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
[169] See Ricardo, _Principles_, p. 83. “Let us suppose that all
commodities are at their natural price, and consequently that the profits
of capital in all employments are exactly at the same rate, or differ
only so much as, in the estimation of the parties, is equivalent to any
real or fancied advantage which they possess or forego.”
[170] _Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded._
London, 1874.
[171] A third point might be taken up were it not for the fact that
Cairnes’s treatment of it is hardly worthy of consideration. This is
his rebuttal against the then newly appeared utility theory of Jevons.
Cairnes seems to have had virtually no understanding of the point Jevons
was trying to make.
[172] P. 9.
[173] See Marshall’s _Principles_, 3rd ed., p. 172, note, and also the
reference there cited, _Fortnightly Review_, April, 1876.
[174] P. 41. Cairnes claims, with great justice, that his term “normal
value” or “normal price” is superior to the old terms “natural” and
“necessary” price (p. 46).
[175] P. 82.
[176] P. 88. It is a waste of terms to call the duration and quantity of
labor the same thing, and consequently to consider the quantity of labor
cost and quantity of labor different things. Smith and Ricardo merely
touched on this matter, but the former says in a passage incorporated
also by the latter in his text: “There may be more labour in an hour’s
hard work than in two hours early business;” or quantity of labor is the
product of duration multiplied by disutility per unit of time; and this
is the preferable usage.
[177] P. 97. Abstinence is described as a “negative” sacrifice except for
the “small positive element of risk.”
[178] P. 50.
[179] P. 58.
[180] P. 95.
[181] Pp. 62-3.
[182] Pp. 65-70.
[183] P. 74.
[184] Pp. 72-3. Cairnes makes the same classification of the industrial
population into groups that Mill made. For criticism and a new
classification see Giddings, “The Persistence of Competition,” _Political
Science Quarterly_, vol. ii, p. 69 _et seq._; and J. B. Clark, “The
Limits of Competition,” _ibid._, p. 45 _et seq._
[185] P. 76. “Very frequently” ought really to be “nearly always.”
[186] P. 76.
[187] P. 80.
[188] P. 80.
[189] P. 98.
[190] Pp. 105-6. The italics are mine except for the word “average.”
[191] That is to say, for Senior and Cairnes, interest is no longer an
unexplained difficulty in the way of the cost philosophy of value, but
the conception of cost has been widened so as to include and explain the
case of interest. Cairnes has no longer a labor-cost philosophy, but a
subjective cost philosophy of value.
[192] P. 84.
[193] P. 78.
[194] _Principles_, chapter i, section iii. _Cf._ chap. v, sec. iv of the
present essay.
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