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 quantity of labour necessary to produce
the particular quantity given to the workman, together with the profit
of the farmer on that particular quantity, 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
accumulation of profit for two years, be of the same value as a
commodity, the result of the same quantity 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 quantity of corn or of
labour will exchange only for (perhaps) 3/4 of the former quantity 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 L100 and which might be sold at L110 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 passage 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
L100, L50, or L5. Is it not then a begging of the question to assume the
constant value because the quantity 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.