[71] Two or three short fragments are all that the author has left
us on this important subject. The reason is, that he proposed, as he
has told us, to set forth the views of Mr Carey of Philadelphia, in
opposition to the theory of Ricardo.—«Editor.»
[72] Celebrated vineyard of Burgundy.—«Translator.»
[73] Of these intended developments none, unfortunately, exist;
but we may be permitted to notice, briefly, the two principal
consequences of the state of matters supposed by the author.
1. Two fields, the one cultivated, A, the other uncultivated, B,
being supposed of identical quality, the amount of labour formerly
devoted to the clearance of A is assumed as the necessary measure of
the amount of labour required for the clearance of B. We may even
say that, on account of our now superior knowledge of agriculture,
of our implements, of our improved means of communication, etc.,
a ‹less› amount of labour would now be necessary to bring B into
cultivation than was formerly required in the case of A. If land
had value in itself, A would be worth all that it cost to bring it
into culture, ‹plus something additional for its natural productive
powers›; that is to say, much more than the sum now required to
bring B into the same state. Now it is just the reverse. The field A
is worth less since we buy it rather than bring B into cultivation.
In purchasing A, then, we pay nothing for the natural productive
powers, since the price does not even compensate the original cost
of bringing it into cultivation.
2. If the field A produces 1000 measures of corn, the field B when
cultivated must be supposed to produce the same quantity. The reason
why A was formerly cultivated was, that formerly 1000 measures of
corn amply remunerated all the labour required both for its original
clearance and its annual cultivation. The reason why B is not
cultivated is, that now 1000 measures of corn would not remunerate
the same amount of labour, or even a less amount, as we have just
before remarked.
And what does this show? Evidently that the value of human labour
has risen in relation to corn; that a day’s labour is worth more
wages estimated in corn. In other words, corn is obtained with
less effort, and is exchanged for a less amount of labour; and the
theory of ‹the progressive dearness of the means of subsistence is
erroneous›.—«Editor.»