Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

rent of a farm depends wholly on the extent to which bad lands are under tillage, or to which good lands are forced; but the money rent of a farm depends partly on situation, and partly only on the extent to which tillage has been carried. If all the lands in the empire were equally well situated, or were equally contiguous to markets, the corn rents, and the money rents, of those of equal fertility, would be everywhere equal. But the difference of situation occasions very great differences in the money rents paid for lands of equal fertility. Thus, suppose two farmers employed equal quantities of capital, as 5,000 quarters each, in the cultivation of farms of equal goodness, the one situated in the immediate vicinity of London, and the other in Yorkshire; and, suppose farther, that London is the market to which the produce of both farms must be sent, and that the cost of conveying corn from Yorkshire to London is five shillings a quarter; under these circumstances, if the gross produce of each farm was 1,000 quarters, of which the landlord received one-fifth part, or 200 quarters, as rent, the money rent of the farm near London would be £50 a-year more than the money rent of the farm in Yorkshire. For, as the quantity of corn raised near London is not adequate to supply the effectual demand, its price in the city must suffice to pay those who bring any portion of the necessary supplies from the greatest distance, as well for the expenses of carriage as for those of production: and the farmer in the immediate vicinity, who gets this increased price for his produce, will have to pay a proportional increase of money rent; just as the occupier of good land has to pay an increase of corn or produce rent, as soon as inferior lands are taken into cultivation.

It has been said, however, that the Middlesex farmer must not only pay a higher money rent, but that he must also pay a higher corn rent: for, if he does not, it is contended that a quantity of corn will remain to him as profits equal to that which remains to the Yorkshire farmer; and as the value of corn in Middlesex is greater than in Yorkshire, his profits will also be proportionally greater, which cannot be the case. But the circumstance of their paying equal corn rents would not really cause any discrepancy in their profits. I have supposed that both farmers employ equal quantities of capital; but it must be kept in view, that, to whatever extent the value of raw produce in Middlesex may exceed its value in Yorkshire, the value of the capital belonging to the Middlesex farmer must be increased to the same extent and hence it follows, that the increased value or price of the produce belonging to the last as profits, is no more than equal to the additional value of the capital he has employed, and that he is not, consequently, in any respect in a better situation than the other.

I may here observe, that the author of the Critical Dissertation on Value, p. 194, contends, that because the value of that corn which is raised on lands paying rent, is not, after inferior lands are taken into

cultivation, proportioned to the cost of its production, it is incorrect to represent the value of the aggregate quantity of produce raised in a country where cultivation has been extended over inferior lands, as depending on that principle. But those who maintain, that the value of raw products, and of all those commodities whose quantity can be indefinitely increased, by the application of fresh capital and labour to their production, is regulated and determined by the cost of their production, invariably refer to the quantity of labour required to produce that portion of raw produce, or of any required commodity which is raised under the most unfavourable circumstances. 'The exchangeable value of all commodities,' says Mr. Ricardo, 'whether they be manufactured, or the produce of the mines, or the produce of land, is always regulated, not by the less quantity of labour that will suffice for their production under circumstances highly favourable, and exclusively enjoyed by those who have peculiar facilities of production: but by the greater quantity of labour necessarily bestowed on their production by those who have no such facilities; by those who continue to produce them under the most unfavourable circumstances; meaning-by the most unfavourable circumstances, the most unfavourable under which the quantity of produce required, renders it necessary to carry on the production.' (Prin. of Polit. Econ. 3rd ed. p. 60.)

This is the sense in which we are always to understand the proposition that the value of commodities depends on the cost of their production, or on the quantity of labour required to produce them, and bring them to market. It is not meant to affirm, that the value of every particular hat or bushel of corn offered for sale is determined by the quantity of labour actually expended on its production: What is really meant is, that the value of all the hats, as of all the corn brought to market, is determined by a certain standard; and that this standard is the quantity of labour required to produce that hat, or that bushel of corn, that has been produced with the greatest difficulty.

It is obvious, that no error can arise in estimating the value of raw produce from supposing it to have been wholly raised under the same circumstances as that portion which is raised by means of the capital last applied to the soil: For though portions of it may have been raised under very different circumstances, it is certain, that their value must, notwithstanding, be exclusively determined by, and identical with the value of that which is raised by this last applied capital. And hence, when a quantity of corn is employed as capital in any industrious undertaking, we are to consider it as being, in fact, either the actual product, or the full equivalent of the product, of a given quantity of the labour of those who raise corn on the worst lands cultivated; and the quantity of labour so wrought up in this capital, or represented by it, must plainly determine the real value of the commodities produced by its agency. This principle holds in the case of all commodities whose

&

On tracing the ex

quantity admits of being indefinitely extended. changeable value of any article of this description, we shall find that it is determined, in all ordinary states of the market, by the quantity of labour actually expended on its production, if it is produced under the most unfavourable circumstances, or that is actually expended on similar articles produced under these circumstances.

It being thus established that the circumstance of land being appropriated, and rent paid to the landlords, cannot affect the price of commodities, or make any difference whatever on the principle which regulates their exchangeable value in the earliest stages of society, I proceed, in the next place, to inquire into the effects of the accumulation and employment of capital, and of variations in the rate of wages on the value of commodities.

SECTION VI.-Effect of the employment of Capital in Production, on the Exchangeable Value of Commodities-Effect of Variations in the Rate of Wages on Exchangeable Value--1. When the Capitals employed in Production are of the same degree of Durability. 2. When they are of different degrees of Durability-Time not to be taken into account in estimating Value-A High Rate of Wages does not lay the Commerce of a Country under any disadvantage.

IT has been previously shown, that the quantity of labour required to produce a commodity, and to bring it to market, formed, in the early stages of society, and before capital was accumulated, the sole principle by which its exchangeable value was regulated. But capital is only another name for all those commodities or articles produced by human industry, that can be made directly available, either to the support of man, or to the facilitating of production. It is, in fact, nothing more than the accumulated produce of anterior labour; and when it is employed in the production of commodities, their value must plainly be regulated, not by the quantity of immediate labour only, but by the total quantity, as well of immediate as of accumulated labour, or capital, which has been necessarily laid out in their production. Suppose that an individual can, by a day's labour, without the assistance of any capital whatever, kill a deer; but that it requires a day's labour to construct weapons necessary to enable him to kill a beaver, and another day's labour to kill it. It is evident, supposing the weapons to have been rendered useless in killing the beaver, that one beaver really took as much labour to kill it as was required to kill two deer, and must, therefore, be worth twice as much. The durability of the weapons, or of the capital employed by the beaver hunter, is obviously an element of the greatest importance in estimating the value of the animals killed by him. Had the weapons been more durable than has been supposed, had they served, for example, to kill twenty beavers instead of one, then the quantity of labour required to kill a beaver would only have been one-twentieth more than

the labour required to kill a deer, and the animals would, of course, have exchanged in that proportion for each other; and it is plain that, with every extension of the durability of the weapons, the value of the deer and the beaver would be brought still nearer to equality.

It appears, therefore, inasmuch as capital is nothing but the accumulated produce of anterior labour, that its employment cannot affect the principle which makes the exchangeable value of commodities dependent on the quantities of labour required for their production. A commodity may be altogether produced by capital, without the cooperation of any immediate labour whatever; and, inasmuch as the value of this capital is regulated and determined by the quantity of labour required for its production, it is obvious, that the value of the commodities produced by its means must at bottom be determined by the same quantity of labour: Or a commodity may be partly produced by capital, and partly by immediate labour, and then its exchangeable value will be proportioned to the sum of the two, or, which is still the same thing, to the total quantity of labour bestowed "pon it. These principles are almost self-evident, and it is not easy to see how they can be made the subject of dispute or controversy; but a considerable difference of opinion is entertained respecting the effects occasioned by the employment of workmen by capitalists, and by fluctuations in the rate of wages, on value.

It does not, however, seem that there is really much room for these differences. Suppose that a certain quantity of goods, a pair of stockings for example, manufactured by independent workmen, freely exchanges for a pair of gloves also manufactured by independent workmen, they will continue to exchange in this proportion, provided the quantities of labour required for their production continue invariable, after the workmen have been employed by some master manufacturer. In the first case it is true, as Adam Smith has observed, that the whole goods produced by the workmen belong to themselves, and that, in the second case, they have to share them with their employers. But it must be recollected, that in the first case the capital, or accumulated labour, made use of in the production of the commodities, belonged to the workmen, and that, in the latter case, it has been furnished them by others. The question then comes to be, Can the circumstance of labourers voluntarily agreeing to give a portion of the commodities produced by them, as an equivalent, or compensation for the advantage and assistance derived from the use of the capital, or accumulated labour of others, afford any ground for raising the value of the commodities produced by them? It is evident it cannot. The profits of capital are only another name for the wages of accumulated labour. They make a part of the price of every commodity in whose production any portion of capital has been wasted. But whether this capital belongs to the labourer himself, or is furnished him by another, is

obviously of no consequence. When the capital does not belong to the labourer, the commodities produced by him are divided into two specific portions, whereof one is the produce of the immediate labour, and the other of the capital, or accumulated labour, laid out upon them. But the value of the commodities will continue constant so long as the same quantity of labour is required for their production, whether that labour be supplied by one or more individuals. A shoemaker who manufactures shoes on his own account, must obtain the same rate of profit on their sale, that would accrue to a master shoemaker were he employed by him as a workman. He must not only possess a capital adequate to maintain himself and his family until his shoes can be disposed of, but he must also be able to furnish himself with a workshop and tools, to advance money to the tanner to pay his leather, and to provide for various other outgoings. If he did not, exclusive of the ordinary wages of labour, realize a profit, or compensation for the employment of his capital, equal to the profit obtained by the master shoemaker, it would obviously be for his advantage to lend it to him, and to work on his account; and it is plain, inasmuch as his shoes could not be sold for a higher price than those of the capitalist, that he could not realize a greater profit.

It appears, therefore, that the circumstance of the accumulated. labour or capital, and the immediate labour required to produce commodities being furnished by different classes of people, does not affect the principle that their exchangeable value depends on the total quantity of labour required for their production. It now only remains to trace the effects of fluctuations in the rate of wages on price. When this is done, the subject will be exhausted.

To simplify this inquiry, I shall divide it into two branches: I shall inquire, first whether fluctuations in the rate of wages have any, and, if any, what effects on the relative value of commodities produced by the aid of capitals of equal degrees of durability; and, second, whether these fluctuations have any, and, if any, what effects when the capitals employed are of unequal degrees of durability.

I. The first branch of this inquiry involves no real difficulty. If all classes of capitalists employed either fixed or circulating capitals, returnable in precisely the same periods, or of precisely the same degree of durability, they would all be in the very same situation, and would be equally affected by a rise or fall of wages. This proposition is self-evident, and must be assented to by every one. But, under these circumstances, it is plainly impossible that a rise or fall of wages could occasion any variation in the relative value, or price of commodities. Suppose, for example, that a hat produced, when wages are 25. a-day, freely exchanges for a pair of boots; and let us suppose that, from some cause or other, wages rise to 3s., the question is, will this rise of wages affect the relative value of hats and boots? It is

« AnteriorContinuar »