| OCR Text |
Show 130 ON THE NATURE AND [ CH. II. tneasure Sub.JC·C t to but little variation, .a nd conse-quently tnay be presutne~ to have vaned propor-tionably in its real value In ex~hange. In estinlating the real value In exchange of con1- tnodities in different countries, regard should. be had to the kind of food consunled by the labounng classes ; and the general rule should be to con1pare then1 in each country with a day's la~)our, a1:d a quantity of the prevaili~g sort of grain, equal. t~ the average daily earnings of a goo? l~bout eL Thus, if the n1oney price of a con1n1od1ty 1n England \VOU ld purchase five days' labour and five ?ec~s of corn and the money price of a con1mod1ty 111 Bengal' would purchase five days' labour, ~nd five tin1es the quantity of rice usually earned 111 a day hy a good labourer, according to an a~e~age ~f a very considerable period, these comn1od1t1es 1111ght be considered in each country as of equal real value in exchange ; and the difference in their _n1oney values \Vould express pretty nearly the different values of silver in England and Bengal. . 1~he principal defect of the me~sure · her~ pro- 1 posed arises from the effec~ of ca~1tal,. n1a~h1nery and the division of labour 111 varying, 1n chfferent countries and at different periods, the results of da~labour and the prices of tnan ufactured co~un~dtties: but these varying results no approximation hitherto suggested has ever pretended to estin1ate ; and, in fact, they relate rather to riches than to exchano- eable value, 'vhich, though nearly connected, b • are not always the same.; and on this account, In an estimate of value, the cheapness arising. fronl S·EC. Vrr.J lHEASURES OF VALUE. 131 skill and n1achinery n1ay 'vithout much error be neglected. Mr. Ricardo asks "why should gold, or corn, or labour be the standard n1easure of value, more than coals or iron, more than cloth, soap, candles, and the other necessaries of the labourer? Why, in short, should any comn1odity, or all con1modities too'ether b ' be the standard, when such a standard is itself sub-ject to ·fluctuations in value ?''* I trust that the ~uestion here put has been satisfactorily answered 111 the course of this inquiry into the nature and 111easures of value. And I will only ~dd here that sorne one, or tnore, or all commodities too-ether tnust b ' of necessity be taken to express exchangeable value, because they include every thino· that can he given in exchange. Yet a Ineasure ofexchano·eabl~ value thus form~d, it is acknowledged, is ~1- perfcct; and we should certainly have been obli<Yed to Mr. Ricardo if he had substituted a better. · But what measure has he proposed ·to substitute? ,.fhe sacrifice of toil and labour made in the production of a c?mmodity} that _is, its ·cost, or, n1ore properly speaktng, a portion of Its cost, from which its value it~ exchange is practically found, under different Circumstances, to vary in almost every degree. Cost and value are ahvays essentially different. A comtnodity, the cost of which has doubled may be worth in exchangeable value no more th~n before, if other commodities have likewise doubled. When the cost o.f con1n1odities however is esti- * Prine. of Polit. Econ. c. xx. p. 343 . .2d edit. K2 . ' |
