History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economyWhitaker, Albert C. (Albert Conser)
History
History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economy
Whitaker, Albert C. (Albert Conser)
Economics -- Great Britain -- History; Labor theory of value -- Great Britain -- History
As was virtually pointed out by Malthus,[259] the presence of rent and
interest charges in entrepreneur’s costs is an insuperable obstacle
in the way of the theory that a commodity’s total labor cost is
proportionate to its exchange value. If, however, an attempt is made to
correlate _marginal_ labor cost and exchange value, the difficulties of
rent and interest are eliminated. When we say that these difficulties are
eliminated, we do not mean that they are arbitrarily set aside, or that
we merely run away from them: but the marginal labor cost of a commodity
is not affected by the payment of rent and interest. For instance, if
wheat is being produced at the same time on land of the best and land
of the poorest grade, a large rent will be paid out of the total wheat
product on the former soil, and little or no rent may be paid out of the
total product on the latter, and yet the cultivation will be carried to
the point which makes the marginal product of labor and the marginal
labor cost of wheat the same on both grades. The same observations may
be applied to rent of capital (or interest, as we call it when it is
calculated as a percentage of the value of the rent-bearing agent).[260]
The great difficulty in the way of the theorem that the marginal labor
costs of commodities are in proportion[261] to their exchange values,
is the problem of skilled labor. The best way to show the effect of
skilled labor upon comparative marginal costs is first to eliminate it
temporarily from the problem, and show what the relation of marginal
labor cost would be to exchange value, if there were only common labor
throughout society. If all labor were of a single grade, all commodities
which are products of labor would have exchange values in proportion to
their respective marginal disutility costs. This would be true whether
the products are consumption goods or are merely production goods which
are used in making further products. Some valuable goods are not products
of labor. Such are bodies of ore lying in their natural state, standing
timber, _etc._ These production goods have no disutility cost, marginal
or total, and consequently their exchange values have no relation to
cost. Their supplies are determined independently of human agency. Ore at
the surface, crushed or smelted ore, are, however, products of labor, and
so long as only a part of the known existing ore of mines is removed—a
part remaining untouched because of too high cost—the supply of any
product resulting from the combination of labor and native ore-bodies,
will depend upon marginal labor cost.[262]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account