the ultimate standard of value-第7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！


ge；　we　get　the　real　kernel　of　the　matter。　And　this　kernel；　according　to　the　empirical　law　of　cost；　is　nothing　else　than　〃the　toil　and　trouble〃　of　labor。　　　　　　The　well…known　controversy　that　long　monopolized　the　attention　of　the　classical　economists；　whether　the　price　of　goods　depends　upon　the　quantity　of　labor　expended；　as　Ricardo　taught；　or　upon　the　amount　of　wage；　as　Mill　correctingly　suggested；　afforded　ample　opportunity　to　correct　this　error。　They　failed；　however；　to　do　so。　The　old　Smithian　〃toil　and　trouble〃　remained　in　a　sort　of　scientific　haziness；　until；　through　Gossen；　and　especially　through　Jevons；　it　was　brought　to　full　and　clear　recognition。　Then；　for　the　first　time　under　the　name　of　the　〃disutility　of　labor；〃　it　was　raised　to　the　rank　of　an　elementary　economic　power；　while　its　counterpart；　the　utility　of　the　good；　was　set　over　against　it。　The　old　confusion；　however；　attached　itself　to　the　new　name。　If　I　am　not　greatly　mistaken；　not　only　the　followers　of　the　old　classical　school；　but　also　many　of　the　adherents　of　the　newer　theory；　developed　by　Jevons；　still　stand　under　this　ban。　　　　　　In　the　case　of　Professor　Macvane；　the　confusion　is　quite　pronounced；　as　when　he　explains　the　cost　of　the　classical　law　of　cost　as　〃pain　of　labor　and　fatigue　of　muscles。〃（24*）　Professor　Edgeworth　take　substantially　the　same　position　when　he　occasionally　explains　the　〃disutility〃　in　terms　of　〃cost　and　sacrifice。〃（25*）　Or　when　he　sets　first　utility　and　cost；（26*）　and　again；　utility　and　disutility　over　against　one　another。（27*）　Again；　when　he　indulge　in　a　polemic　against　the　Austrian　school　of　economists；　and　urge　that　they　have　neglected　the　great　Ricardian　law　of　cost　and　stripped　it　of　its　significance；　and　that　they　have　not　properly　recognized　the　function　of　disutility　in　the　determination　of　the　economic　equilibrium　and　the　value　of　goods。（28*）　Professor　Marshall；　as　it　seems　to　me；　also　become　involved；　to　some　degree；　in　this　confusion。　While　Ricardo　held　that　costs　of　production；　and　Jevons　held　that　marginal　utility　was　the　determinant　of　value；　Marshall　holds　that　both　enter　into　the　determination　of　value；　and　that；　like　the　two　blades　of　a　pair　of　shears；　they　are　co…equal　factors　in　this　determination。　Nor　does　he　assume　this　position　in　any　tentative　way；　but　rather　holds　that　he　has　found　the　solution　for　a　problem　long　in　dispute。（29*）　　　　　No　matter　who　is　responsible　for　this　confounding　of　the　cost　of　the　empirical　law　of　cost　with　the　disutility　of　labor；　the　fact　remains　that　the　confusion　does　exist。　In　order　to　distinguish　as　sharply　as　possible　between　the　two　principles　referred　to；　I　may　remark　that　there　is　a　rule　which　may　be　called　the　law　of　disutility；　according　to　which　the　value　of　all　goods　that　come　under　its　influence　tend　to　be　in　equilibrium　with　the　amount　of　the　pain　involved　in　their　production。　But　this　is　far　from　being　the　same　as　the　great　empirical　law　of　cost。　It　depends　upon　quite　different　assumptions；　and　upon　the　play　of　other　and　intermediate　motive。　Finally；　it　has　a　different　and　much　smaller　field　of　operation。　On　the　one　side；　it　includes　but　a　small　part　of　the　territory　covered　by　the　empirical　law　of　cost；　and　on　the　other；　it　include　a　certain　portion　of　territory　which　is　not　covered　by　the　law　of　cost。　　　　　　This　somewhat　minute　and　pedantic；　though　none　the　less　necessary；　examination　of　the　famous　law　of　cost　leads　us　to　the　following　conclusion。　The　law　of　cost；　as　applied　to　the　actual　facts　of　our　economic　life；　is　susceptible　of　verification；　in　the　sense　that　the　synchronously　reckoned　cost；　or　the　sum　of　the　value　of　goods　expended　in　production；　coincides　with　the　price　of　the　product。　Again；　under　the　assumption　that　this　synchronously　reckoned　cost　can　all　be　resolved　historically　into　labor；　it　is　possible　to　verify　the　proposition　that　the　price　of　the　product　is　determined　by　the　sum　of　the　labor　expended；　measured　in　terms　of　the　value　of　this　labor。　But　the　law　of　cost　is　certainly　not　true　in　the　sense　that　the　price　of　those　goods　which　are　within　the　domain　of　the　law　of　cost　is　determined　by　the　amount　of　the　pain　involved　in　their　production。　

V。　The　Law　of　Cost　and　the　Value　of　Labor。

　　　　I　would　now　ask；　and　my　colleague　of　the　Austrian　school　ask　with　me；　what　advance　have　we　made　toward　a　solution　of　our　problem。　Even　though　it　be　shown　by　means　of　the　famous　law　of　cost；　that　the　value　of　freely　reproducible　goods　may　be　resolved　into　the　value　of　their　means　of　production；　or　into　the　value　of　the　most　ultimate　or　elementary　factor　in　production；　i。e。；　labor；　we　still　must　ask；　what　progress　has　been　made　in　explaining　the　value　of　goods？　　　　　　Manifestly　this　translation　of　the　value　of　goods　into　the　value　of　the　means　of　production；　does　not　give　us　the　final　solution　for　our　problem；　for　we　must　still　further　inquire；　how　we　are　to　determine　the　value　of　these　means　of　production；　or　if　we　regard　the　means　of　production　as　resolvable　historically　into　the　labor　previously　expended；　how　are　we　to　determine　the　value　of　this　labor？　　　　　　Let　us　proceed　immediately　to　the　consideration　of　the　second　half　of　our　question。　This　will　bring　us　at　once　to　the　root　of　the　problem。　For　the　sake　of　clearness　I　will　accept　as　the　basis　of　the　argent　the　doctrine　proposed　by　those　who　are　in　opposition　to　me　in　this　matter。　　　　　　In　Professor　Marshall's　most　admirable　book　which　may　fairly　be　taken　as　representative　of　the　present　status　of　economic　theory　in　England；　may　be　found　several　answers　to　the　question：　What　determine　the　value　of　labor？　In　one　place；　he　teaches　that　〃free　competition　tends　in　the　direction　of　making　each　man's　wages　equal　to　the　net　product　of　his　own　labor；　by　which　is　meant；　the　value　of　the　produce　which　he　takes　part　in　producing；　after　deducting　all　the　other　expenses　of　producing　it。〃（30*）　He　also　holds；　that　〃the　wages　of　every　class　of　labor　tend　to　be　equal　to　the　net　produce　due　to　the　additional　labor　of　the　marginal　laborer　of　that　class。　It　may　be　remarked；　that　in　obtaining　the　value　of　labor　out　of　the　value　of　the　product　of　labor；　one　is　in　entire　harmony　with　the　conceptions　of　the　Austrian　school。　What　effect　this　has　upon　the　law　of　cost　will　appear　later　on　in　the　discussion。　　　　　　In　another　place（31*）　Professor　Marshall　give　us　quite　a　different　standard　for　determining　the　value　of　labor。　He　holds；　that　in　the　case　of　every　agent　of　production：　〃there　is　a　constant　tendency　toward　a　position　of　normal　equilibrium；　in　which　the　supply　of　each　of　these　agents　shall　stand　in　such　a　relation　to　the　demand　for　its　services；　as　to　give　to　those　who　have　provided　the　supply　a　sufficient　reward　for　their　efforts　and　sacrifices。　If　the　economic　condition　of　the　country　remain　stationary　sufficiently　long　this　tendency　would　realize　itself　in　such　an　adjustment　of　supply　to　demand；　that　both　machines　and　human　beings　would　earn　generally　an　amount　that　corresponds　fairly　with　their　cost　of　production。〃　I　am　not　quite　sure　how　wide　an　application　Professor　Marshall　would　give　to　this　statement。　This　much；　however；　is　clear；　he　would　apply　the　distinction　of　the　classical　school；　between　the　rapidly　fluctuating　〃market　price〃　and　the　〃normal　value〃　which　is　based　upon　cost；　to　the　commodity…labor。　In　the　passage　just　cited　he　manifestly　wishes　to　indicate　the　standard　according　to　which　the　normal　or　long　period　position　of　wages　is　finally　determined。　But　as　it　appears　to　me；　he　is　not　quite　clear　whether　he　would　make　the　efforts　and　sacrifice　of　the　laborer　the　ultimate　standard　（as　his　expression；　〃sufficient。。。　for　their　efforts　and　sacrifices；〃　would　seem　to　indicate）；　or　whether　he　would　take　the　cost　of　rearing　and　maintaining　human　beings　as　the　standard　（as　the　expression　〃amount　that　corresponds　fairly　with　the　cost　of　production　of　human　beings〃）　would　imply。　Doubt　may　also　arise　whether　it　is　his　opinion　that　the　absolute　height　of　wages　tends　to　an　equilibrium　with　the　〃efforts〃　or　〃cost　of　production　of　human　beings〃；　or　that　the　differences　in　wages　to　which　these　give　rise　are　but　variations　from　an　average　level；　the　absolute　height　of　wages　being　determined　by　other　considerations。　　　　　　If　this　last　is　Professor　Marshall's　opinion；　then　I　am　in　entire　agreement　with　him　in　his　conception　of　the　value　of　labor。　That　differences　in　the　pain　of　labor　tend　to　bring　about　corresponding　difference　in　wages；　I　have　already　admitted。（32*）　The　same　influence；　and　for　quite　analogous　reasons；　may　be　exercised　by　differences　in　the　cost　of　producing　human　beings。　　　　　　If；　however；　the　expression　is　to　be　interpreted　in　the　wider　sense；　that　the　absolute　height　of　wages　is　finally　determined　by　the　pain　of　labor；　or　by　the　cost　of　producing　human　beings；　then；　as　it　seems　to　me；　Professor　Marshall　has　taken　a　position　which　cannot　be　maintained。　This；　so　far　as　the　pain　of　labor　is　concerned；　I　have　endeavored　to　show　in　a　previous　chapter。　In　regard　to　the　cost　of　producing　human　beings；　a　twofold　objection　suggests　itself。　First；　this　statement　is　hardly　verified　by　experience；　for　modern　economists　are　quite　generally　agreed　that　the　〃iron　law　of　wages〃　cannot　be　interpreted　as　meaning　that　the　necessary　cost　of　maintenan