On The Principles of Political Economic and Taxation - David Ricardo E-Book

David Ricardo

• Herausgeber: Lebooks Editora
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Seitenzahl: 637

Beschreibung

Considered one of the founders of the English classical school of political economy, along with Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo exerted a significant influence on both neoclassical economists and Marxist economists, highlighting his importance to the development of economic science. In his work "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," Ricardo discusses his reflections on various points of political economy in light of the ideas and contributions of figures he openly admired, such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and others. Ricardo elaborates on the concept of value according to Smith's reflections, explicitly presenting some of his objections to the topic. He also presents his most notable contribution to economic thought, the theory of comparative advantage, in addition to taxation and other important reflections that make this work one of the cornerstones of contemporary economic thought.

Leseprobe

David Ricardo

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL

ECONOMY AND TAXATION

Contents

INTRODUCTION

PREFACE

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND TAXATION

Chapter 1. On value

Chapter 2. On Rent

Chapter 3. On the Rent of Mines.

Chapter 4. On Natural and Market Price.

Chapter 5. On Wages

Chapter 6. On Profits

Chapter 7. On Foreign Trade

Chapter 8. On Taxes

Chapter 9. Taxes on Raw Produce.

Chapter 10. Taxes on Rent

Chapter 11. Tithes

Chapter 12. Land-Tax

Chapter 13. Taxes on Gold

Chapter 14. Taxes on Houses

Chapter 15. Taxes on Profits

Chapter 16. Taxes on Wages

Chapter 17. Taxes on Other Commodities than Raw Produce.

Chapter 18. Poor Rates

Chapter 19. On Sudden Changes in the Channels of Trade.

Chapter 20. Value and Riches, their Distinctive Properties.

Chapter 21. Effects of Accumulation on Profits and Interest.

Chapter 22. Bounties on Exportation and Prohibitions of Importation

Chapter 23. On Bounties on Production.

Chapter 24. Doctrine of Adam Smith concerning the Rent of Land.

Chapter 25. On Colonial Trade

Chapter 26. On Gross and Net Revenue

Chapter 27. On Currency and Banks

Chapter 28. On the Comparative Value of Gold, Corn and Labor, in Rich and Poor Countries.

Chapter 29. Taxes Paid by the Producer.

Chapter 30. On the Influence of Demand and Supply on Prices.

Chapter 31. On Machinery

Chapter 32. Mr. Malthus's Opinion on Rent.

INTRODUCTION

David Ricardo

1772-1823

David Ricardo, an Englishman born in 1772 and passing in 1823, was the most significant economist after Adam Smith. Descended from the Sephardic diaspora that fled the Iberian Peninsula, hence his surname, the Ricardos moved to Italy, the Netherlands, and finally settled in London, where they engaged in finance. David Ricardo achieved great success in this field, amassing a considerable fortune. Later, he delved into politics and, above all, the study of economics, becoming one of the most important figures in the history of this science.

David Ricardo was the third of seventeen children in a Sephardic Jewish family that immigrated from the Netherlands to England before his birth. He began working at the London Stock Exchange at the age of fourteen as an employee of his father. In 1793, he married outside the Jewish faith, leading to strained relations with his family, prompting Ricardo to establish himself independently. He specialized in trading public securities, rapidly prospered, and by 1815, had amassed a considerable fortune.

After acquiring his wealth on the London Stock Exchange, he became a landowner. In 1819, he was elected a member of Parliament, retaining the position until his death. In the House of Commons, his opinions carried authority, and he has been said to bethe first to educate the House in economic analysis.

Retiring from business allowed him to pursue intellectual pursuits from a young age. His interest in economic theory developed around the midpoint of his life. His first encounter with the subject appears to date back to 1799 when he read Adam Smith. In 1809, his first opinions on economics were published in the form of letters to the press signed "R" regarding currency devaluation.

About the work

"Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," published in 1817, is his seminal work in classical economics. It was the first comprehensive treatise on the discipline after "The Wealth of Nations," edited over forty years earlier. Ricardo introduced significant analytical innovations regarding the theory of value and distribution, the law of diminishing returns and rent theory, the famous theory of comparative advantage or comparative costs in foreign trade, taxes, and technological unemployment.

The work constitutes the most mature and precise exposition of classical economics. In the preface, he states that "the principal problem of political economy is to determine the laws that regulate distribution." To this end, he developed a labor theory of value, distribution theory, and a theory of distribution. He also wrote numerous essays, letters, and notes containing significant contributions. However, his writings are so condensed and complex that many readers find his ideas better explained in the works of Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and John Ramsay McCulloch.

Ricardo's intellectual depth and the remarkably modern way in which he addressed economic problems, with a high level of abstraction and rigor, despite lacking formal university education, made the influence of his principles enduring. He was admired by prominent economists such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx in the 19th century, and later by Alfred Marshall, Piero Sraffa, and many others to this day.

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND TAXATION

PREFACE

The produce of the earth — all that is derived from its surface by the United application of labor, machinery and capital, is divided among three classes of the community; namely, the proprietor of the land, the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation and the laborers by whose industry it is cultivated.

But in different stages of society, the proportions of the whole produce of the earth which will be allotted to each of these classes, under the names of rent, profit and wages, will be essentially different; depending mainly on the actual fertility of the soil, on the accumulation of capital and population and on the skill, ingenuity and instruments employed in agriculture.

To determine the laws which regulate this distribution, is the principal problem in Political Economy: much as the science has been improved by the writings of Turgot, Stuart, Smith, Say, Sismondi and others, they afford very little satisfactory information respecting the natural course of rent, profit and wages.

In 1815, Mr. Malthus, in his ‘Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent,’ and a Fellow of University College, Oxford,’ in his ‘Essay on the Application of Capital to Land,’ presented to the world, nearly at the same moment, the true doctrine of rent; without a knowledge of which, it is impossible to understand the effect of the progress of wealth on profits and wages or to trace satisfactorily the influence of taxation on different classes of the community; particularly when the commodities taxed are the productions immediately derived from the surface of the earth. Adam Smith and the other able writers to whom I have alluded, not having viewed correctly the principles of rent, have, it appears to me, overlooked many important truths, which can only be discovered after the subject of rent is thoroughly understood.

To supply this deficiency, abilities are required of a far superior cast to any possessed by the writer of the following pages; yet, after having given to this subject his best consideration — after the aid which he has derived from the works of the above-mentioned eminent writers — and after the valuable experience which a few late years, abounding in facts, have yielded to the present generation — it will not, he trusts, be deemed presumptuous in him to state his opinions on the laws of profits and wages and on the operation of taxes. If the principles which he deems correct, should be found to be so, it will be for others, abler than himself, to trace them to all their important consequences.

The writer, in combating received opinions, has found it necessary to advert more particularly to those passages in the writings of Adam Smith from which he sees reason to differ; but he hopes it will not, on that account, be suspected that he does not, in common with all those who acknowledge the importance of the science of Political Economy, participate in the admiration which the profound work of this celebrated author so. justly excites.

The same remark may be applied to the excellent works of M. Say, who not only was the first or among the first, of continental writers, who justly appreciated and applied the principles of Smith and who has done more than all other continental writers taken together, to recommend the principles of that enlightened and beneficial system to the nations of Europe; but who has succeeded in placing the science in a more logical and more instructive order; and has enriched it by several discussions original, accurate and profound.{1} The respect, however, which the author entertains for the writings of this gentleman, has not prevented him from commenting with that freedom which he thinks the interests of science require, on such passages of the ‘Economie Politique,’ as appeared at variance with his own ideas.

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND TAXATION

Chapter 1. On value

“The value of a commodity or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labor which is necessary for its production and not on the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labor.”

It has been observed by Adam Smith, that ‘the word Value has two different meanings and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called value in use; the other value in exchange. The things,’ he continues, ‘which have the greatest value in use, have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange, have little or no value in use; Water and air are abundantly useful; they are indeed indispensable to existence, yet, under ordinary circumstances, nothing can be obtained in exchange for them. Gold, on the contrary, though of little use compared with air or water, will exchange for a great quantity of other goods.

Utility then is not the measure of exchangeable value, although it is absolutely essential to it. If a commodity were in no way useful, — in other words, if it could in no way contribute to our gratification, — it would be destitute of exchangeable value, however scarce it might be or whatever quantity of labor might be necessary to procure it.

Possessing utility, commodities derive their exchangeable value from two sources: from their scarcity and from the quantity of labor required to obtain them.

There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by their scarcity alone. No labor can increase the quantity of such goods and therefore their value cannot be lowered by an increased supply. Some rare statues and pictures, scarce books and coins, wines of a peculiar quality, which can be made only from grapes grown on a particular soil, of which there is a very limited quantity, are all of this description. Their value is wholly independent of the quantity of labor originally necessary to produce them and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them.

These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market. By far the greatest part of those goods which are the objects of desire, are procured by labor and they may be multiplied, not in one country alone but in many, almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labor necessary to obtain them.

In speaking then of commodities, of their exchangeable value and of the laws which regulate their relative prices, we mean always such commodities only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry and on the production of which competition operates without restraint.

In the early stages of society, the exchangeable value of these commodities or the rule which determines how much of one shall be given in exchange for another, depends almost exclusively on the comparative quantity of labor expended on each.

‘The real price of everything,’ says Adam Smith, ‘what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What everything is really worth to it or the man who has acquired it and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself and which it can impose upon other people.’ ‘Labor was the first price — the original purchase-money that was paid for all things.’ Again, in that early and rude state of society, which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labor necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually cost twice the labor to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer. It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days’ or two hours’ labor, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day’s or one hour’s labor.’{2}

That this is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things, excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy; for from no source do so many errors and so much difference of opinion in that science proceed, as from the vague ideas which are attached to the word value.

If the quantity of labor realized in commodities, regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labor must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised, as every diminution must lower it.

Adam Smith, who so accurately defined the original source of exchangeable value and who was bound in consistency to maintain, that all things became more or less valuable in proportion as more or less labor was bestowed on their production, has himself erected another standard measure of value and speaks of things being more or less valuable, in proportion as they will exchange for more or less of this standard measure. Sometimes he speaks of corn, at other times of labor, as a standard measure; not the quantity of labor bestowed on the production of any object but the quantity which it can command in the market: as if these were two equivalent expressions and as if because a man’s labor had become doubly efficient and he could therefore produce twice the quantity of a commodity, he would necessarily receive twice the former quantity in exchange for it.

If this indeed were true, if the reward of the laborer were always in proportion to what he produced, the quantity of labor bestowed on a commodity and the quantity of labor which that commodity would purchase, would be equal and either might accurately measure the variations of other things: but they are not equal; the first is under many circumstances an invariable standard, indicating correctly the variations of other things; the latter is subject to as many fluctuations as the commodities compared with it. Adam Smith, after most ably showing the insufficiency of a variable medium, such as gold and silver, for the purpose of determining the varying value of other things, has himself, by fixing on corn or labor, chosen a medium no less variable.

Gold and silver are no doubt subject to fluctuations, from the discovery of new and more abundant mines; but such discoveries are rare and their effects, though powerful, are limited to periods of comparatively short duration. They are subject also to fluctuation, from improvements in the skill and machinery with which the mines may be worked; as in consequence of such improvements, a greater quantity may be obtained with the same labor. They are further subject to fluctuation from the decreasing produce of the mines, after they have yielded a supply to the world, for a succession of ages. But from which of these sources of fluctuation is corn exempted? Does not that also vary, on one hand, from improvements in agriculture, from improved machinery and implements used in husbandry, as well as from the discovery of new tracts of fertile land, which in other countries may be taken into cultivation and which will affect the value of corn in every market where importation is free? Is it not on the other hand subject to be enhanced in value from prohibitions of importation, from increasing population and wealth and the greater difficulty of obtaining the increased supplies, on account of the additional quantity of labor which the cultivation of inferior lands requires? Is not the value of labor equally variable; being not only affected, as all other things are, by the proportion between the supply and demand, which uniformly varies with every change in the condition of the community but also by the varying price of food and other necessaries, on which the wages of labor are expended?

In the same country double the quantity of labor may be required to produce a given quantity of food and necessaries at one time, that may be necessary at another and a distant time; yet the laborer’s reward may possibly be very little diminished. If the laborer’s wages at the former period, were a certain quantity of food and necessaries, he probably could not have subsisted if that quantity had been reduced. Food and necessaries in this case will have risen 100 per cent if estimated by the quantity of labor necessary to their production, while they will scarcely have increased in value, if measured by the quantity of labor for which they will exchange.

The same remark may be made respecting two or more countries. In America and Poland, on the land last taken into cultivation, a year’s labor of any given number of men, will produce much more corn than on land similarly circumstanced in England. Now, supposing all other necessaries to be equally cheap in those three countries, would it not be a great mistake to conclude, that the quantity of corn awarded to the laborer, would in each country be in proportion to the facility of production?

If the shoes and clothing of the laborer, could, by improvements in machinery, be produced by one fourth of the labor now necessary to their production, they would probably fall 75 per cent; but so far is it from being true, that the laborer would thereby be enabled permanently to consume four coats or four pair of shoes, instead of one, that it is probable his wages would in no long time be adjusted by the effects of competition and the stimulus to population, to the new value of the necessaries on which they were expended. If these improvements extended to all the objects of the laborer’s consumption, we should find him probably at the end of a very few years, in possession of only a small, if any, addition to his enjoyments, although the exchangeable value of those commodities, compared with any other commodity, in the manufacture of which no such improvement were made, had sustained a very considerable reduction; and though they were the produce of a very considerably diminished quantity of labor.

It cannot then be correct, to say with Adam Smith, ‘that as labor may sometimes purchase a greater and sometimes a smaller quantity of goods, it is their value which varies, not that of the labor which purchases them;’ and therefore, ‘that labor alone never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared;’ — but it is correct to say, as Adam Smith had previously said, ‘that the proportion between the quantities of labor necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another; or in other words, that it is the comparative quantity of commodities which labor will produce, that determines their present or past relative value and not the comparative quantities of commodities, which are given to the laborer in exchange for his labor.

Two commodities vary in relative value and we wish to know in which the variation has really taken place. If we compare the present value of one, with shoes, stockings, hats, iron, sugar and all other commodities, we find that it will exchange for precisely the same quantity of all these things as before. If we compare the other with the same commodities, we find it has varied with respect to them all: we may then with great probability infer that the variation has been in this commodity and not in the commodities with which we have compared it. If on examining still more particularly into all the circumstances connected with the production of these various commodities, we find that precisely the same quantity of labor and capital are necessary to the production of the shoes, stockings, hats, iron, sugar, &c.; but that the same quantity as before is not necessary to produce the single commodity whose relative value is altered, probability is changed into certainty and we are sure that the variation is in the single commodity. we then discover also the cause of its variation.

If I found that an ounce of gold would exchange for a less quantity of all the commodities above enumerated and many others; and if, moreover, I found that by the discovery of a new and more fertile mine or by the employment of machinery to great advantage, a given quantity of gold could be obtained with a less quantity of labor, I should be justified in saying that the cause of the alteration in the value of gold relatively to other commodities, was the greater facility of its production or the smaller quantity of labor necessary to obtain it. In like manner, if labor fell very considerably in value, relatively to all other things and if I found that its fall was in consequence of an abundant supply, encouraged by the great facility with which corn and the other necessaries of the laborer, were produced, it would, I apprehend, be correct for me to say that corn and necessaries had fallen in value in consequence of less quantity of labor being necessary to produce them and that this facility of providing for the support of the laborer had been followed by a fall in the value of labor. No, say Adam Smith and Mr. Malthus, in the case of the gold you were correct in calling its variation a fall of its value, because corn and labor had not then varied; and as gold would command a less quantity of them, as well as of all other things, than before, it was correct to say that all things had remained stationary and that gold only had varied; but when corn and labor fall, things which we have selected to be our standard measure of value, notwithstanding all the variations to which we acknowledge they are subject, it would be highly improper to say so; the correct language will be to say, that corn and labor have remained stationary and all other things have risen in value.

Now it is against this language that I protest. I find that precisely, as in the case of the gold, the cause of the variation between corn and other things, is the smaller quantity of labor necessary to produce it and therefore, by all just reasoning, I am bound to call the variation of corn and labor a fall in their value and not a rise in the value of the things with which they are compared. If I have to hire a laborer for a week and instead of ten shillings I pay him eight, no variation having taken place in the value of money, the laborer can probably obtain more food and necessaries, with his eight shillings, than he before obtained for ten: but this is owing, not to a rise in the real value of his wages, as stated by Adam Smith and more recently by Mr. Malthus but to a fall in the value of the things on which is wages are expended, things perfectly distinct; and yet for calling this a fall in the real value of wages, I am told that I adopt new and unusual language, not reconcilable with the true principles of the science. To me it appears that the unusual and, indeed, inconsistent language, is that used by my opponents.

Suppose a laborer to be paid a bushel of corn for a week’s work, when the price of corn is 80s. per quarter and that he is paid a bushel and a quarter when the price falls to 40s. Suppose, too, that he consumes half a bushel of corn a-week in his own family and exchanges the remainder for other things, such as fuel, soap, candles, tea, sugar, salt, &c. &c.; if the three-fourths of a bushel which will remain to him, in one case, cannot procure him as much of the above commodities as half a bushel did in the other, which it will not, will labor have risen or fallen in value? Risen, Adam Smith must say, because his standard is corn and the laborer receives more corn for a week’s labor. Fallen, must the same Adam Smith say, ‘because the value of a thing depends on the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys,’ and labor has a less power of purchasing such other goods.

Section II

Labor of different qualities differently rewarded. This is no cause of variation in the relative value of commodities.

In speaking, however, of labor, as being the foundation of all value and the relative quantity of labor as almost exclusively determining the relative value of commodities, I must not be supposed to be inattentive to the different qualities of labor and the difficulty of comparing an hours or a day’s labor, in one employment, with the same duration of labor in another. The estimation in which different qualities of labor are held, comes soon to be adjusted in the market with sufficient precision for all practical purposes and depends much on the comparative skill of the laborer and intensity of the labor performed. The scale, when once formed, is liable to little variation. If a day’s labor of a working jeweler be more valuable than a day’s labor of a common laborer, it has long ago been adjusted and placed in its proper position in the scale of value.{3}

In comparing therefore, the value of the same commodity, at different periods of time, the consideration of the comparative skill and intensity of labor, required for that particular commodity, needs scarcely to be attended to, as it operates equally at both periods. One description of labor at one time is compared with the same description of labor at another; if a tenth, a fifth or a fourth, has been added or taken away, an effect proportioned to the cause will be produced on the relative value of the commodity.

If a piece of cloth be now of the value of two pieces of linen and if, in ten years hence, the ordinary value of a piece of cloth should be four pieces of linen, we may safely conclude, that either more labor is required to make the cloth or less to make the linen or that both causes have operated.

As the inquiry to which I wish to draw the reader’s attention, relates to the effect of the variations in the relative value of commodities and not in their absolute value, it will be of little importance to examine into the comparative degree of estimation in which the different kinds of human labor are held. We may fairly conclude, that whatever inequality there might originally have been in them, whatever the ingenuity, skill or time necessary for the acquirement of one species of manual dexterity more than another, it continues nearly the same from one generation to another; or at least, that the variation is very inconsiderable from year to year and therefore, can have little effect, for short periods, on the relative value of commodities.

‘The proportion between the different rates both of wages and profit in the different employments of labor and stock, seems not to be much affected, as has already been observed, by the riches or poverty, the advancing, stationary or declining state of the society. Such revolutions in the public welfare, though they affect the general rates both of wages and profit, must in the end affect them equally in all different employments. The proportion between them therefore must remain the same and cannot well be altered, at least for any considerable time, by any such revolutions.’{4}

Section III

Not only the labor applied immediately to commodities affect their value but the labor also which is bestowed on the complements, tools and buildings, with which much labor is assisted.

Even in that early state to which Adam Smith refers, some capital, though possibly made and accumulated by the hunter himself, would be necessary to enable him to kill his game. Without some weapon, neither the beaver nor the deer could be destroyed and therefore the value of these animals would be regulated, not solely by the time and labor necessary to their destruction but also by the time and labor necessary for providing the hunter’s capital, the weapon, by the aid of which their destruction was effected.

Suppose the weapon necessary to kill the beaver, was constructed with much more labor than that necessary to kill the deer, on account of the greater difficulty of approaching near to the former animal and the consequent necessity of its being more true to its mark; one beaver would naturally be of more value than two deer and precisely for this reason, that more labor would, on the whole, be necessary to its destruction. Or suppose that the same quantity of labor was necessary to make both weapons but that they were of very unequal durability; of the durable implement only a small portion of its value would be transferred to the commodity, a much greater portion of the value of the less durable implement would be realized in the commodity which it contributed to produce.

All the implements necessary to kill the beaver and deer might belong to one class of men and the labor employed in their destruction might be furnished by another class; still, their comparative prices would be in proportion to the actual labor bestowed, both on the formation of the capital and on the destruction of the animals. Under different circumstances of plenty or scarcity of capital, as compared with labor, under different circumstances of plenty or scarcity of the food and necessaries essential to the support of men, those who furnished an equal value of capital for either one employment or for the other, might have a half, a fourth or an eighth of the produce obtained, the remainder being paid as wages to those who furnished the labor. yet this division could not affect the relative value of these commodities, since whether the profits of capital were greater or less, whether they were 50, 20 or 10 per cent or whether the wages of labor were high or low, they would operate equally on both employments.

If we suppose the occupations of the society extended, that some provide canoes and tackle necessary for fishing, others the seed and rude machinery first used in agriculture, still the same principle would hold true, that the exchangeable value of the commodities produced would be in proportion to the labor bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labor to which they were applied.

If we look to a state of society in which greater improvements have been made and in which arts and commerce flourish, we shall still find that commodities vary in value conformably with this principle: in estimating the exchangeable value of stockings, for example, we shall find that their value, comparatively with other things, depends on the total quantity of labor necessary to manufacture them and bring them to market. First, there is the labor necessary to cultivate the land on which the raw cotton is grown; secondly, the labor of conveying the cotton to the country where the stockings are to be manufactured, which includes a portion of the labor bestowed in building the ship in which it is conveyed and which is charged in the freight of the goods; thirdly, the labor of the spinner and weaver; fourthly, a portion of the labor of the engineer, smith and carpenter, who erected the buildings and machinery, by the help of which they are made; fifthly, the labor of the retail dealer and of many others, whom it is unnecessary further to particularize. The aggregate sum of these various kinds of labor, determines the quantity of other things for which these stockings will exchange, while the same consideration of the various quantities of labor which have been bestowed on those other things, will equally govern the portion of them which will be given for the stockings.

To convince ourselves that this is the real foundation of exchangeable value, let us suppose any improvement to be made in the means of abridging labor in any one of the various processes through which the raw cotton must pass, before the manufactured stockings come to the market, to be exchanged for other things; and observe the effects which will follow. If fewer men were required to cultivate the raw cotton or if fewer sailors were employed in navigating or shipwrights in constructing the ship, in which it was conveyed to us; if fewer hands were employed in raising the buildings and machinery or if these, when raised, were rendered more efficient, the stockings would inevitably fall in value and consequently command less of other things. They would fall, because a less quantity of labor was necessary to their production and would therefore exchange for a smaller quantity of those things in which no such abridgment of labor had been made.

Economy in the use of labor never fails to reduce the relative value of a commodity, whether the saving be in the labor necessary to the manufacture of the commodity itself or in that necessary to the formation of the capital, by the aid of which it is produced. In either case the price of stockings would fall, whether there were fewer men employed as bleachers, spinners and weavers, persons immediately necessary to their manufacture; or as sailors, carriers, engineers and smiths, persons more indirectly concerned. In the one case, the whole saving of labor would fall on the stockings, because that portion of labor was wholly confined to the stockings; in the other, a portion only would fall on the stockings, the remainder being applied to all those other commodities, to the production of which the buildings, machinery and carriage, were subservient.

Suppose that in the early stages of society, the bows and arrows of the hunter were of equal value and of equal durability, with the canoe and implements of the fisherman, both being the produce of the same quantity of labor. Under such circumstances the value of the deer, the produce of the hunter’s day’s labor, would be exactly equal to the value of the fish, the produce of the fisherman’s day’s labor. The comparative value of the fish and the game, would be entirely regulated by the quantity of labor realized in each; whatever might be the quantity of production or however high or low general wages or profits might be. If for example the canoes and implements of the fisherman were of the value of £100 and were calculated to last for ten years and he employed ten men, whose annual labor cost £100 and who in one day obtained by their labor twenty salmon: If the weapons employed by the hunter were also of £100 value and calculated to last ten years and if he also employed ten men, whose annual labor cost £100 and who in one day procured him ten deer; then the natural price of a deer would be two salmon, whether the proportion of the whole produce bestowed on the men who obtained it, were large or small. The proportion which might be paid for wages, is of the utmost importance in the question of profits; for it must at once be seen, that profits would be high or low, exactly in proportion as wages were low or high; but it could not in the least affect the relative value of fish and game, as wages would be high or low at the same time in both occupations. If the hunter urged the plea of his paying a large proportion or the value of a large proportion of his game for wages, as an inducement to the fisherman to give him more fish in exchange for his game, the latter would state that he was equally affected by the same cause; and therefore under all variations of wages and profits, under all the effects of accumulation of capital, as long as they continued by a day’s labor to obtain respectively the same quantity of fish and the same quantity of game, the natural rate of exchange would be one deer for two salmon.

If with the same quantity of labor, a less quantity of fish or a greater quantity of game were obtained, the value of fish would rise in comparison with that of game. If, on the contrary, with the same quantity of labor a less quantity of game or a greater quantity of fish was obtained, game would rise in comparison with fish.

If there were any other commodity which was invariable in its value, we should be able to ascertain, by comparing the value of fish and game with this commodity, how much of the variation was to be attributed to a cause which affected the value of fish and how much to a cause which affected the value of game.

Suppose money to be that commodity. If a salmon were worth £1 and a deer £2 one deer would be worth two salmon. But a deer might become of the value of three salmon, for more labor might be required to obtain the deer or less to get the salmon or both these causes might operate at the same time. If we had this invariable standard, we might easily ascertain in what degree either of these causes operated. If salmon continued to sell for £1 whilst deer rose to £3 we might conclude that more labor was required to obtain the deer. If deer continued at the same price of £2 and salmon sold for 13s. 4d. we might then be sure that less labor was required to obtain the salmon; and if deer rose to £2 10s. and salmon fell to 16s. 8d. we should be convinced that both causes had operated in producing the alteration of the relative value of these commodities.

No alteration in the wages of labor could produce any alteration in the relative value of these commodities; for suppose them to rise, no greater quantity of labor would be required in any of these occupations but it would be paid for at a higher price and the same reasons which should make the hunter and fisherman endeavor to raise the value of their game and fish, would cause the owner of the mine to raise the value of his gold. This inducement acting with the same force on all these three occupations and the relative situation of those engaged in them being the same before and after the rise of wages, the relative value of game, fish and gold, would continue unaltered. Wages might rise twenty per cent and profits consequently fall in a greater or less proportion, without occasioning the least alteration in the relative value of these commodities.

Now suppose that with the same labor and fixed capital, more fish could be produced but no more gold or game, the relative value of fish would fall in comparison with gold or game. If, instead of twenty salmon, twenty-five were the produce of one day’s labor, the price of a salmon would be sixteen shillings instead of a pound and two salmon and a half, instead of two salmon, would be given in exchange for one deer but the price of deer would continue at £2 as before. In the same manner, if fewer fish could be obtained with the same capital and labor, fish would rise in comparative value. Fish then would rise or fall in exchangeable value, only because more or less labor was required to obtain a given quantity; and it never could rise or fall beyond the proportion of the increased or diminished quantity of labor required.

If we had then an invariable standard, by which measure the variation in other commodities, we should the utmost limit to which they could permanently rise, if produced under the circumstances supposed, was proportioned the additional quantity of labor required for their production; and that unless more labor were required for their production, they could not rise in any degree whatever. A rise of wages would not raise them in money value, nor relatively to any other commodities, the production of which required no additional quantity of labor, which employed the same proportion of fixed and circulating capital and fixed capital of the same durability. If more or less labor were required in the production of the other commodity, we have already stated that this will immediately occasion an alteration in its relative value but such alteration is owing to the altered quantity of requisite labor and not to the rise of wages.

Section IV

The principle that the quantity of labor bestowed on the production of commodities regulates their relative value, considerably modified by the employment of machinery and other fixed and durable capital.

In the former section we have supposed the implements and weapons necessary to kill the deer and salmon, to be equally durable and to be the result of the same quantity of labor and we have seen that the variations in the relative value of deer and salmon depended solely on the varying quantities of labor necessary to obtain them, — but in every state of society, the tools, implements, buildings and machinery employed in different trades may be of various degrees of durability and may require different portions of labor to produce them. The proportions, too, in which the capital that is to support labor and the capital that is invested in tools, machinery and buildings, may be variously combined. This difference in the degree of durability of fixed capital and this variety in the proportions in which the two sorts of capital may be combined, introduce another cause, besides the greater or less quantity of labor necessary to produce commodities, for the variations in their relative value — this cause is the rise or fall in the value of labor.

The food and clothing consumed by the laborer, the buildings in which he works, the implements with which his labor is assisted, are all of a perishable nature. There is however a vast difference in the time for which these different capitals will endure: a steam-engine will last longer than a ship, a ship than the clothing of the laborer and the clothing of the laborer longer than the food which he consumes.

According as capital is rapidly perishable and requires to be frequently reproduced or is of slow consumption, it is classed under the heads of circulating or of fixed capital.{5} A brewer, whose buildings and machinery are valuable and durable, is said to employ a large portion of fixed capital: on the contrary, a shoemaker, whose capital is chiefly employed in the payment of wages, which are expended on food and clothing, commodities more perishable than buildings and machinery, is said to employ a large proportion of his capital as circulating capital.

It is also to be observed that the circulating capital may circulate or be returned to its employer, in very unequal times. The wheat bought by a farmer to sow is comparatively a fixed capital to the wheat purchased by a baker to make into loaves. One leaves it in the ground and can obtain no return for a year; the other can get it ground into flour, sell it as bread to his customers and have his capital free to renew the same or commence any other employment in a week.

Two trades then may employ the same amount of capital; but it may be very differently divided with respect to the portion which is fixed and that which is circulating.

In one trade very little capital may be employed as circulating capital, that is to say in the support of labor — it may be principally invested in machinery, implements, buildings, &c. capital of a comparatively fixed and durable character. In another trade the same amount of capital may be used but it may be chiefly employed in the support of labor and very little may be invested in implements, machines and buildings. A rise in the wages of labor cannot fail to affect unequally, commodities produced under such different circumstances.

Again two manufacturers may employ the same amount of fixed and the same amount of circulating capital; but the durability of their fixed capitals may be very unequal. One may have steam-engines of the value of £10,000, the other, ships of the same value.

If men employed no machinery in production but labor only and were all the same length of time before they brought their commodities to market, the exchangeable value of their goods would be precisely in proportion to the quantity of labor employed.

If they employed fixed capital of the same value and of the same durability, then, too, the value of the commodities produced would be the same and they would vary with the greater or less quantity of labor employed on their production.

But although commodities produced under similar circumstances, would not vary with respect to each other, from any cause but an addition or diminution of the quantity of labor necessary to produce one or other of them, yet compared with others not produced with the same proportionate quantity of fixed capital, they would vary from the other cause also which I have before mentioned, namely, a rise in the value of labor, although neither more nor less labor were employed in the production of either of them. Barley and oats would continue to bear the same relation to each other under any variation of wages. Cotton goods and cloth would do the same, if they also were produced under circumstances precisely similar to each other but yet with a rise or fall of wages, barley might be more or less valuable compared with cotton goods and oats compared with cloth.

Suppose two men employ one hundred men each for a year in the construction of two machines and another man employs the same number of men in cultivating corn, each of the machines at the end of the year will be of the same value as the corn, for they will each be produced by the same quantity of labor. Suppose one of the owners of one of the machines to employ it, with the assistance of one hundred men, the following year in making cloth and the owner of the other machine to employ his also, with the assistance likewise of one hundred men, in making cotton goods, while the farmer continues to employ one hundred men as before in the cultivation of corn.

During the second year they will all have employed the same quantity of labor but the goods and machine together of the clothier and also of the cotton manufacturer, will be the result of the labor of two hundred men, employed for a year; or, rather, of the labor of one hundred men for two years; whereas the corn will be produced by the labor of one hundred men for one year, consequently if the corn be of the value of £500 the machine and cloth of the clothier together, ought to be of the value of £1,000 and the machine and cotton goods of the cotton manufacturer ought to be also of twice the value of the corn. But they will be of more than twice the value of the corn, for the profit on the clothier’s and cotton manufacturer’s capital for the first year has been added to their capitals, while that of the farmer has been expended and enjoyed. On account then of the different degrees of durability of their capitals or, which is the same thing, on account of the time which must elapse before one set of commodities can be brought to market, they will be valuable, not exactly in proportion to the quantity of labor bestowed on them, — they will not be as two to one but something more, to compensate for the greater length of time which must elapse before the most valuable can be brought to market.

Suppose that for the labor of each workman £50 per annum were paid or that £5,000 capital were employed and profits were 10 per cent, the value of each of the machines as well as of the corn, at the end of the first year, would be £5,500. The second year the manufacturers and farmer will again employ £5,000 each in the support of labor and will therefore again sell their goods for £5,500 but the men using the machines, to be on a par with the farmer, must not only obtain £5,500, for the equal capitals of £5,000 employed on labor but they must obtain a further sum of £550; for the profit on £5,500 which they have invested in machinery and consequently their goods must sell for £6,050. Here then are capitalists employing precisely the same quantity of labor annually on the production of their commodities and yet the goods they produce differ in value on account of the different quantities of fixed capital or accumulated labor, employed by each respectively. The cloth and cotton goods are of the same value, because they are the produce of equal quantities of labor and equal quantities of fixed capital; but corn is not of the same value as these commodities, because it is produced, as far as regards fixed capital, under different circumstances.

But how will their relative value be affected by a rise in the value of labor? It is evident that the relative values of cloth and cotton goods will undergo no change, for what affects one must equally affect the other, under the circumstances supposed: neither will the relative values of wheat and barley undergo any change, for they are produced under the same circumstances as far as fixed and circulating capital are concerned; but the relative value of corn to cloth or to cotton goods, must be altered by a rise of labor.

There can be no rise in the value of labor without a fall of profits. If the corn is to be divided between the farmer and the laborer, the larger the proportion that is given to the latter, the less will remain for the former. So if cloth or cotton goods be divided between the workman and his employer, the larger the proportion given to the former, the less remains for the latter. Suppose then, that owing to a rise of wages, profits fall from 10 to 9 per cent, instead of adding £550 to the common price of their goods (to £5,500) for the profits on their fixed capital, the manufacturers would add only 9 per cent on that sum or £495, consequently the price would be £5,995 instead of £6,050. As the corn would continue to sell for £5,500, the manufactured goods in which more fixed capital was employed, would fall relatively to corn or to any other goods in which a less portion of fixed capital entered. The degree of alteration in the relative value of goods, on account of a rise or fall of labor, would depend on the proportion which the fixed capital bore to the whole capital employed. All commodities which are produced by very valuable machinery or in very valuable buildings or which require a great length of time before they can be brought to market, would fall in relative value, while all those which were chiefly produced by labor or which would be speedily brought to market would rise in relative value.

The reader, however, should remark, that this cause of the variation of commodities is comparatively slight in its effects. With such a rise of wages as should occasion a fall of one per. cent in profits, goods produced under the circumstances I have supposed, vary in relative value only one per cent: they fall with so great a fall of profits from £6,050 to £5,995. The greatest effects which could be produced on the relative prices of these goods from a rise of wages, could not exceed 6 or 7 per cent; for profits could not, probably, under any circumstances, admit of a greater general and permanent depression than to that amount.

Not so with the other great cause of the variation in the value of commodities, namely, the increase or diminution in the quantity of labor necessary to produce them. If to produce the corn, eighty, instead of one hundred men, should be required, the value of the corn would fall 20 per cent or from £5,500 to £4,400. If to produce the cloth, the labor of eighty instead of one hundred men would suffice, cloth would fall from £6,050 to £4,950. An alteration in the permanent rate of profits, to any great amount, is the effect of causes which do not operate but in the course of years; whereas alterations in the quantity of labor necessary to produce commodities, are of daily occurrence. Every improvement in machinery, in tools, in buildings, in raising the raw material, saves labor and enables us to produce the commodity to which the improvement is applied with more facility and consequently its value alters. In estimating, then, the causes of the variations in the value of commodities, although it would be wrong wholly to omit the consideration of the effect produced by a rise or fall of labor, it would be equally incorrect to attach much importance to it; and consequently, in the subsequent part of this work, though I shall occasionally refer to this cause of variation, I shall consider all the great. variations which take place in the relative value of commodities to be produced by the greater or less quantity of labor which may be required from time to time to produce them.

It is hardly necessary to say, that commodities which have the same quantity of labor bestowed on their production, will differ in exchangeable value, if they cannot be brought to market in the same time.

Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of £1,000 for a year in the production of a commodity and at the end of the year I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of £1,000 in finishing or perfecting the same commodity and that I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per cent, my commodity must sell for £2,310; for I have employed £1,000 capital for one year and £2,100 capital for one year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labor but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an expense of £2,000 and at the end of the first year he sells it with 10 per cent profit or for £2,200. Here then are two commodities having precisely the same quantity of labor bestowed on them, one of which sells for £2,310 — the other for £2,200.

This case appears to differ from the last but is, in fact, the same. In both cases the superior price of one commodity is owing to the greater length of time which must elapse before it can be brought to market. In the former case the machinery and cloth were more than double the value of the corn, although only double the quantity of labor was bestowed on them. In the second case, one commodity is more valuable than the other, although no more labor was employed on its production. The difference in value arises in both cases from the profits being accumulated as capital and is only a just compensation for the time that the profits were withheld.

It appears then that the division of capital into different proportions of fixed and circulating capital, employed in different trades, introduces a considerable modification to the rule, which is of universal application when labor is almost exclusively employed in production; namely, that commodities never vary in value, unless a greater or less quantity of labor be bestowed on their production, it being shown in this section that without any variation in the quantity of labor, the rise of its value merely will occasion a fall in the exchangeable value of those goods, in the production of which fixed capital is employed; the larger the amount of fixed capital, the greater will be the fall.

Section V

The principle that value does not vary with the rise of fall of wages, modified also by the unequal durability of capital and by the unequal rapidity with which it is returned to its employer.

In the last section we have supposed that of two equal capitals in two different occupations, the proportions of fixed and circulating capitals were unequal, now let us suppose them to be in the same proportion but of unequal durability. In proportion as fixed capital is less durable, it approaches to the nature of circulating capital. It will be consumed and its value reproduced in a shorter time, in order to preserve the capital of the manufacturer. We have just seen, that in proportion as fixed capital preponderates in a manufacture, when wages rise, the value of commodities produced in that manufacture, is relatively lower than that of commodities produced in manufactures where circulating capital preponderates. In proportion to the less durability of fixed capital and its approach to the nature of circulating capital, the same effect will be produced by the same cause.

If fixed capital be not of a durable nature, it will require a great quantity of labor annually to keep it in its original state of efficiency; but the labor so bestowed may be considered as really expended on the commodity manufactured, which must bear a value in proportion to such labor. If I had a machine worth £20,000 which with very little labor was efficient to the production of commodities and if the wear and tear of such machine were of trifling amount and the general rate of profit 10 per cent, I should not require much more than £2,000 to be added to the price of the goods, on account of the employment of my machine; but if the wear and tear of the machine were great, if the quantity of labor requisite to keep it in an efficient state were that of fifty men annually, I should require an additional price for my goods, equal to that which would be obtained by any other manufacturer who employed fifty men in the production of other goods and who used no machinery at all.

But a rise in the wages of labor would not equally affect commodities produced with machinery quickly consumed and commodities produced with machinery slowly consumed. In the production of the one, a great deal of labor would be continually transferred to the commodity produced — in the other very little would be so transferred. Every rise of wages, therefore or, which is the same thing, every fall of profits, would lower the relative value of those commodities which were produced with a capital of a durable nature and would proportionally elevate those which were produced with capital more perishable. A fall of wages would have precisely the contrary effect.