| OCR Text |
Show 86 ON THE NATURE AND [ Cl-1. II. In the first place, a tnornent's consideration will shew us that it cannot be applied i!l a positive sense. It is indeed almost a contradiction in terms to say that the exchangeable value of a commodity is proportioned to the quantity of labour employed upon it. Exchangeable value, as the term implies, evidently tneans value in exchange for some other comtnodities; but if, when 1nore labour is employed upon one cornn1odity, n1ore labour is also e1nployed on the others for which it is exchanged, it is quite obvious that the exchangeable value of the first con1n1odity cannot be proportioned to the labour en1ployed upon it. If, for instance, at the same time that the labour of producing corn increases, the labour of producing morley and many other com modi ties increases, there is at once an end of our being able to say with truth that all things becotne nlore or less valuable in proportion as more or less labo~r is empl9yed in their production. In this case it i.s obvious that more labour has been employed upon corn, although a bushel of corn may still exchange for no more money nor labour than before. The exchangeable value of corn, therefore, has certainly not altered in proportion to the additional quantity of labour which it has cost in its production. But, .even if we take this measure always in are .. lative sense, that is, if \\re say that the exchange· able value of commodities is determined by the comparative quantity of labour expended upon each, there is no stage of society in which it will be found correct. SEC. IV.] J.\tiEASURES OE VALUE. '87 In the very earliest periods, wheu not only land was in con1n1on, but scarcely any capital was used to .assist manual ~exertions, exchanges \Vould be constantly made with ·but little reference to the quantity of labour ·which each con1modity might have cost. The greatest .Part of the objects exchanged \vould be raw products of various kinds, :such as game, fish, fruits, &c. \Vith regatd to which, the effects of lab9ur ar.e al vvays ;uncertain. .:One ·man niight have employ.ed five days' .labour in pro ·tCuring an object which ,he '"~ould subseguent~y be ~very ha;ppy to exchange for . some other object ~that n1ight have .cost a n1ore ·fo·rtu.nate labourer o~ly two, or perhaps one d~y's .exertion. .And this ~ disproportion between the exchangeable value of -objects and the .labour 'vhich they had c0st .in .production would he of perpetual recurrence. I cannot, therefore, ·agre.e either with Adam ·-sn1ith or Mr. RicardG> jn thinking that, " in that . . rude state .. of society ~which precedes bt)th the accumulation e>f stock .. and the .~ppropriation of 1land, the proportion between the quantities qf .labour necessary for acquiring ~:different objects ·seems to be the on~y circun1stance which can afford .any rule for .exchanging then1 for 0ne another."* rrhe rule, which would be acted upon in the ex. cha?ge of con11nodities, is unquestionably that which ·~1as been so happily described by Turgot, and which I have stated in the first section ·of this .chapter. The results of this rule n1ight or tnight 11~t agree, on an average, with those of the rule -!lf Principles of Po lit. Econ. c. i. p. 4. 2d edit. -G 4 |
