"M.Say,'Mr.Mill,and Mr.Ricardo,whom you call the principal authors of the new doctrine of profit,appear to me t.o have fallen into fundamental errors on that subject.In the first place they have looked upon merchandise as though it were an algebraic character instead of being an article of consumption,which must necessarily have reference to the number of consumers,and to the nature of their wants."(3)I don't know,Sir,at least as far as regards myself,upon what you found that accusation.I have considered this idea in all its shapes --that the value of things (the only quality which makes them riches)is rounded on their utility,on the aptitude they possess to satisfy our wants.
"The need we have of things,I said,(4)depends upon the moral and physical nature of man,the climate he lives in,and on the manners and legislation of his country.He has wants of the body,wants of the mind,and of the soul;wants for himself,others for his family,others still as a member of society.The skin of a bear,and a rein-deer,are articles of the first necessity to a Laplander,whilst the very name of them is unknown to the Lazzaroni of Naples.The latter for his part can do without every thing,provided he can obtain macaroni.In the stone manner the Courts of Judicature in Europe are considered as one of the strongest bonds of the social body,whilst the indigent people of America,the Arabs,and the Tartars,do very well without them.
"Of these wrests,some are satisfied by the use we make of certain things,with which Nature furnishes us gratuitously,such as the air,water,and the light of the sun.We may call these things natural riches ,because Nature alone pays the cost of them.As she gives them indiscriminately to all,no one has occasion to acquire them by means of any sacrifice whatever;therefore,they have no exchangeable value.
"Other wants can only be satisfied by the use we make of certain things,to which the use they are of could only,be given them by causing them to undergo a modification,by having effected a change in their state,and by having for that purpose surmounted some difficulty or other.Such are the things which we can only obtain by agricultural process,by commerce,or the arts.These are the only property that has an exchangeable value.
The reason of which is evident --they are,by the ****** fact of their production,the result of an exchange in which the producer has given his productive services for the purpose of receiving this produce.From that time they cannot be obtained from him,except by virtue of another exchange --by giving him another production which he may estimate at as much as his own.
"These things may be called social riches,because no exchange can take place without social intercourse,and because it is only in society that the right of exclusively possessing what has been obtained by production,or exchange,can be guaranteed."I add;"Let us observe,at the same time,that social riches are,as riches,the only ones which can become the object of a scientific study;1st.because they are the only ones which are appreciable,or at least whose appreciation is not arbitrary;2nd.because they are the only ones which are obtained,distributed,and destroyed,agreeably to the laws which we may make."Is this considering productions as algebraic characters ,by abstracting the number of consumers,and the nature of their wants?Does not this doctrine establish,on the contrary,that our wants alone compel us to make sacrifices by means whereof we obtain productions?
These sacrifices are the price we pay to obtain them.You call these sacrifices,according to Smith,by the name of labor,which is an insufficient expression,for they include the concurrence of land and capital.
I call them productive service .They have every where a price current;as soon as this price exceeds the value of the thing produced,a disadvantageous exchange is the result,in which a greater value has been consumed than has been produced.
As soon as a produce has been created,which is equivalent to services,the services are paid by the produce,the value of which,by being distributed amongst the producers,forms their revenue.You see therefore that this revenue only exists in proportion to the exchangeable value of the produce,and that it can only have that value in consequence of the demand for it,in the present state of society.I do not therefore separate this want,nor do I give it an arbitrary valuation.I take it for what it is --for what the consumers will have it to be.I could quote,if it were necessary,the whole of my book iii.which details the different modes of consuming,their causes and effects;but 1will not intrude upon your time and attention.
Let,us proceed.
You say "It is by no means true;in fact,that commodities are always bartered for commodities.The greatest part of commodities are directly exchanged for labor,productive or unproductive,and it is evident that this mass of commodities altogether,compared to the labor for which they are to be exchanged,may depreciate in value on account of its superabundance,the same as a single article,in particular,may by its superabundance fall in value in respect to labor or money."(5)Allow me to observe,in the first place,that I did not say that commodities are always bartered for commodities,but rather that productions are only bought with productions.
In the second place,that those who admit this expression,commodity,might reply to you,that when commodities are given in payment of labor,these commodities are in effect exchanged for other commodities,that is to say for those which are produced by the labor that is paid for.
