14 May ECONOMICS
EcoNOMICS
read the attachment,and answer the question one by one
Book II: Distribution (p. 351-353)
Chapter I:
1.What does JS Mill argue about the laws of production and the laws of distribution?
Chapter XI:
1.What does determines wages, according to J.S. Mill?
2.What is the “wages-fund” (or wage-fund) and how does it affect the level of wages in a country?
Book IV:
Chapter VI: (p. 367-370)
1.Where do the increase of wealth and the progress of capital (accumulation) eventually lead society and the economy, according to Mill?
2.Is the stationary state an avoidable situation, according to Mill?
3. What does Mill suggest about the desirability of the stationary state? How does he justify his position?
Book V: (p. 370-385)
Chapter XI:
1. JS Mill distinguishes between two different types of government intervention. What are they?
2. What are the five reasons why people generally object to government interference in the economy?
3. JS Mill offers a series of six exceptions in which the government should actually interfere in the economy. Explain.
OVERALL QUESTIONS:
1. Can you find evidence of Mills support for the workers in his writings?
2. Can you find any ecological insights in Mills writings?
3. Can you find any feminist insights in Mills writings?
JOHN STUART MILL (18061873)
John Stuart Mill, by courtesy of The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.
John Stuart Mill was a child prodigy. Educated under the strict direction of his father, James Mill, John Stuart Mill was studying Greek at age 3 and had pro- gressed through Latin, mathematics, liter- ature, history, the natural sciences, logic, and political economy by his early teen years. He assumed a position with the East India Company at age 16 and remained there for thirty-six years. By the time of his death, Mill, who had been raised to have the brightest and best- trained mind of his generation, had made fundamentally important contributions to philosophy, politics, and economics. From the literary perspective, his Autobiography is a classic of that genre and provides an excellent depiction of the childhood that Mill said was lived “in the absence of love and in the presence of fear.”
Not surprisingly, given his fathers strong Benthamite leanings, J.S. Mill, too, became a disciple of Bentham in his early years. However, a nervous breakdown and subsequent period of severe depres- sion, followed by an encounter with the
poetry of Wordsworth and Coleridge in his early twenties, resulted in his adoption of a more criti- cal approach to the Benthamite position. He came to believe that the cool calculus of utilitarianism needed to be tempered by moral and spiritual concerns, recognizing that the type and quality of pleasure also matter. His ideas mixed the British empirical position with elements of French his- torical thinking a la Saint-Simon and August Comte. His relationship with Harriet Taylor, whom he met in his twenties and married some twenty years later when she became a widow, had a signif- icant effect on his life, including prompting something of a flirtation with socialism.
Mill is unquestionably one of the, if not the, towering intellectual figures of his age. His seminal works range from political economy to philosophy and logic to political theory. His A System of Logic became a classic in the field, and his On Liberty has become one of the definitive defenses of the virtues of individual freedom. Mills early forays into political economy can be seen in his book, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, but his thinking reaches full
334 The Classical School
flower in his Principles of Political Economy, With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (1848). The Principles, which went through several editions during Mills lifetime, evidences both the fleshing out of Ricardian political economy, tempered by the important insights of his own and others regarding certain flaws in Ricardos analysis, and close attention to historical and contem- porary illustrations.
The Principles was more than just a crowning summation of classical thinking; it also contained a number of fundamental theoretical advances for example, in demand and supply analysis, in international trade and finance, and in the analysis of labor markets. Mill also presented a view of the economic role of government that was at once cognizant of the benefits of individual liberty and recognized that Smiths “invisible hand” did not always result in the individual pursuit of self- interest generating a maximum of social welfare. While a staunch adherent of the Malthusian the- ory of population, Mill was also of the mind that arrival of the stationary state was less problematic than previously thought. His distinction between the fixed laws of production and the malleable laws of distribution left open the door for governmental policies that could delay the arrival of the stationary state for a period of time and make life in the stationary state much more pleasant than thought by previous commentators.
In the following excerpts from Mills Principles, the reader is treated to his attempt to distinguish between the laws of production and distribution, his discussion of the wages fund doctrine of wage determination, his extension of Ricardos doctrine of comparative costs in international trade to include the effects of reciprocal demands on the terms of trade, an analysis of life in the stationary state, and his view of the appropriate role for government within the economic system.
References and further reading
Anschutz, R.P. (1953) The Philosophy of J.S. Mill, London: Oxford University Press.?Bladen, V.W. (1949) “John Stuart Mills Principles: A Centenary Estimate,” American Economic Review 39
(May): 112.?Blaug, Mark (1991) Thomas Robert Malthus (17661834) and John Stuart Mill (18061873), Aldershot:
Edward Elgar Publishing.?Breit, William (1967) “The Wages Fund Controversy: A Diagrammatic Exposition,” Canadian Journal of
Economics 33 (November): 5238.?Chipman, John S. (1965) “A Survey on the Theory of International Trade: Part 1: The Classical Theory,”
Econometrica 33 (July): 477519.?Hollander, Samuel (1985) The Economics of John Stuart Mill, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.?—— (1987) “Mill, John Stuart, as Economic Theorist,” in John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman
(eds), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Vol. 3, London: Macmillan, 4716.?Mill, John Stuart (1844) Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, London: Parker.?—— (1887) On Liberty, London: Longmans, Green.?—— (1924) Autobiography, New York: Columbia University Press.?—— (196385) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by J.M. Robson, Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.?Ryan, Alan (1974) J.S. Mill, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.?—— (1987) “Mill, John Stuart,” in John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman (eds), The New Palgrave:
A Dictionary of Economics, Vol. 3, London: Macmillan, 46671.?Taussig, F.W. (1898) Wages and Capital: An Examination of the Wages Fund Doctrine, New York: D. Appleton
and Company.?Viner, Jacob (1937) Studies in the Theory of International Trade, New York: Harper & Row.?—— (1949) “Bentham and J.S. Mill: The Utilitarian Background,” American Economic Review 39 (March):
36082.?Wood, John C. (1987) John Stuart Mill: Critical Assessments, London: Croom Helm.
Principles of Political Economy (1848)*
Book II: Distribution
Chapter I: Of property
1. The principles which have been set forth in the first part of this treatise, are, in certain respects, strongly distinguished from those on the consideration of which we are now about to enter. The laws and conditions of the Production of wealth partake of the character of physical truths. There is nothing optional or arbitrary in them. Whatever mankind produce, must be pro- duced in the modes, and under the conditions, imposed by the constitution of external things, and by the inherent properties of their own bodily and mental structure. Whether they like it or not, their productions will be limited by the amount of their previous accumulation, and, that being given, it will be proportional to their energy, their skill, the perfection of their machinery, and their judicious use of the advantages of combined labour. Whether they like it or not, a dou- ble quantity of labour will not raise, on the same land, a double quantity of food, unless some improvement takes place in the processes of cultivation. Whether they like it or not, the unpro- ductive expenditure of individuals will pro tanto tend to impoverish the community, and only their productive expenditure will enrich it. The opinions, or the wishes, which may exist on these different matters, do not control the things themselves. We cannot, indeed, foresee to what extent the modes of production may be altered, or the productiveness of labour increased, by future extensions of our knowledge of the laws of nature, suggesting new processes of industry of which we have at present no conception. But howsoever we may succeed, in making for ourselves more space within the limits set by the constitution of things, we know that there must be limits. We cannot alter the ultimate properties either of matter or mind, but can only employ those properties more or less successfully, to bring about the events in which we are interested.
It is not so with the Distribution of wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely. The things once there, mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they like. They can place them at the disposal of whomsoever they please, and on whatever terms. Further, in the social state, in every state except total solitude, any disposal whatever of them can only take place by the consent of society, or rather of those who dispose of its active force. Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by any one, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society only remained passive; if it did not either interfere en masse, or employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him from being disturbed in the possession. The distribu- tion of wealth, therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society. The rules by which it is
* Principles of Political Economy With Some of Their Applications of Social Philosophy, edited with an introduction by W.J. Ashley, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.
336 The Classical School
determined are what the opinions and feelings of the ruling portion of the community make them, and are very different in different ages and countries; and might be still more different, if mankind so chose.
The opinions and feelings of mankind, doubtless, are not a matter of chance. They are conse- quences of the fundamental laws of human nature, combined with the existing state of knowl- edge and experience, and the existing condition of social institutions and intellectual and moral culture. But the laws of the generation of human opinions are not within our present subject. They are part of the general theory of human progress, a far larger and more difficult subject of inquiry than political economy. We have here to consider, not the causes, but the consequences, of the rules according to which wealth may be distributed. Those, at least, are as little arbitrary, and have as much the character of physical laws, as the laws of production. Human beings can control their own acts, but not the consequences of their acts either to themselves or to others. Society can subject the distribution of wealth to whatever rules it thinks best: but what practical results will flow from the operation of those rules must be discovered, like any other physical or mental truths, by observation and reasoning.
We proceed, then, to the consideration of the different modes of distributing the produce of land and labour, which have been adopted in practice, or may be conceived in theory. Among these, our attention is first claimed by that primary and fundamental institution, on which, unless in some exceptional and very limited cases, the economical arrangements of society have always rested, though in its secondary features it has varied, and is liable to vary. I mean, of course, the institution of individual property.
Chapter XI: Of wages
1. Under the head of Wages are to be considered, first, the causes which determine or influ- ence the wages of labour generally, and second, the differences that exist between the wages of dif- ferent employments. It is convenient to keep these two classes of considerations separate; and in discussing the law of wages, to proceed in the first instance as if there were no other kind of labour than common unskilled labour of the average degree of hardness and disagreeableness.
Wages, like other things, may be regulated either by competition or by custom. In this country there are few kinds of labour of which the remuneration would not be lower than it is, if the employer took the full advantage of competition. Competition, however, must be regarded, in the present state of society, as the principal regulator of wages, and custom or individual character only as a modifying circumstance, and that in a comparatively slight degree.
Wages, then, depend mainly upon the demand and supply of labour; or, as it is often expressed, on the proportion between population and capital. By population is here meant the number only of the labouring class, or rather of those who work for hire; and by capital only circulating capital, and not even the whole of that, but the part which is expended in the direct purchase of labour. To this, however, must be added all funds which, without forming a part of capital, are paid in exchange for labour, such as the wages of soldiers, domestic servants, and all other unproductive labourers. There is unfortunately no mode of expressing by one familiar term, the aggregate of what has been called the wages-fund of a country: and as the wages of productive labour form nearly the whole of that fund, it is usual to overlook the smaller and less important part, and to say that wages depend on population and capital. It will be convenient to employ this expression, remembering, however, to consider it as elliptical, and not as a literal statement of the entire truth.
With these limitations of the terms, wages not only depend upon the relative amount of capi- tal and population, but cannot, under the rule of competition, be affected by anything else. Wages (meaning, of course, the general rate) cannot rise, but by an increase of the aggregate
Mill: Principles of Political Economy 337
funds employed in hiring labourers, or a diminution in the number of the competitors for hire; nor fall, except either by a diminution of the funds devoted to paying labour, or by an increase in the number of labourers to be paid.
Book IV: Influence of the progress of society on production and distribution
Chapter VI: Of the stationary state
1. The preceding chapters comprise the general theory of the economical progress of society, in the sense in which those terms are commonly understood; the progress of capital, of popula- tion, and of the productive arts. But in contemplating any progressive movement, not in its nature unlimited, the mind is not satisfied with merely tracing the laws of the movement; it can- not but ask the further question, to what goal? Towards what ultimate point is society tending by its industrial progress? When the progress ceases, in what condition are we to expect that it will leave mankind?
It must always have been seen, more or less distinctly, by political economists, that the increase of wealth is not boundless: that at the end of what they term the progressive state lies the sta- tionary state, that all progress in wealth is but a postponement of this, and that each step in advance is an approach to it. We have now been led to recognise that this ultimate goal is at all times near enough to be fully in view; that we are always on the verge of it, and that if we have not reached it long ago, it is because the goal itself flies before us. The richest and the most pros- perous countries would very soon attain the stationary state, if no further improvements were made in the productive arts, and if there were a suspension of the overflow of capital from those countries into the uncultivated or ill-cultivated regions of the earth.
This impossibility of ultimately avoiding the stationary state this irresistible necessity that the stream of human industry should finally spread itself out into an apparently stagnant sea must have been, to the political economists of the last two generations, an unpleasing and discourag- ing prospect; for the tone and tendency of their speculations goes completely to identify all that is economically desirable with the progressive state, and with that alone. With Mr McCulloch, for example, prosperity does not mean a large production and a good distribution of wealth, but a rapid increase of it; his test of prosperity is high profits; and as the tendency of that very increase of wealth, which he calls prosperity, is towards low profits, economical progress, according to him, must tend to the extinction of prosperity. Adam Smith always assumes that the condition of the mass of the people, though it may not be positively distressed, must be pinched and stinted in a stationary condition of wealth, and can only be satisfactory in a progressive state. The doctrine that, to however distant a time incessant struggling may put off our doom, the progress of soci- ety must ‘end in shallows and in miseries, far from being, as many people still believe, a wicked invention of Mr Malthus, was either expressly or tacitly affirmed by his most distinguished pre- decessors, and can only be successfully combated on his principles. Before attention had been directed to the principle of population as the active force in determining the remuneration of labour, the increase of mankind was virtually treated as a constant quantity; it was, at all events, assumed that in the natural and normal state of human affairs population must constantly increase, from which it followed that a constant increase of the means of support was essential to the physical comfort of the mass of mankind. The publication of Mr Malthus Essay is the era from which better views of this subject must be dated; and notwithstanding the acknowledged errors of his first edition, few writers have done more than himself, in the subsequent editions, to promote these juster and more hopeful anticipations.
Even in a progressive state of capital, in old countries, a conscientious or prudential restraint on population is indispensable, to prevent the increase of numbers from outstripping the increase of capital, and the condition of the classes who are at the bottom of society from being deterio- rated. Where there is not, in the people, or in some very large proportion of them, a resolute resistance to this deterioration a determination to preserve an established standard of comfort the condition of the poorest class sinks, even in a progressive state, to the lowest point which
Mill: Principles of Political Economy 351
they will consent to endure. The same determination would be equally effectual to keep up their condition in the stationary state, and would be quite as likely to exist. Indeed, even now, the coun- tries in which the greatest prudence is manifested in the regulating of population are often those in which capital increases least rapidly. Where there is an indefinite prospect of employment for increased numbers, there is apt to appear less necessity for prudential restraint. If it were evident that a new hand could not obtain employment but by displacing, or succeeding to, one already employed, the combined influences of prudence and public opinion might in some measure be relied on for restricting the coming generation within the numbers necessary for replacing the present.
2. I cannot, therefore, regard the stationary state of capital and wealth with the unaffected aversion so generally manifested towards it by political economists of the old school. I am inclined to believe that it would be, on the whole, a very considerable improvement on our present condition. I confess I am not charmed with the ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of struggling to get on; that the trampling, crush- ing, elbowing, and treading on each others heels, which form the existing type of social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial progress. It may be a necessary stage in the progress of civilization, and those European nations which have hitherto been so fortunate as to be preserved from it, may have it yet to undergo. It is an incident of growth, not a mark of decline, for it is not necessarily destruc- tive of the higher aspirations and the heroic virtues; as America, in her great civil war, has proved to the world, both by her conduct as a people and by numerous splendid individual examples, and as England, it is to be hoped, would also prove, on an equally trying and exciting occasion. But it is not a kind of social perfection which philanthropists to come will feel any very eager desire to assist in realizing. Most fitting, indeed, is it, that while riches are power, and to grow as rich as possible the universal object of ambition, the path to its attainment should be open to all, without favour or partiality. But the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back by the efforts of others to push themselves forward.
That the energies of mankind should be kept in employment by the struggle for riches, as they were formerly by the struggle of war, until the better minds succeed in educating the others into better things, is undoubtedly more desirable than that they should rust and stagnate. While minds are coarse they require coarse stimuli, and let them have them. In the mean time, those who do not accept the present very early stage of human improvement as its ultimate type, may be excused for being comparatively indifferent to the kind of economical progress which excites the congratulations of ordinary politicians; the mere increase of production and accumulation. For the safety of national independence it is essential that a country should not fall much behind its neighbours in these things. But in themselves they are of little importance, so long as either the increase of population or anything else prevents the mass of the people from reaping any part of the benefit of them. I know not why it should be a matter of congratulation that persons who are already richer than any one needs to be, should have doubled their means of consuming things which give little or no pleasure except as representative of wealth; or that numbers of individuals should pass over, every year, from the middle classes into a richer class, or from the class of the occupied rich to that of the unoccupied. It is only in the backward countries of the world that increased production is still an important object: in those most advanced, what is economically needed is a better distribution, of which one indispensable means is a stricter restraint on popula- tion. Levelling institutions, either of a just or of an unjust kind, cannot alone accomplish it; they may lower the heights of society, but they cannot, of themselves, permanently raise the depths.
On the other hand, we may suppose this better distribution of property attained, by the joint effect of the prudence and frugality of individuals, and of a system of legislation favouring equality
352 The Classical School
of fortunes, so far as is consistent with the just claim of the individual to the fruits, whether great or small, of his or her own industry. We may suppose, for instance (according to the suggestion thrown out in a former chapter), a limitation of the sum which any one person may acquire by gift or inheritance to the amount sufficient to constitute a moderate independence. Under this two-fold influence society would exhibit these leading features: a well-paid and affluent body of labourers; no enormous fortunes, except what were earned and accumulated during a single life- time; but a much larger body of persons than at present, not only exempt from the coarser toils, but with sufficient leisure, both physical and mental, from mechanical details, to cultivate freely the graces of life, and afford examples of them to the classes less favourably circumstanced for their growth. This condition of society, so greatly preferable to the present, is not only perfectly compatible with the stationary state, but, it would seem, more naturally allied with that state than with any other.
There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase of popu- lation, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocu- ous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of co-operation and of social intercourse, has, in all the most populous countries, been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world from which solitude is extirpated is a very poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrupeds or birds which are not domesticated for mans use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agricul- ture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour. Hitherto [1848] it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the days toil of any human being. They have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make fortunes. They have increased the comforts of the middle classes. But they have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish. Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intel- lect and energy of scientific discoverers become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot.
Mill: Principles of Political Economy 353
Book V: On the influence of government?Chapter XI: Of the grounds and limits of the laisser-faire or
non-interference principle
1. We have now reached the last part of our undertaking; the discussion, so far as suited to this treatise (i.e. so far as it is a question of principle, not detail), of the limits of the province of gov- ernment: the question, to what objects governmental intervention in the affairs of society may or should extend, over and above those which necessarily appertain to it. No subject has been more keenly contested in the present age: the contest, however, has chiefly taken place round certain select points, with only flying excursions into the rest of the field. Those indeed who have dis- cussed any particular question of government interference, such as state education (spiritual or secular), regulation of hours of labour, a public provision for the poor, etc., have often dealt largely in general arguments, far outstretching the special application made of them, and have shown a sufficiently strong bias either in favour of letting things alone, or in favour of meddling; but have seldom declared, or apparently decided in their own minds, how far they would carry either principle. The supporters of interference have been content with asserting a general right and duty on the part of government to intervene, wherever its intervention would be useful: and when those who have been called the laisser-faire school have attempted any definite limitation of the province of government, they have usually restricted it to the protection of person and property against force and fraud; a definition to which neither they nor any one else can deliber- ately adhere, since it excludes, as has been shown in a preceding chapter, some of the most indispensable and unanimously recognized of the duties of government.
Without professing entirely to supply this deficiency of a general theory, on a question, which does not, as I conceive; admit of any universal solution, I shall attempt to afford some little aid towards the resolution of this class of questions as they arise, by examining, in the most general point of view in which the subject can be considered, what are the advantages, and what the evils or inconveniences, of government interference.
We must set out by distinguishing between two kinds of intervention by the government, which, though they may relate to the same subject, differ widely in their nature and effects, and require, for their justification, motives of a very different degree of urgency. The intervention may extend to controlling the free agency of individuals. Government may interdict all persons from doing certain things; or from doing them without its authorization; or may prescribe to them certain things to be done, or a certain manner of doing things which it is left optional with them to do or to abstain from. This is the authoritative interference of government. There is another kind of intervention which is not authoritative: when a government, instead of issuing a command and enforcing it by penalties, adopts the course so seldom resorted to by governments, and of which such important use might be made, that of giving advice, and promulgating infor- mation; or when, leaving individuals free to use their own means of pursuing any object of gen- eral interest, the government, not meddling with them, but not trusting the object solely to their care, establishes, side by side with their arrangements, an agency of its own for a like purpose. Thus, it is one thing to maintain a Church Establishment, and another to refuse toleration to other religions, or to persons professing no religion. It is one thing to provide schools or colleges, and another to require that no person shall act as an instructor of youth without a government licence. There might be a national bank, or a government manufactory, without any monopoly against private banks and manufactories. There might be a post-of
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Writedemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.