. . . . ‹Services are exchanged for services.› Frequently services
prepared beforehand are exchanged for present or future services.
The value of services is determined not by the labour they exact or
have exacted, but by the labour which they save.
Now, in point of fact, human labour goes on constantly improving in
efficiency.
From these premises we may deduce a phenomenon which is very
important in social economy, which is, that ‹in general› anterior
labour loses in exchange with present labour.
Twenty years ago I manufactured a commodity which cost me [p350] 100
days’ labour. I propose an exchange, and I say to the purchaser, Give
me in exchange a thing which cost you also 100 days’ labour. Probably
he will be in a situation to make this reply, That great progress has
been made in twenty years. What you ask 100 days’ labour for can be
made now in 70 days. I don’t measure your service by the time it has
cost you, but by the service it renders me. That service is equal
only to 70 days’ labour, for in that time I can render it to myself,
or find one who will render it to me.
The consequence is that the value of capital goes on continually
deteriorating, and that anterior labour and capital are not so much
favoured as superficial economists believe.
Apart from tear and wear, there is no machine a little old but loses
value, for the single reason that better machines of the same kind
are made nowadays.
The same thing holds in regard to land. There are few soils, to bring
which into their present state of culture and fertility, has not
cost more labour than would be necessary now with our more effective
modern appliances.
This is what happens in the ‹usual› case, but not ‹necessarily› so.
Anterior labour may, at the present day, render greater services
than it did formerly. This is rare, but it sometimes happens. For
example, I store up wine which cost me twenty days’ labour to
produce. Had I sold it immediately, my labour would have yielded me
a certain remuneration. I have preserved my wine; it has improved;
the succeeding vintage has failed; in short, the price has risen, and
my remuneration is greater. Why? Because I render a greater amount
of service—my customers would have greater difficulty in procuring
themselves such wine than I myself experienced—I satisfy a want which
has become greater, more felt, etc. . . . .
This is a consideration which must always be looked to.
There are a thousand of us. Each has his piece of land, and clears
it. Some time elapses, and we sell it. Now it so happens that out of
1000 there are 998 who never receive as many days’ present labour
in exchange for their land as it cost them formerly; and this
just because the anterior labour, which was of a ruder and less
efficient description, does not render as great an amount of service
comparatively as present labour. But there are two of the proprietors
whose labour has been more intelligent, or, if you will, more
successful. When they bring their land to market, they find that it
is capable of rendering service which cannot be rivalled. Every man
says to himself, It would cost me a great [p351] deal to render this
service to myself, therefore I must pay well for it, for I am quite
certain that it would cost me more to obtain what I am in quest of by
my own exertions.
This is just the case of the celebrated vineyard, the Clos-Vougeot,
and it is the same case as that of the man who finds a diamond,
or possesses a fine voice, or other personal advantages or
peculiarities, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* * * * *
In my neighbourhood there is much uncultivated land. A stranger
asks, Why not cultivate this field? Because the soil is bad. But
here, alongside of it, you have another of the same quality which is
cultivated. To this objection the native has no answer.
Was he wrong in the first answer he gave, namely, ‹It is bad›?
No. The reason which induces him not to clear new fields is not
that they are bad, for there are excellent fields which also remain
uncultivated. His reason is that it would cost him more to bring this
field into the same state of cultivation as the adjoining field which
is cultivated, than to buy the latter.
Now, to any thinking man this proves incontestably that the field has
no intrinsic value.
(Illustrate this idea by considering it in various points of
view.)[73] [p352]