... I have read your book[208] with great attention. I need not say that
there are many parts of it in which I quite agree with you. I am
particularly pleased with your observations on the state of the poor; it
cannot be too often stated to them that the most effectual remedy for
the inadequacy of their wages is in their own hands. I wish you could
succeed in ridding us of all the obstacles to the better system, which
might be established.
After the frequent debates between us you will not be surprised at my
saying that I am not convinced by your arguments on those subjects on
which we have long differed. Our differences may in some respects, I
think, be ascribed to your considering my book as more practical than I
intended it to be. My object was to elucidate principles, and to do this
I imagined strong cases that I might show the operation of those
principles[209]. I never thought, for example, that practically any
improvements took place on the land which would at once double its
produce; but, to show what the effect of improvements would be,
undisturbed by any other operating cause, I supposed an improvement to
that extent to be adopted; and I think I have reasoned correctly from
such premises. I am sure I do not undervalue the importance of
improvements in agriculture to landlords, though it is possible that I
may not have stated it so strongly as I ought to have done. You appear
to me to overvalue them; the landlords would get no more rent while the
same capital was employed as before on the land, and no new land was
taken into cultivation; but, as with a lower price of corn new land
could be cultivated and additional capital employed on the old land, the
advantage to landlords would be manifest. Because the landlord's corn
rent would increase without these conditions, you appear to think he
would be benefited; but his additional quantity of corn would exchange
for no more money nor for any additional quantity of other goods. If
labour were cheaper, he would be benefited in as far as he would save on
the employment of his gardeners and perhaps some other menial servants,
but this advantage would be common to all who had the same money
revenue, from whatever source it might be derived. The compliment you
pay me in one of your notes[210] is most flattering. I am pleased at
knowing that you entertain a favourable opinion of me; but I fear that
the world will think, as I think, that your kind partiality has blinded
you in this instance.
I differ as much as I ever have done with you in your chapter on the
effects of the accumulation of capital[211]. Till a country has arrived
to [_sic_] the end of its resources from the diminished powers of the
land to afford a further increase, [I hold] it to be impossible that
there should [be at the] same time a redundancy of capital and of
[commodities (?)]. [I] agree that profits may be for a time very l[ow]
because capital is abundant compared with [labour][212], they cannot
both, I think, be abundant at one [and the same time].
Admitting that you are correct on this [point, I doubt] whether the
inference you draw is the correct one, and it [does not seem to me] wise
to encourage unproductive consumption. If individuals would not do their
duty in this respect, government might be justified in raising taxes for
the mere purpose of expenditure.
McCulloch[213] has a short review of your book in the last Scotsman; it
is chiefly on the subject of value; he differs from you but does so with
the greatest civility and good humour. Torrens has an interest in (I
believe he is editor of) the Traveller[214], and as his arguments are on
my side, I of course think his criticism just....
Believe me, ever truly yours,
DAVID RICARDO.