OCR Text |
Show 148 OF THE RENT OF LAND. (cH. III. bour. In the production of necessaries alone, the laws of nature are constantly at work to regulate their exchangeable value according to their value in use· and thouo·h from the!!reatdifferenceof external ' b ~ circumstances, and particularly the greater plenty or scarcity of land, this is seldom or ever full,y effected ; yet the exchangeable value of a given quantity of necessaries in commanding labour always tends to approximate towards the value of the quantity of labour which it can maintain, or in other words, to its value in use. In all con1n1on n1onopolies, the price of the pro-duce, and consequently the excess of price"'"above the cost of production, n1ay increase without any definite bounds. In the partial monopoly of/the land \vhich produces necessaries, the price of the produce cannot by any possibility exceed the value of the labour 'vhich it can maintain; and tbe excess of its price abov.e the cost of its production is subjected to a limit,as in1passable. · This lin1it is the surplus of necessaries which the land can be made to yield beyond the lowest wants of the cultivators, and is strictly dependent upon the natural or acquired fertility of the soil. Increase this fertility, the limit will be enlarged, and the land may yield a high rent; diminish it, the lin1it \vill be contracted, and a high rent will become in1possible; diminish it still further, the limit will coincide -vvith the cost of production, and all rent will disappear. In short, in the one case, the power of the produce to exceed in price the cost of the production depends 1nainly upon the degree of the monopoly; SEC. I.] O:F THE RENT OF LAND. , 149 in the other, it ?e~ends entirely upon the degree of fertility. Thts Is surely a broad and striking distinction.* Is it, ~hen,' P?ssible to consider the price of the necessaries of hfe as regulated upon the principle of a common monopoly ? Is it possible, with M; de Sismondi~ to regard rent as the sole produce of labo~ r, vvh1ch has a value purely nominal, and the mere resul~ of. that augmentation of price vv hich a seller obtat~s In consequence of a peculiar prtvilege : or, With Mr. Buchanan, to consider it as no addition to the national 'vealth, but merely as a transfer of valll:e, advantageous .only to the landlords, and proportionably injurious to the consume'rs ?'f Is it not, on the contrary, a clear indication of a most i~1estim.able quality in the soil, ,vhich God has be~to~ed on man-the quality of being able to m~1n t~1n .mote persons than are necessary to \Vork It? Is It no~ a part, and we shall see farther on that it is an absolutely necessary part, of that ~urplus produce from the land, vvhich has been ~ustly stated to be the source of all po\ver and enJOy~ ent; and without \vhich, in fact, there \Vould * Yet this distinction does not appear to Mr. Ricardo to be well founded! c. xxxi. p. 508. 2d edit. t I.t is extraordinary that l\1r. Ricardo (p. 501.) should have san.ctJOned the~e statements of M. Sismondi and 1\tir. B1Jchanan. Stnctly, accordmg to ~1i.s own theory, the price of corn is always a natural ~r ne~essary pnce. In what sense then can he a~ree with these wnters 1n sayinO' th t 't · l'k h f 0 , a 1 Is 1 e t at o a common monopoly or advantageous only to the landlords, and proportionably injuriou; to the consumers ? L 3 |