1820 March 4.

Official Economy or Necessity of Reform

Opulence or <...>

not antiseptic

?. Opulence is no antiseptic

To him who has lived all his life upon ,100 a year and no more, ,150

a year is opulence: reduction to ,50 a year is ruin.

To him who has ,10,000 a year it requires ,5000 a year to produce a

sensation equal in intensity to that produced in the case of him who has but ,100 a

year by an accession of ,50 a year

Thus it is that instead of being /operating as/ a security against

the propensity to depredation, opulence - means accompanied with the habit of large

expenditure operates as an incentive the greater the quantity of money which a man

has been in use to expend, the greater the quantity - meaning always the absolute

quantity of that which he craves: cupidity concupiscience does not sink but rise with

opulence

Yet the common notion /opinion/ - in so far as profession of it is sincere the

vulgar error it may well be called - is the reverse. The notion is that the man whose

habitual expenditure has been large, is on that account so long as the means of it

continue undiminished, not so likely to seek to encrease it by depredation to so

large amount as the man whose habitual expenditure has been small. This notion whence

comes it /this notion/? From this - from the natural tendency which in every

situation man has to measure other men by his own measure: to assume that in a

different situation - be it higher or lower - a given quantity of money - be it in

possession, be it in expectancy will produce in the breasts of men the same sensation

the same in [...?] as in that situation which <...>self occupies.