The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface to Volumes Vi - Ix
• Introductory Notes to the Correspondence
• 1.: Ricardo to Horner
• 2.: Ricardo to Horner
• 3.: Ricardo to Sir Philip Francis
• 4.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 5]
• 5.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 4—answered By 6]
• 6.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 5]
• 7.: Ricardo to Dumont
• 8.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 9]
• 9.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 8.—ANSWERED By 10]
• 10.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 9]
• 11.: Malthus to Ricardo
• 12.: Ricardo to [malthus][fragment]
• 13.: Malthus to Ricardo
• 14.: Ricardo to [malthus] [a Note On the Jamaica Exchange]
• 15.: Malthus to Ricardo 3[answered By 16]
• 16.: Ricardo to Malthus 2[reply to 15.—ANSWERED By 17]
• 17.: Malthus to Ricardo 1[reply to 16]
• 18.: Ricardo to Perceval 1[answered By 19]
• 19.: Perceval (by Rosenhagen) to Ricardo 1[reply to 18]
• 20.: Ricardo to Bentham 2
• 21.: Malthus to Ricardo 1
• 22.: Mill to Ricardo 1[answered By 23]
• 23.: Ricardo to Mill 1[reply to 22.—ANSWERED By 24]
• 24.: Mill to Ricardo 1[reply to 23]
• 25.: Ricardo to Malthus 1[answered By 26]
• 26.: Malthus to Ricardo 1[reply to 25.—ANSWERED By 27]
• 27.: Ricardo to Malthus 1[reply to 26]
• 28.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 29.: Ricardo to Tierney 1[answered By 30]
• 30.: Tierney to Ricardo1[reply to 29]
• 31.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 32.: Ricardo to Malthus3[answered By 33]
• 33.: Malthus to Ricardo5[reply to 32]
• 34.: Ricardo to Horner1
• 35.: Malthus to Ricardo2
• 36.: Ricardo to Malthus1[fragment]
• 37.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 38.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 39.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 40.: Ricardo to Malthus 1
• 41.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 42.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 43.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 44.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 45.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 46.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 47.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 48]
• 48.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 47]
• 49.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 50.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 51]
• 51.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 50.—ANSWERED By 53]
• 52.: Ricardo to Bentham and Mill1
• 53.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 51.—ANSWERED By 54]
• 54.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 53.—ANSWERED By 55]
• 55.: Ricardo to Malthus3[reply to 54.—ANSWERED By 56]
• 56.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 55.—ANSWERED By 58]
• 57.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 58.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 56.—ANSWERED By 59]
• 59.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 58.—ANSWERED By 60]
• 60.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 59.—ANSWERED By 62]
• 61.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 62.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 60.—ANSWERED By 64]
• 63.: Sinclair to Ricardo1
• 64.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 62.—ANSWERED By 67]
• 65.: Sinclair to Ricardo1[answered By 66]
• 66.: Ricardo to Sinclair1[reply to 65]
• 67.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 64.—ANSWERED By 70]
• 68.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 69.: Place to Ricardo1
• 70.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 67.—ANSWERED By 72]
• 71.: Ricardo to Say2
• 72.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 70.—ANSWERED By 73]
• 73.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 72]
• 74.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 75]
• 75.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 74.—ANSWERED By 76]
• 76.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 75]
• 77.: Ricardo to Malthus3[answered By 78]
• 78.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 77]
• 79.: Trower to Ricardo2
• 80.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 81]
• Malthus to Horner4
• 81.: Ricardo to Malthus3[reply to 80.—ANSWERED By 82]
• 82.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 81.—ANSWERED By 83]
• 83.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 82.—ANSWERED By 84]
• 84.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 83.—ANSWERED By 85]
• 85.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 84.—ANSWERED By 86]
• 86.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 85.—ANSWERED By 87]
• 87.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 86.—ANSWERED By 88]
• 88.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 87.—ANSWERED By 89]
• 89.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 88.—ANSWERED By 90]
• 90.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 89]
• 91.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 92]
• 92.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 91.—ANSWERED By 93]
• 93.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 92.—ANSWERED By 94]
• 94.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 93]
• 95.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 96]
• 96.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 95]
• 97.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 98.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 99.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 100]
• 100.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 99.—ANSWERED By 101]
• 101.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 100.—ANSWERED By 103]
• 102.: Trower to Ricardo1
• 103.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 101.—ANSWERED By 110]
• 104.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 105.: Whishaw to Ricardo2
• 106.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 107]
• 107.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 106.—ANSWERED By 117]
• 108.: Ricardo to [say]1[answered By 117]
• 109.: Mill to Ricardo5[answered By 114]
• 110.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 103.—ANSWERED By 116]
• 111.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 112.: Grenfell to Ricardo1[fragment]
• 113.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 114.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 109.—ANSWERED By 134]
• 115.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 116.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 110.—ANSWERED By 126]
• 117.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 107 & 108]
• Say to Ricardo
• 118.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 119.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 120.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 136]
• 121.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 122.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 123.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 124.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 125.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 126.: Malthus to Ricardo5[reply to 116.—ANSWERED By 127]
• 127.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 126.—ANSWERED By 128]
• 128.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 127.—ANSWERED By 130]
• 129.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 130]
• 130.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 128 & 129.—ANSWERED By 137]
• 131.: Malthus to Ricardo2[answered By 132]
• 132.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 131.—ANSWERED By 137]
• 133.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 134.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 114.—ANSWERED By 135]
• 135.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 134.—ANSWERED By 138]
• 136.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 120.—ANSWERED By 141]
• 137.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 130 & 132]
• 138.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 135]
• 139.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 140.: Ricardo to Mill2[answered By 142]
• 141.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 136.—ANSWERED By 147]
• 142.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 140.—ANSWERED By 143]
• 143.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 142.—ANSWERED By 145]
• 144.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 148]
• 145.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 143.—ANSWERED By 149]
• 146.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 150]
• 147.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 141.—ANSWERED By 154]
• 148.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 144.—ANSWERED By 150]
• 149.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 145.—ANSWERED By 151]

62.

malthus to ricardo1
[Reply to 60.—Answered by 64]

E. I. Coll. Oct. 9^th 1814.

My dear Sir,

We are very much obliged to you and Mrs. Ricardo for your kind invitation to Gatcomb Park at our Xmas vacation, but I fear it will not be in our power to accept it. If we go from home we can hardly avoid going into Surrey; but we have latterly come to the resolution not to make distant excursions more than once a year, and I believe therefore we shall confine ourselves to Hayleybury and London. Our best chance of seeing Gatcomb and particularly of seeing it in beauty will be during some summer vacation in our way to or from our friends near Bath. Perhaps next summer we may be in that part of the world, and it will be a great additional pleasure, in our excursion, to be able to pay you a visit.

I do not write so soon after receiving your letter as I should perhaps feel inclined, for fear of occupying too much of your time, as well as my own. But I think that a letter now and then on these subjects will do us no harm, and perhaps may be the means of settling some important points relating to the metaphysics of Political Economy.

You seem to think that the state of production from the land, compared with the means necessary to make it produce, is almost the sole cause which regulates the profits of stock, and the means of advantageously employing capital. After what I have written on the subject of food and population I can hardly be supposed not to allow a very great effect to so very great a cause. But unless it could be shewn that no improvements were ever to take place either in agriculture or manufactures, and that upon a rise in the price of raw produce, new leases would be immediately granted, new taxes levied, and that the price of labour and of every other commodity both foreign and domestic would rise without delay exactly in proportion, the doctrine is evidently not correct in practice. And as these contemporaneous effects are in my opinion not only improbable but impossible, it would be quite useless to lay much stress upon it even as a theoretical groundwork. It appears to me that nearly all which can be safely advanced respecting the dependence of profits on the state of the land is, that the facility of acquiring food, and particularly the possession of a great quantity of good land is the main cause of high profits, and of a rapid increase of capital population and demand, and that the difficulty of acquiring food is the main cause of low profits, and the ultimate check to the indefinite extension of capital population and demand. But that in the interval between the two extremes, considerable variations may take place; and that practically no country was ever in such a state as not to admit of increase of profits on the land, for a period of some duration, from the advanced price of raw produce.

The Profits of stock, or the means of employing capital advantageously may be said to be accurately equal to the price of produce, minus the expence of production. And consequently whenever the price of produce keeps a head of the price of production the profits of stock must rise. And this has unquestionably been the case on the land in this country during the last 20 years. It is not the quantity of produce compared with the expence of production that determines profits, (which I think is your proposition) but the exchangeable value or money price of that produce, compared with the money expence of production. And the exchangeable value of produce is not of course always proportioned to its quantity. In poor countries of rich land the profits of stock are in general not nearly so high as they ought to be according to your theory; and in rich countries of middling land and of an increasing commerce, they are often much higher. In stating the cause of high profits you seem to me to consider almost exclusively the expence of production, without attending sufficiently to the price of produce, and greatly to underrate the wants and tastes of mankind in affecting prices, and consequently in affecting the means of profitably em[ploying]1 capital.

What is it I would ask that enables the foreign merchant to sell the tea sugar and tobacco which he imports at a higher price than the manufactures which he has sent out in exchange for them. Solely their being better suited to the wants and tastes of society. There is no greater power to purchase them, but there is a greater will. And the final cause of the wealth which the country derives from these commodities, and of the means of profitably employing capital in their importation, is the existence of a taste for them. It is in considering merely of the proportions of commodities to one another, and not of their proportions to the wants and tastes of mankind that the error of Mr. Mill, in my opinion, consists.

I cannot by any means agree with you in your observation that “the desire of accumulation will occasion demand just as effectually as a desire to consume[”] and that “consumption and accumulation equally promote demand.” I confess indeed that I know no other cause for the fall of profits which I believe you will allow generally takes place from accumulation than that the price of produce falls compared with the expence of production, or in other words that the effective demand is diminished. For this is how I understand the term effective demand, and this I think is the interpretation of it given by Adam Smith.1 And according to this interpretation, that is upon the supposition that a greater effective demand means a greater excess of the price of produce above the expence of production, you would surely allow that the effective demand would always be greatest when the quantity of capital was comparatively the smallest, or the profits of stock highest.

The true question relative to Mr. Mill’s proposition is not whether a man would like to spend half as much again; but whether you can furnish to persons of the same incomes a great additional quantity of commodities without lowering their price so much compared with the price of production as to destroy the effective demand for such a supply, and consequently to check its continuance to the same extent.

The principal difficulties on the present question appear to me to arise from the very different effects of an increase, or diminution of capital on the land, and in manufactures and commerce; particularly with regard to price, occasioned by the different nature of the instruments employed, one set naturally growing worse, and the other generally growing better. But I have no room for more, so adieu.

Ever truly Yours,

T. R. Malthus

[1 ]Addressed: ‘D. Ricardo Esqr. / Gatcomb Park / Minchin Hampton / Glocestershire’.

MS in the Goldsmiths’ Library of the University of London; it was purchased for them in March 1907 by Professor Foxwell from Messrs. Sotheran.—Published in Economic Journal, June 1907, pp. 273–6. In a note Professor Foxwell there suggested that this letter may have been the one given by Ricardo to Mrs. Smith of Easton Grey for her collection of autographs (see pp. 164–5 and 169 below); this is the more plausible inasmuch as Mrs. Smith’s collection was ‘sold and dispersed at her death in 1859’ (The ‘Pope’ of Holland House, p. 8).

[1 ]MS torn.

[1 ]Cp. above, p. 58.