Part 21 (1/2)
MY DEAR MALTHUS,
After the most attentive consideration which I can give to your book[268], I cannot agree with you in considering labour, in the sense in which you use it, as a good measure of value. Neither can I discover exactly what connexion the constant labour necessary to produce the wages and profits on a commodity has with its value. If it be a good measure for one commodity, it must be for all commodities; and, as well as valuing wheat by the constant quant.i.ty of labour necessary to produce the particular quant.i.ty given to the workman, together with the profit of the farmer on that particular quant.i.ty, I might value cloth or any other thing by the same rule.
I know, indeed, that I might make out a table[269] precisely such as yours, in which the only alteration would be the word cloth instead of the word wheat, and you would probably then ask me whether your principle were not of universal application. I should answer that it contains in it that radical objection which you make against the proposed measure of your opponents. You may, if you please, arbitrarily select labour as a measure of value, and explain all the science of political economy by it, in the same way as any other man might select gold or any other commodity; but you can no more connect it with a principle or show its invariability than he could. Let me suppose that cloth could not be made in less than two years; the first line of my table must be altered, and the figures would stand in the following order:--
150, 100, 25 per cent. 7-1/2, 2-1/2, 10, 10, 15.
They would do so because ten pieces of cloth would, with the acc.u.mulation of profit for two years, be of the same value as a commodity, the result of the same quant.i.ty of labour, which could be produced in two years. I do not know how you will treat this objection, but in my opinion it is fatal to your whole theory.
I have the same objection to your measure, which I have always professed; you choose[270] a variable measure for an invariable standard. Who can say that a plague which should take off half our people would not alter the value of labour? We might, indeed, agree to transfer the variation to the commodities, and to say that they had fallen and not that labour had risen, but I can see no advantage in the change.
We might again discover modes by which the necessaries of the labourer might be produced with uncommon facility; and, in consequence of the stimulus which the good situation of the labourers might give to population, the reward of the labour in necessaries might be no higher than before; would it be right in this case, in which nothing had really altered but necessaries and labour, to say that they only had remained steadily at the same value, and, because a given quant.i.ty of corn or of labour will exchange only for (perhaps) 3/4 of the former quant.i.ty of linen, cloth, or money, to declare that it was the linen, cloth, or money which had risen in value, not labour and corn which had fallen?
Two countries are equally skilful and industrious; but in one the people live on the cheap food of potatoes, in the other on the dear food, wheat. You will allow that profits will be higher in the one country than the other. You will allow, too, that money may be nearly of the same value in both, if we choose anything else as a measure of value but labour. You will further agree that there might be an extensive trade between such countries. If a man sent a pipe of wine from the potato[271] country, which cost 100 and which might be sold at 110 in the wheat country, you would say that the wine was at a higher value in the country from which it was exported, merely because, in that country, it could command more labour. You would say this although the wine would not only exchange for more money but for more of every other commodity in the wheat country. I contend that this is a novelty which cannot be considered an improvement; it would confound all our usual notions, and would impose upon us the necessity of learning a new language. All mankind would say that wine was dearer in the wheat than in the potato country, and that labour was of less value in the latter. In page 31 there is a long pa.s.sage on the reason for choosing labour as a standard, with which I am not satisfied. A piece of cloth is 120 yards in length and is to be divided between _A_ and _B_; it is obvious that in proportion as much is given to _A_ less will be given to _B_ and vice versa. This will be true, although the value of the whole 120 yards be 100, 50, or 5. Is it not then a begging of the question to a.s.sume the constant value because the quant.i.ty is constant, and because it is always to be divided between two persons?
Allowing you your premises, I see very few instances in which I can quarrel with your conclusions. I agree with all you say concerning the glut of commodities; allow to you your measure, and it is impossible to differ in the result.
I hope soon to see you. I have hardly been able to find time to write this letter, I am so busily engaged. I am serving on a committee.
Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.
NOTE.--The table referred to in this letter is the following:--
_Table ill.u.s.trating the invariable Value of Labour and its Results._
Table Key 1: Quarters of corn produced by 10 men or varying fertility of the soil.
2: Yearly corn wages to each labourer, determined by the demand and supply.
3: Advances in corn wages, or variable produce commanding the labour of 10 men.
4: Rate of profits under the foregoing circ.u.mstances.
5: Quant.i.ty of labour required to produce the wages of 10 men under the foregoing circ.u.mstances.
6: Quant.i.ty of profits on the advances of labour.
7: Invariable value of the wages of a given number of men.
8: Value of 100 qrs. of corn under the circ.u.mstances supposed.
9: Value of the product of the labour of 10 men under the circ.u.mstances supposed.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
--------+-------+--------+-------+------+-----+----+-------+-------
150 qrs.
12 qrs.
120 qrs.
25 p.c.
8
2
10
833
125
150
13
130
1538
866
134
10
77
1153
150
10
100
50
66
34
10
10
15
140
12
120
1666
86
14
10
714
116
140
11
110
272
785
215
10
909
127
130
12
120
83
923
077
10
833
108
130
10
100
30
77
23
10
10
13