The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations
• 437.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 435.—ANSWERED By 445]
• 438.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 441]
• 439.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 474]
• 440.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 442]
• 441.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 438.—ANSWERED By 448]
• 442.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 440.—ANSWERED By 443]
• 443.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 442.—ANSWERED By 444]
• 444.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 443.—ANSWERED By 455]
• 445.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 437.—ANSWERED By 447]
• 446.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 430.—ANSWERED By 488]
• 447.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 445.—ANSWERED By 456]
• 448.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 441.—ANSWERED By 449]
• 449.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 448.—ANSWERED By 450]
• 450.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 449.—ANSWERED By 453]
• 450a.: Place to Ricardo1[answered By 451]
• 451.: Ricardo to Place1[reply to 450a]
• 452.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 453.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 450]
• 454.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 455]
• 455.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 444 & 454.—ANSWERED By 458]
• 456.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 447.—ANSWERED By 461]
• 457.: Ricardo to Wheatley1
• 458.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 455.—ANSWERED By 459]
• 459.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 458.—ANSWERED By 460]
• 460.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 459.—ANSWERED By 462]
• 461.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 456.—ANSWERED By 466]
• 462.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 460.—ANSWERED By 463]
• 463.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 462.—ANSWERED By 467]
• 464.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 469]
• 465.: Tooke to Ricardo1
• 466.: Trower to Ricardo3[reply to 461.—ANSWERED By 471]
• 467.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 463.—ANSWERED By 468]
• 468.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 467]
• 469.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 464.—ANSWERED By 470]
• 470.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 469]
• 471.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 466.—ANSWERED By 478]
• 472.: Ricardo to Mcculloch 2
• 473.: Ricardo to Mill1
• [enclosure: Ricardo’s Notes On Mill’s Elements of Political Economy]
• 474.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 436 & 439.—ANSWERED By 476]
• 475.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2
• 476.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 474.—ANSWERED By 479]
• 477.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo1
• 478.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 471.—ANSWERED By 481]
• 479.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 476.—ANSWERED By 483]
• 480.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 483]
• 481.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 478]
• 482.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 483.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 479 & 480.—ANSWERED By 484]
• 484.: Mcculloch to Ricardo3[reply to 483.—ANSWERED By 486]
• 485.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 486 & 491]
• 486.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 484 & 485.—ANSWERED By 495]
• 487.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 488.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 446.—ANSWERED By 496]
• 489.: Ricardo to Foster2
• 490.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 491.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 485.—ANSWERED By 495]
• 492.: Ricardo to Trower2
• 493.: Ricardo to Hodgson1
• 494.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1
• 495.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 486 & 491.—ANSWERED By 497]
• 496.: Say to Ricardo2[reply to 488]
• 497.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 495]
• 498.: Say to Ricardo1
• 499.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 500.: Ricardo to [cowell]1
• 501.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 502.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[answered By 510]
• 503.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 504]
• 504.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 503]
• 505.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 506.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 507.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 508.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 509.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 510.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2[reply to 502.—ANSWERED By 511]
• 511.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[reply to 510.—ANSWERED By 514]
• 512.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 513.: Ricardo to Malthus3
• 514.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2[reply to 511.—ANSWERED By 515]
• 515.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[reply to 514]
• 516.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 517.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 518.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 520]
• 519.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2extract of a Letter From Paris
• 520.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 518]
• 521.: Ricardo to Goldsmid2
• 522.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 523.: Ricardo to Malthus3
• 524.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[answered By 526]
• 525.: Ricardo to Grote1
• 526.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 524]
• 527.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 533]
• 528.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1
• 529.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 530.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 541]
• Blake to Mcculloch1
• 531.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 532]
• 532.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 531.—ANSWERED By 536]
• 533.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 527.—ANSWERED By 547]
• 534.: Trower to Ricardo2[answered By 535]
• 535.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 534.—ANSWERED By 547]
• 536.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 532.—ANSWERED By 540]
• 537.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 539]
• 538.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 541]
• 539.: Mill to Ricardo3[reply to 537.—ANSWERED By 548]
• 540.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 536.—ANSWERED By 542]
• 541.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 530 & 538.—ANSWERED By 543 & 544]
• 542.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 540.—ANSWERED By 545]
• 543.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 541]
• 544.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 541.—ANSWERED By 546]
• 545.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 542.—ANSWERED By 550]
• 546.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 544]
• 547.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 533 & 535.—ANSWERED By 549]
• 548.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 539]
• 549.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 547.—ANSWERED By 551]
• 550.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 545]
• 551.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 549.—ANSWERED By 553]
• 552.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 553.: A. Austin to Trower1[reply to 551]
• 544.: A. Austin to Trower2
• 555.: Mill to Mcculloch1

545.

malthus to ricardo1
[Reply to 542.—Answered by 550]

E I Coll August 25^th 1823

My dear Ricardo,

I am very much obliged to you for giving me your whole view on the subject of value by sending me your letter to M’Culloch.2 I am a good deal engaged just at this moment, or should have answered your previous letter,3 but I cannot return your letter to M’Culloch which I have read with great attention without a few words on its contents. I most fully agree with you in your remarks on his view of the subject. It does certainly appear to be a most unjustifiable and useless mode of applying the term, labour worked up in a commodity to the increase of value occasioned by the time it is necessary to keep it before it is brought to market; but I see no impropriety in saying with Adam Smith and myself that labour will measure not only that part of the whole value of the commodity which resolves itself into labour, but also that which resolves itself into profits. I of course quite agree with you in saying that the great mass of commodities is not produced by labour alone, but by the union of labour and capital; and consequently if I thought that my measure would not measure the profits of capital I would give it up without a moments hesitation; but it appears to me after the maturest consideration of all the objections which have been made to me, that it will measure both the quantity and the rate of profits accurately, and therefore will measure the value of an oak tree as well as of shrimps. You allow distinctly that my measure will measure the value of shrimps or of gold picked up on the sea shore. Now let us suppose for a moment that this gold which before was considered as being brought to market immediately must now be kept for a year before it is exchanged, and that profits were ten per cent, would not the exact difference between the value of the shrimps obtained by ten days labour and of the gold obtained by ten days, be ascertained by adding ten per cent to the labour employed upon the gold; and will not the gold in that case command 11 days labour, while the shrimps command ten, that is, will not the relative quantities of labour which they will command exactly measure the amount of the additional value given to the gold by the element of profits. Moreover if the natural and absolute condition of the supply of the shrimps were the employment of ten days labour, is it not correct to say that the natural and absolute value of the shrimps is measured by ten days labour; and in the same manner, as the gold in the case supposed could not be supplied without the addition of a value of ten per cent to the value of the labour employed, must it not be equally correct to say that the natural and absolute value of the gold in this case is measured by the eleven days labour. Apply this principle to the case of the cloth and wine which you have mentioned in the latter part of your letter, or to the case of the oak tree, and you will find it answer in every instance, whatever may be the variations of profits, or the length of time required to bring the commodity to market, while in all these cases of great variations or great length of time, your measure according to your own concessions would be greatly inaccurate.

You very justly say that as soon as we are in possession of the knowledge of the circumstances which determine the value of commodities we are enabled to say what is necessary to give us an invariable measure of value. Now what can determine the natural and absolute value of commodities, but the natural and absolute conditions of their supply. Neither the advance of a certain quantity of corn nor even of a certain quantity of money will secure this supply unless they will command the requisite quantity of labour. Labour is the real advance in kind and the profits may be correctly estimated upon the advances whatever they may be. Consequently it appears to me that the circumstances which determine the natural value of commodities must be the quantity of labour advanced, accumulated and immediate, with the profits upon such labour for the time that it has been employed; and if the quantity of labour so obtained be on an average the same as the quantity of labour which they will command, we are at once furnished with a ready measure of the circumstances which determine the value of commodities, or in other words an invariable measure of their value.

I cannot in the least degree enter into your view of the subject when you intimate, both in your letter to me and M’Culloch, that if my measure is a good measure for yours, yours must necessarily be as good a measure for mine. This appears to me the same thing as saying that if a foot will measure the variable height of a man, the variable height of a man will measure a foot. I say that my measure of a days labour, will measure the value of the variable quantity and value of cloth produced by a certain manufactory in a day; but surely the variable value of cloth will not measure the days labour. Supposing my measure to be invariable and yours not, mine would measure the variations of yours. Supposing your measure to be invariable, and mine not, yours would measure the variations of mine, but it is absolutely impossible that a variable measure can measure an invariable one. Thinking my measure an invariable one, I am [of]1 opinion that it will shew the variations of yours occasioned by the varying rate of profits, and that when you suppose the value of labour to rise, it is really only a fall in the value of money; because when we refer to the circumstances which determine the value of commodities, we shall find that money must have fallen in value, on account of the profits required to produce it having fallen, while the labour has remained the same. When you say that the value of wages necessarily rises as poorer land is taken into cultivation, you consider the value of wages as if it were composed of the element of labour alone, and not of labour and profits.

I am interrupted and can say no more without losing the post.

Ever truly Yours

T Rob^T Malthus.

[1 ]Addressed: ‘D. Ricardo EsqrM.P. / Gatcomb Park / Minchinhampton / Gloucestershire.’

MS in Mill-Ricardo papers.

[2 ]Letter 544.

[3 ]Letter 542.

[1 ]Omitted in MS.