however, are fiscal, not protective duties.
Duties on spirits, beer, dried fruit, soap and perfumes containing alcohol are excise duties, and these cause the alcohol coming from abroad to pay the same duties as that produced in the United Kingdom.
Direct custom-duties have been charged on playing cards, chicory, cocoa, coffee, sugar and things containing sugar, tea, tobacco and wine.
The Melinist. — They are custom-duties, all the same, and so I maintain that genuine free trade does not exist in England; she is a protectionist country.
M. Faubert. — These duties, imposed on certain products, hinder the trade therein, but you are using a wrong expression when you say that they are protective duties.
The Melinist. — What is the difference?
M. Faubert. — The object of a protective duty is to raise the prices of things produced in the country that fixes the duty. For instance, in 1894, a duty of seven francs per hundred kilograms of corn was imposed in France. Why? So that all corn entering the country should cost on the market seven francs more than corn produced in France costs. What is the result? The French farmers, protected against foreign corn, can sell it seven francs dearer than in London or Liverpool.
The Melinist. — But when we compare the prices on the London and Paris markets, we do not find this difference.
M. Faubert. — No; the transport expenses of corn from London to Paris must be taken into consideration. Besides, if there is an abundance of corn in markets outside France, it seeks an outlet, and were the price to remain seven francs higher on the Paris market, even incurring a sacrifice, corn from abroad might come into France. Consequently, on an average, the duty comes to no more than five francs.
The Melinist. — That is not enough
M. Faubert. — It's a decent sum.
The Melinist. — But it brings scarcely anything to the customs.
M. Faubert. — Well, in 1907 the duties on wheat and corn brought the Treasury 9,825,000 francs.
The Melinist. — That's nothing extraordinary! Besides, why do the advocates of free trade complain? What is it compared with a budget of more than 4,000,000,000 francs?
M. Faubert. — Exactly, that's the difference between fiscal duties like those collected in the United Kingdom and protective duties. Protective duties ought not to bring gold to the Treasury; they ought rather to prevent goods from entering, so as to insure that national producers shall have a monopoly of the market of the country, and so enable them to raise their prices. The yield of a protective duty does not come from the sum it pours into the Treasury, but rather from the raising of the prices it brings about. It is estimated that nearly 70,000,000 hundred weights of corn come on to the French markets every year. The effect of the law passed in 1894 was to raise the price an average of five francs per hundredweight: now 70,000,000 X 5 = 350,000,000 francs per annum.
So this is what a seven francs duty forces all to pay who have to buy corn, whether consumed as bread or otherwise. These 350,000,000 francs must be added to the 9,825,000 collected by the customs in 1907, and it cannot be said that the foreigner pays anything towards these 350,000,000. It is our own countrymen who have to add this tax of 350,000,000 francs to all the other taxes they pay.
The Melinist. — Still, the seven franc duty is not now one of five francs.
M. Faubert. — True, but that is not through any fault of yours.
The Melinist. — No; but where can one see these 350,000,000 francs per annum. Nowhere; and if what you say is true, would the consumers of bread, the majority of the nation, have consented to pay such a sum?
M. Faubert. — They actually have paid it without knowing it, the cost of the tax being incorporated in the goods themselves.
The Melinist. — You speak of tax; where does this tax of 350,000,000 francs go?
M. Faubert. — Where does it go? It goes into the pockets of the farmers and the ground landlords. It is a private tax by which bread-eaters are made to insure profit and income to certain categories of individuals. Under the feudal system, the lord of the manor collected tenures from his vassals, serfs and villeins, not to do them service, but for himself. The protective duty causes a feudal tax to be paid by the consumers of the protected product to the producer ; and the Revolution of 1789 abolished the feudal system and proclaimed the equality of one citizen with another.
The Melinist. — These are very big words.
M. Faubert. — They are quite true.
The Melinist. — It is none the less true that you have failed to prove that England does not collect custom-duties.
M. Faubert. — Well, I have even mentioned a list of articles subject to duty; all the taxes collected, however, go to the Treasury, not a single one enables certain classes of producers to benefit at the expense of their countrymen. The English tariff is fiscal, not protective. It does not include any private tax, but conforms with the rule: we owe no tax except to the State.
The Melinist. — But then, England imposes duties on foreign vessels.
M. Faubert. — Ever since the treaty of 1826, English vessels have been on an equal footing with French, and at present such is the state of things with the vessels of all nations.
The Melinist. — All the same, I still maintain that England is a protectionist country, because she imposes custom-duties.