I have only a few words more to say on the subject of value, and I have
done. You cannot avail yourself of the argument that a foot may measure
the variable height of a man, although the variable height of a man
cannot truly measure the foot, because you have agreed that under
certain circumstances the man's height is not variable, and it is to
those circumstances that I always refer. You say of my measure, and say
truly, that if all commodities were produced under the same
circumstances of time, etc., as itself, it would be a perfect measure,
and you say further that it is now a perfect measure for all commodities
produced under such circumstances. If then under certain circumstances
mine is a perfect measure, and yours is always a perfect one, under
those circumstances certain commodities ought to vary in these two
measures just in the same degree. Do they so? Certainly not, then one of
the measures must be imperfect. If they are both perfect mine ought to
measure yours as well as yours mine.
There is no impropriety in your saying with Adam Smith[277] that 'labour
will measure not only that part of the whole value of the commodity
which resolves itself into labour, but also that which resolves itself
into profit,' because it is the fact. But is not this true also of any
variable measure you could fix on? Is it not true of iron, copper, lead,
cloth, corn, etc., etc.? The question is about an invariable measure of
value, and your proof of invariability is that it will measure profits
as well as labour, which every variable measure will also do.
I have acknowledged that my measure is inaccurate, you say, I have so;
but not because it would not do everything which you assert your's will
do, but because I am not secure of its invariability. Shrimps are worth
L10 in my money;--it becomes necessary, we will suppose, in order to
improve the shrimps to keep them one year when profits are 10 per cent.;
shrimps at the end of that time will be worth L11. They have gained a
value of L1. Now where is the difference whether you value them in
labour and say that at the first period they are worth ten days' labour
and subsequently eleven, or say that at the first period they are worth
L10, subsequently L11?
I am not sure that your language is accurate when you say that 'labour
is the real advance in kind, and profits may be correctly estimated upon
the advances whatever they may be.' A farmer's capital consists of raw
produce, and his real advances in kind are raw produce. His advances are
worth and can command a certain quantity of labour undoubtedly, and his
profits are nothing unless the produce he obtains will command more if
he estimates both advances and profits in labour, but so it is in any
other commodity in which he may value his advances and returns. Does it
signify whether it be labour or any other thing, provided there be no
reason to suspect that it has altered in value? I know that you will say
that provided his produce is sure to command a certain quantity of
labour he is sure of being able to reproduce, not so if he estimates in
any other thing, because that thing and labour may have undergone a
great relative alteration. But may not the real alteration be in the
value of labour, and, if he act on the presumption of its remaining at
its then rate, may he not be wofully mistaken, and be a loser instead of
a gainer? Your argument always supposes labour to be of an uniform
value, and if we yielded that point to you there would be no question
between us. A manufacturer who uniformly used no other measure of value
than that which you recommend would be as infallibly liable to great
disappointments as he is now exposed to in the vulgar variable medium in
which he is accustomed to estimate value.
And now, my dear Malthus, I have done. Like other disputants, after much
discussion we each retain our own opinions. These discussions, however,
never influence our friendship; I should not like you more than I do if
you agreed in opinion with me.
Pray give Mrs. Ricardo's and my kind regards to Mrs. Malthus.
Yours truly,
DAVID RICARDO.
NOTE.--Ricardo died at Gatcomb on 11th Sept., 1823, of an abscess in
the head, which caused great suffering. He was buried in the vault
of a church at Huish, near Chippenham, Wilts; and his friend Joseph
Hume was among the mourners. As he was only fifty-one years of age,
his death was a great shock to his friends and caused something like
dismay among his disciples. 'I never loved anybody out of my own
family so much. Our interchange of opinions was so unreserved, and
the object after which we were both enquiring was so entirely the
truth and nothing else, that I cannot but think we sooner or later
must have agreed.' So said Malthus, in Empson's hearing[278].
James Mill[279], albeit unused to the melting mood, was overwhelmed
with grief, and in a letter to MacCulloch, 19th Sept., 1823, writes
of the closing scenes with much tenderness of feeling.