the ultimate standard of value-第6部分

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！


st；　in　the　sense　of　the　classical　law　of　cost；　with　the　disutility　of　labor；　may　be　shown　by　approaching　the　question　from　an　entirely　different　point　of　view。　This　brings　us　to　an　interesting　counter　test；　which；　if　I　am　not　greatly　mistaken；　has　hitherto　entirely　escaped　the　attention　of　economists。　　　　　　We　have　occasionally　remarked　that　the　wages　of　skilled　laborers；　as　a　rule；　are　determined　upon　other　grounds　than　the　amount　of　pain　which　these　persons　endure。　In　particular　case；　it　is　possible　to　find　a　justification　for　the　casuistical　assumption　which　regards　utility　and　disutility　as　exercising　an　equal　influence；　both　upon　the　remuneration　of　labor　and　the　value　of　the　goods　produced。　This　is　just　as　true　as　regards　the　ordinary　carpenter；　or　locksmith；　as　in　the　case　of　some　famous　artist；　such　as　Titian　or　Van　Dyck。　In　short；　it　is　true　of　all　men　who；　because　of　the　scarcity　of　their　talents；　possess　a　sort　of　monopoly　in　the　production　of　certain　goods。　How　long　they　will　work　per　day　will　depend；　in　part　at　least；　upon　the　degree　of　fatigue　that　they　must　undergo。　This；　however；　does　not　give　us　a　fixed　limit。　How　long　a　great　artist　will　work　depends；　as　in　the　case　of　the　common　laborer；　upon　several　conditions。　Among　others　upon　the　rate　of　pay　that　he　can　obtain　for　the　product　of　his　more　prolonged　effort。　An　artist　may　not　be　willing　to　work　overtime　to　paint　a　picture；　for　which　he　will　receive　forty　dollars。　He　might；　however；　not　only　willingly　but　gladly　prolong　his　working　day　if　he　were　offered　four　thousand　dollars　for　the　completed　picture。　　　　　　In　short；　there　is　nothing　to　prevent　the　producer　of　a　monopoly　good　from　so　prolonging　his　day's　labor；　and　thereby　the　daily　supply　of　his　monopoly　ware；（21*）　until　the　marginal　utility；　of　the　money　received　for　the　last　unit　of　labor　time；　is　in　exact　equilibrium　with　the　disutility　of　this　last　unit　of　labor　time。　It　cannot　be　denied　that　under　such　circumstance　the　disutility　exercises　a　determining　or　co…determining　influence　upon　the　amount　of　the　supply；　the　height　of　the　marginal　utility；　and　the　price　of　the　product。　This；　too；　is　done　in　just　the　same　way　as　in　the　frustration　given　in　the　last　chapter；　in　which　the　ware　was　the　product　of　common　labor。　At　the　same　time；　economists　are　agreed　that　such　monopoly　prices　do　not　come　under　the　classic　law　of　cost。　Here　again；　as　I　believe；　we　are　brought　to　the　conclusion；　that　the　disutility　which　we　are　investigating　is　something　different　from　the　cost　which　is　operative　in　the　empirical　law　of　cost；　and；　therefore；　that　those　economists　are　on　the　wrong　path　who　think　that　the　occasional　agreement　of　value　and　disutility　may　be　explained　as　a　manifestation　of　the　great　empirical　law　of　cost；　and　vice　versa。　　　　　　This　erroneous　confounding　of　two　quite　different　phenomena　has　been；　as　it　were；　in　the　air　of　theoretic　economics　since　the　time　of　Adam　Smith。　The　latter；　according　to　the　very　apt　and　ingenious　observation　of　Wieser；（22*）　really　give　two　parallel　explanations　of　the　phenomenon　of　value；　viz。：　a　philosophical　explanation；　which　is　especially　applicable　to　primitive　conditions；　and　an　empirical　explanation；　which　is　better　sited　to　the　more　fully　developed　conditions　of　our　present　industrial　life。　Adam　Smith　also　gives　us　two　similarly　related　explanations　of　cost。　According　to　the　philosophical；　he　puts　the　personal　pain　associated　with　labor；　〃the　toil　and　trouble；〃　as　the　cost　which　really　determine　the　price　of　the　product。　Later；　in　explaining　his　famous　law　of　cost；　which　belongs　to　the　empirical　part　of　his　theory　of　value；　he　holds　that　the　〃natural　price〃　of　the　product　gravitate　toward　the　empirical　cost。　This；　he　declare　to　be　wages　of　labor　and　interest。（23*）　To　the　mind　of　Adam　Smith；　of　course；　there　was　no　opposition　between　these　two　explanations；　and　accordingly　it　was　impossible　to　escape　the　conclusion；　that；　at　least　so　far　as　labor　is　concerned；　they　really　have　to　do　with　the　same　thing。　By　eliminating　the　modern　economic　conditions；　as　modified　by　exchange；　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　th