[30] In criticising the labor-command standard of Smith, Ricardo has made virtually the same point as the above (pp. 8-14, Gonner ed. Ricardo’s _Principles_). By _riches_ Smith cannot mean what Ricardo means by this term in his famous chapter on the antinomy of value. (Chap. xx, “Value and Riches, their Distinctive Properties.”) If by reason of scarcity, wine should come to command in exchange more labor than formerly, Smith would have to say that a given quantity of wine becomes more riches. This Ricardo would not say. [31] _Principles_, p. 8. [32] P. 36. The following passage (p. 38) exhibits perfectly Smith’s general theory of the relation of labor, the precious metals, and grain to value as a dynamic problem. “Labour, therefore, it appears evidently, is the only universal as well as the only accurate measure of value, or the only standard by which we can compare the values of different commodities at all times and at all places. We cannot estimate, it is allowed, the real value of different commodities from century to century by the quantities of silver which were given for them. We cannot estimate it from year to year by the quantities of corn. _By the quantities of labour we can, with the greatest accuracy, estimate it both from century to century and from year to year._ From century to century corn is a better measure than silver, _because_ from century to century equal quantities of corn will command the same quantity of labour more nearly than equal quantities of silver. From year to year, on the contrary, silver is a better measure than corn, because equal quantities of it will more nearly command the same quantity of labour.” [33] P. 52. [34] P. 52. [35] McCulloch and James Mill were but satellites of Ricardo. [36] P. 49. Torrens, in his _Essay on the Production of Wealth_, has worked out with great pains a form of proof of this proposition. It is exhibited in a series of dialogues between primitive producers to show that an exchange of goods at a ratio out of proportion to labor-costs is incompatible with recognized motives of trade. His proof is good enough under the tacit assumptions which he makes, including all the conditions of the perfect type of fictitious primitive society used by classical writers. [37] P. 30. [38] P. 32. [39] When Smith speaks of “exchangeable value” as being measured by power to command labor, he is using the only term he has to stand for any or every concept of value distinct from the “value in use” or general utility of free goods. [40] Its relation to pure objective exchange-value is another question. In Chapter xi of this essay will be found a summary discussion of the relation of disutility cost to value. [41] The thought in the “final disutility” theories of Gossen, Jevons and Clark, independently worked out by these writers. [42] These very words were later used by Malthus in his defense of the labor-command standard.