He objects, however, to allowing the effect of demand to overcome unduly the cost of production, thus causing inequality and injustice. According to his idea, each receives the equivalent in value of what he gives, in the sense that it is a resultant of the proportionate influence of both cost and need.730 We may, nevertheless, observe an excellent example of inconsistency in the fact that, despite his insistence upon just exchange, he appears to treat monopoly as a legitimate principle of finance for both men and states,731 though his intention in the passage may have been to discuss actual conditions, rather than to idealize.
Naturally, the philosopher shows no concern for a tax on imports as a means of building up the industry and commerce of his state, since he is especially desirous of limiting both. However, he is not blind to the advantages of export and import trade for a nation,732 but would regulate them with an ethical, rather than an economic purpose.733 His doctrine of exchange as a form of production has been discussed above,734 and will be touched upon further in the following pages. His general criticism of what he terms “false finance” or “chrematistik” (χρηματιστική) remains for more extended treatment.
We have seen that he recognizes the necessity of a limited form of exchange, free from the purpose of gain, and considers such trading to be natural and in accord with that interdependence which nature demands.735
He calls it the very bond of the social organization,736 and even considers international commerce to be necessary for the prosperity of a state.737
We have also seen that he goes so far as to advise the rich in a democracy to give the poor a start in business,738 but that exchange, in its prevalent form, is to him a method of cheatery, in which one gains what the other loses.739