And indeed, what is there in the idea of measuring, and consequently of fixing, value, that is unscientific? All men believe in it; all wish it, search for it, suppose it: every proposition of sale or purchase is at bottom only a comparison between two values, -- that is, a determination, more or less accurate if you will, but nevertheless effective.The opinion of the human race on the existing difference between real value and market price may be said to be unanimous.It is for this reason that so many kinds of merchandise are sold at a fixed price; there are some, indeed, which, even in their variations, are always fixed, -- bread, for instance.It will not be denied that, if two manufacturers can supply one another by an account current, and at a settled price, with quantities of their respective products, ten, a hundred, a thousand manufacturers can do the same.Now, that would be a solution of the problem of the measure of value.The price of everything would be debated upon, I allow, because debate is still our only method of fixing prices; but yet, as all light is the result of conflict, debate, though it may be a proof of uncertainty, has for its object, setting aside the greater or less amount of good faith that enters into it, the discovery of the relation of values to each other, -- that is, their measurement, their law.
Ricardo, in his theory of rent, has given a magnificent example of the commensurability of values.He has shown that arable lands are to each other as the crops which they yield with the same outlay; and here universal practice is in harmony with theory.Now who will say that this positive and sure method of estimating the value of land, and in general of all engaged capital, cannot be applied to products also?.....
They say: Political economy is not affected by a priori arguments; it pronounces only upon facts.Now, facts and experience teach us that there is no measure of value and can be none, and prove that, though the conception of such an idea was necessary in the nature of things, its realization is wholly chimerical.Supply and demand is the sole law of exchange.
I will not repeat that experience proves precisely the contrary; that everything, in the economic progress of society, denotes a tendency toward the constitution and establishment of value; that that is the culminating point of political economy -- which by this constitution becomes transformed -- and the supreme indication of order in society: this general outline, reiterated without proof, would become tiresome.I confine myself for the moment within the limits of the discussion, and say that supply and demand, held up as the sole regulators of value, are nothing more than two ceremonial forms serving to bring useful value and exchangeable value face to face, and to provoke their reconciliation.They are the two electric poles, whose connection must produce the economical phenomenon of affinity called EXCHANGE.
Like the poles of a battery, supply and demand are diametrically opposed to each other, and tend continually to mutual annihilation; it is by their antagonism that the price of things is either increased, or reduced to nothing: we wish to know, then, if it is not possible, on every occasion, so to balance or harmonize these two forces that the price of things always may be the expression of their true value, the expression of justice.To say after that that supply and demand is the law of exchange is to say that supply and demand is the law of supply and demand; it is not an explanation of the general practice, but a declaration of its absurdity; and I deny that the general practice is absurd.
I have just quoted Ricardo as having given, in a special instance, a positive rule for the comparison of values: the economists do better still.
Every year they gather from tables of statistics the average prices of the various grains.Now, what is the meaning of an average? Every one can see that in a single operation, taken at random from a million, there is no means of knowing which prevailed, supply -- that is, useful value --
or exchangeable value, -- that is, demand.But as every increase in the price of merchandise is followed sooner or later by a proportional reduction;
as, in other words, in society the profits of speculation are equal to the losses, -- we may regard with good reason the average of prices during a complete period as indicative of the real and legitimate value of products.
This average, it is true, is ascertained too late: but who knows that we could not discover it in advance? Is there an economist who dares to deny it?
Nolens volens, then, the measure of value must be sought for: logic commands it, and her conclusions are adverse to economists and socialists alike.The opinion which denies the existence of this measure is irrational, unreasonable.Say as often as you please, on the one hand, that political economy is a science of facts, and that the facts are contrary to the hypothesis of a determination of value, or, on the other, that this troublesome question would not present itself in a system of universal association, which would absorb all antagonism, -- I will reply still, to the right and to the left:
--
1.That as no fact is produced which has not its cause, so none exists which has not its law; and that, if the law of exchange is not discovered, the fault is, not with the facts, but with the savants.
2.That, as long as man shall labor in order to live, and shall labor freely, justice will be the condition of fraternity and the basis of association;
now, without a determination of value, justice is imperfect, impossible.
2.-- Constitution of value; definition of wealth.
We know value in its two opposite aspects; we do not know it in its TOTALITY.If we can acquire this new idea, we shall have absolute value;
and a table of values, such as was called for in the memoir read to the Academy of Sciences, will be possible.
