the ultimate standard of value-第1节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　5；　（1894…95）；　pp。　149…208　by　Eugen　Bohm…Bawerk　translated　by　C。W。　Macfarlane



　　　　There　are　certain　unsettled　questions　in　economic　theory　that　have　been　handed　down　as　a　sort　of　legacy　from　one　generation　to　another。　The　discussion　of　these　questions　is　revived　twenty　or　it　may　be　a　hundred　times　in　the　course　of　a　decade；　and　each　time　the　disputants　exhaust　their　intellectual　resources　in　the　endeavor　to　impress　their　views　upon　their　contemporaries。　Not　unfrequently　the　discussion　is　carried　far　beyond　the　limits　of　weariness　and　satiety；　so　that　it　may　well　be　regarded　as　an　offence　against　good　taste　to　again　recur　to　so　well…worn　a　theme。　And　yet　these　questions　return　again　and　again；　like　troubled　spirits　doomed　restlessly　to　wander　until　the　hour　of　their　deliverance　shall　appear。　It　may　be　that　since　the　last　discussion　of　the　question　we　have　made　some　real　or　fancied　discoveries　in　the　science；　and　some　may　think　that　these　throw　new　light　upon　the　old　question。　Instantly　the　old　strife　breaks　forth　anew；　with　the　same　liveliness　as　if　it　possessed　the　charm　of　entire　novelty；　and　so　it　continues　year　after　year；　and　will　continue；　until　the　troubled　spirit　is　at　last　set　free。　In　this　class　we　find　the　question　　What　is　the　〃ultimate　standard　of　value；〃　（dem　letzten　Bestimmgrunde　des　Wertes　der　Guter）？　The　content　over　this　question　began　as　early　as　the　days　of　Say　and　Ricardo。　More　recently　the　German；　Austrian；　Danish　and　American；　English　and　Italian　Economists　have　taken　it　up；　so　that　the　contest　has　assumed　an　international　character。　　　　　　The　present　generation　has　indeed　some　justification　for　again　renewing　the　discussion。　It　cannot　be　denied　that　of　late　we　have　made　some　important　additions　to　the　sum　of　our　knowledge　in　regard　to　the　theory　of　value。　This　at　first　resulted　in　an　increase　in　the　number　of　conflicting　opinions；　but　if　we　are　not　greatly　mistaken；　the　present　phase　of　this　difference　in　opinion　is　due　to　a　positive　misunderstanding；　which　stands　as　a　rock　of　offence　in　the　path　of　explanation。　　　　　　I　believe　that　this　fatal　misunderstanding　may　now　be　definitely　and　finally　removed；　by　an　investigation　which　need　possess　no　other　merits　than　those　of　care　and　exactness；　and　that　this　will　result　in　permanently　advancing　the　controversy　by　several　pace。　In　this　belief　I　venture　upon　a　step　which　otherwise　it　would　be　difficult　to　justify；　and　propose　to　add　yet　another　victim　to　the　hecatombs　already　offered　upon　the　altar　of　economic　theory；　though；　owing　to　the　necessity　of　pedantic　thoroughness　in　such　an　investigation；　it　is　a　sacrifice　which　may　not　commend　itself　to　some　of　our　readers。　

I。　THE　PROGRESS　AND　PRESENT　POSITION　OF　OPINION。

　　　　Since　the　time　when　Economics　first　became　a　science；　there　have　been　two　rivals　for　the　honor　of　being　considered　the　〃ultimate　standard　of　value〃；　the　utility　that　the　goods　afford；　and　the　cost　of　their　attainment。　Any　tyro　who　take　up　this　question　of　the　〃value　of　goods〃　will　invariably　start　out　with　the　idea　that　we　value　goods　because；　and　in　the　measure　that；　they　are　useful　to　us。　He　will；　therefore；　incline　to　the　opinion　that　the　ultimate　cause　of　the　value　of　goods　is　to　be　found　in　their　utility。　But　this　naive　opinion　is　soon　disturbed　by　a　thousand　practical　experiences。　It　is　not　the　most　useful　things；　as　air　and　water；　but　the　most　costly　things　that　show　the　highest　value。　Again；　in　innumerable　instance；　it　is　undoubtedly　true　that　value　and　price　do　accommodate　themselves　to　cost　of　attainment；　and　so　at　the　very　outset　the　spirit　of　dissent　was　introduced　into　the　theory　of　value；　and　has　remained　there　until　the　present　day。　There　was　either　this　divergence　of　opinion；　or　a　division　of　the　field　of　value　phenomena　into　two　sections；　that　of　utility　and　that　of　cost；　or；　finally；　both　domain　and　opinions　were　divided。　　　　　　The　classical　theory　of　value；　as　is　well　known；　divided　the　domain　of　the　phenomena　of　value。　A　distinction　was　drawn　between　〃value　in　use〃　and　〃value　in　exchange。〃　The　〃value　in　use〃　of　goods　was　thought　to　rest　entirely　upon　utility；　but　beyond　this　passing　reference　to　the　domain　of　utility　the　classical　theory　did　not　trouble　itself　about　value　in　use。　In　〃value　in　exchange；〃　a　distinction　was　made　between　monopoly　or　scarcity　goods　on　the　one　hand；　and　freely　reproducible　goods　on　the　other。　The　value　of　goods　of　the　first　class；　e。g。；　wines　of　rare　vintage；　statue　or　picture　by　leading　artists；　rare　old　coins；　patented　inventions；　was　thought　to　depend　upon　the　demand　for　them；　and　this　in　turn　depended　upon　their　utility。　The　value　of　goods　of　the　second　class　was　thought　to　depend　upon　their　cost　of　production；　or；　as　it　has　been　more　accurately　stated；　since　the　time　of　Carey；　upon　their　cost　of　reproduction。　To　this；　as　we　know　from　experience；　the　value　and　price　of　all　freely　reproducible　goods　tends；　in　the　long　run；　to　conform。　　　　　　As　we　have　said；　the　classical　theory　does　not　enter　into　any　discussion　of　〃value　in　use。〃　It　also　practically　ignore　the　value　of　scarcity　goods；　holding；　that　instance　of　such　value　are　few　in　number　and　of　little　importance。　The　stress　was　thus　thrown　upon　the　value　of　freely　reproducible　goods。　In　this　way　it　came　about　that　〃cost〃　was　held　to　be　the　〃ultimate　standard　of　value。〃　This　view　did　not　escape　frequent　and　serious；　though　for　the　most　part；　unsuccessful　attacks。　Say；　MacLeod　and　many　other　celebrated　or　little　known　writers　have；　at　one　time　or　another；　attacked　this　cost　theory　of　value。　　　　　　It　was　urged　that　things　that　are　not　useful　do　not　have　value；　no　matter　how　high　their　cost　of　production　or　of　reproduction　may　be；　and　therefore　that　high　cost　can　only　result　in　high　value；　when　associated　with　a　correspondingly　high　utility。　From　this　the　further　conclusion　was　eagerly　drawn；　that　the　correspondence　between　value　and　cost；　which　is　not　to　be　denied；　does　not　result　from　value　regulating　itself　according　to　cost；　but　rather　from　cost　regulating　itself　according　to　value；　since　higher　costs　are　only　undergone　when；　from　the　outset；　correspondingly　higher　value　are　anticipated。　　　　　　This　line　of　argument；　however；　is　itself　open　to　serious　and　very　manifest　objections。　It　might　be　urged　that　just　as　there　can　be　no　value　without　utility；　no　matter　how　great　the　cost　may　be；　so　there　can　be　no　value　without　cost；　no　matter　how　great　the　utility　may　be。　This　is　manifest　in　the　familiar　instances　of　air　and　water。　The　adherents　of　the　cost　theory　had　so　much　of　direct　experience　in　their　favor；　confirmed　as　this　was　by　the　undeniable　interdependence　of　cost　and　value；　that　they　for　a　long　time　had　the　advantage　in　this　constantly　recurring　strife。　　　　　　A　remarkable　shifting　of　the　scene　was　brought　about　by　the　appearance　of　the　theory　of　marginal　utility。　The　main　points　in　this　theory　I　may　safely　assume　to　be　well　known。　Its　corner…stone　is　the　distinction　between　usefulness　in　general；　and　that　very　definite　and　concrete　utility；　which；　under　given　economic　conditions；　is　dependent　upon　the　control　over　the　particular　good　whose　value　is　to　be　determined。　According　to　this　theory；　value　arises　as　a　rule　　that　there　are　exceptions　is　expressly　emphasized　from　the　utility　of　goods；　not　however　from　some　abstract　and　ever…varying　usefulness　which　cannot　be　definitely　measured；　but　from　that　use　or　useful　employment　（Nutz　Verwendung）；　which　in　a　definite　concrete　case　is　dependent　upon　the　control　over　the　particular　good。　　　　　　Since　of　all　the　possible　useful　employments　to　which　the　good　may　be　put；　it　is　not　the　most　important；　but　the　least　important；　that　a　rational　being　would　dispense　with　first；　the　determining　utility　is　the　smallest　or　least　important　utility　among　all　the　useful　employments　to　which　a　good　may　be　put。　This　determine　its　value　and　is　called　the　marginal　utility。　　　　　　This　more　exact　form　of　the　use　theory　of　value　meets　in　a　clear　and　definite　way　the　objection　urged　against　the　older　〃use〃　theory　of　value；　namely；　that　free　goods；　no　matter　how　useful　they　may　be；　have　no　value。　The　answer　is；　that　since　thee　free　goods　exist　in　superabundant　quantities；　there　is　for　us　no　utility　dependent　upon　a　concrete　quantity　of　the　same；　as　a　single　glass　of　water　or　a　single　cubic　metre　of　air。　Their　marginal　utility　therefore　is　zero。　Again；　this　theory　of　marginal　utility　gives　us　the　basis　for　a　new　and　vigorous　attack　upon　the　cost　theory　of　value。　Considered　from　one　point　of　view；　the　cost　that　determines　the　value　of　any　product　represents　nothing　else　than　the　value　of　the　producers'　goods。　If　now；　as　we　are　compelled　to　do　in　a　scientific　investigation；　we　inquire　how　we　are　to　determine　the　value　of　these　producers'　goods；　we　find　that　this；　too；　in　the　last　resort　is　determined　by　marginal　utility。　The　cost　therefore　exercises；　as　it　were；　only　a　vice…regency。　It　cannot　be　denied　that　under　certain　circumstance　it　governs　the　value　of　certain　products；　but　it　is　itself；　at　least　in　most　cases；　governed　by　a　still　higher　ruler；　namely；　〃marginal　utility。〃　Cost；　therefore；　is　for　the　most　part　merely　a　province　in　the　general　kingdom　of　utility；　and　it　is　to　this　last　that　we　must　concede　the　position　of　the　uni