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

552.

ricardo to mill1

Gatcomb Park 5 Sep^r. 1823

My Dear Friend

John’s paper2 does not quite remove our difficulty. He acknowledges that “profits are only the wages of a particular kind of labour”. Commodities vary then with the wages of this kind of labour—or rather they vary in proportion as the wages of the two kinds of labour affect them. If so, they do not vary in proportion to the quantity of labour employed on them, but in proportion to the wages paid for such labour. Commodities being made up of wages and profits, they vary in the degree that varying wages and profits may affect them.

It is true that the profits received by a man who keeps wine for a great number of years is no more than equivalent to what another man receives under another form, and immediately. We all agree with respect to the facts, but it is impossible to say that the value of commodities is proportioned to the quantity of labour employed upon them. A pipe of wine is double the value of a piece of cloth! and let me grant that it is so because double the quantity of labour is expended on it. No alteration takes place in the quantity of labour employed on either commodity, and yet wine rises to be as 2 to the cloth. Nothing has occurred but an alteration in the wages of the two species of labour. Commodities alter then in relative value not on account only of an alteration in the quantity of labour expended on them but also on account of the variation in the wages given for these two species of labour. Malthus supposes a man to pick up a certain number of grains of gold in a day, and no change to take place in the produce obtained by his labour, but that he always picks up the same quantity precisely. I suppose the same number of grains of gold to be produced in a year by the two species of labour. If we value the wine and the cloth in these two equal quantities of money before and after the variation of wages and profits they will appear to have varied in very different degrees. In which ought we to value them? Malthus says in his, because his is an invariable measure of value, always having the same quantity of labour employed on it. I say in mine, because mine also has always the same quantity of labour bestowed on it. In his measure there enters no profit, in mine there does.

Does not John mean that a commodity produced by the labour of one man for twelve months is of equal value with a commodity produced by the labour of 12 men in one month? If that is his meaning, he is in an error; the commodity produced in the twelve month will be the most valuable and the degree in which it will be so will depend on the rate of profits,—it would be more if profits were 10 pc^t. than when they fell to 5 pc^t.. With which shall we measure all things, with the commodity produced in 12 months or in one month, with the commodity produced in 5 years or that produced in one day? Say which you give the preference to, and why. I am persuaded that the selection must be arbitrary,—that they are all imperfect measures, and yet there are good reasons why amongst them one should be selected and why that one should be the commodity produced in a year.

My principal objection against John is that he proposes to prove that commodities are valuable in proportion to the quantity of labour expended on them, and then proves that capital is another name for labour; profit a name for the wages of that labour; and therefore commodities are valuable in proportion to wages of all descriptions paid for the production of them. Is not this to say that the value of commodities depends upon the value of wages and profits? If he said so he would say what is true, but the proposition is a different one from that which he first advances.

The four salmon, caught with a net, which has cost one days labour, will exchange for more than 2 deer, for the same reason that the labour of one man for twelve months is worth more than the labour of twelve men for one month; and eight salmon caught with a net made in a day, and which will last 2 days, are worth more than three deer; and therefore “capital enters into value otherwise than labour in a particular form and is paid at a different rate with immediate labor”. I do not know whether I have made myself understood. John does not allow for profits increasing at a compound rate. The profits for 5 years are more than 5 times the profits of one, and the profits of one year more than 52 times the profits for one week, and it is this which makes a great part of the difficulty. Beg him to consider this and to let me know if I am wrong in my critique on his paper. I have been thinking a good deal on this subject lately but without much improvement—I see the same difficulties as before and am more confirmed than ever that strictly speaking there is not in nature any correct measure of value nor can any ingenuity suggest one, for what constitutes a correct measure for some things is a reason why it cannot be a correct one for others.—

Y^rs. ever

David Ricardo

[1 ]Addressed: ‘J. Mill Esqr / East India House / London’. Franked by Ricardo: ‘Minchinhampton September Five 1823’. London postmark, 6 Sept. 1823.

MS in Mill-Ricardo papers.

On the same day (5 September) Ricardo was struck with his fatal illness (see the following letters).

[2 ]This paper has not been found. It is a curious coincidence that the Morning Chronicle of the same date as this letter contains an unsigned article by John Stuart Mill on the Measure of Value (cp. the list of his writings mentioned above, IV, 7, n. 1); this, however, is a review of Malthus’s pamphlet and does not contain the points discussed by Ricardo in the letter.