But if the shoemaker demands thirty-three in the farmer's product, or twenty-two in the tanner's, for ten in his own, there will be no exchange; for, if there were, the farmer and the tanner, after having paid the shoemaker ten for his labor, would have to pay eleven for that which they had themselves sold for ten,--which, of course, would be impossible.

[18] Well, this is precisely what happens whenever an emolument of any kind is received; be it called revenue, farm-rent, interest, or profit.

In the little community of which we are speaking, if the shoemaker--in order to procure tools, buy a stock of leather, and support himself until he receives something from his investment--borrows money at interest, it is clear that to pay this interest he will have to make a profit off the tanner and the farmer.

But as this profit is impossible unless fraud is used, the interest will fall back upon the shoulders of the unfortunate shoemaker, and ruin him.
I have imagined a case of unnatural simplicity.

There is no human society but sustains more than three vocations.