Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
This is a near approach to a worse fallacy than the Wages Fund. The
archaic reasoning is the more unhappy, because the reasoner proceeds to
use it in a good cause. Jean Baptiste Say[661] had taught that all
increased or diminished demand depended on increased or diminished
supply, and argued thence, with James Mill and Ricardo, the
impossibility of general or rather universal gluts. Goods[662] being
always meant to be exchanged with goods, one-half will furnish a market
for the other half; and thus, as production (which gives the means of
buying) is the sole source of demand (so far as demand is effective), an
excess in the supply of one article merely proves a deficiency in the
supply of another, and is improperly called over-production. Indeed,
whereas consumption takes an article away from the market, production
brings one into it, and thereby increases, _pro tanto_, the demand by
increasing the means of buying. James Mill’s neat demonstration of this
doctrine[663] would be quite conclusive if we, first of all, defined
demand and supply so as to include each other, and, second, supposed
general to mean universal. The reply of Malthus himself is that goods
are not always exchanged for goods, but frequently, perhaps most
frequently, for labour. Say rejoins that he for his part used a term
(“products”) which includes both goods and services, and that the latter
are always the real object of an exchange.[664] Malthus makes a better
point when he accuses his opponents of treating goods as if they were
mathematical symbols, instead of objects of human consumption owing
their whole character to human wants.[665] But his case could be made
convincing even on his opponents’ premises. Division of labour, all
admitted, is limited by the extent of the market;[666] allow that the
most satisfactory cure for the limitation is to widen the market, not to
lessen the division of the labour—still, _given_ the limitation of the
market, the extension of the division of the labour will cause an
over-production. All that Malthus maintained was that this might happen
in a great many cases as well as in a few; Say went as near as he dared
to the assertion that it could not happen at all.
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