Letters of David Ricardo to Thomas Robert Malthus, 1810-1823 Part 19

I hope it will be for a longer time than you mention. I am desired by Mrs. Ricardo to say that it would give her great pleasure to see Mrs.

Malthus and your three children.... There is a coach which leaves London three times a week at five o'clock in the evening, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This coach goes to Minchinhampton, one mile from our house; it carries four inside, travels at a very good pace, and sets off from the Angel Inn, St. Martin's-le-Grand. There is also a morning coach which goes from Gerard's Hall, Basing Lane, Cheapside, three times a week in the morning at a quarter before six. I believe this coach goes on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sat.u.r.day; it is a Stroud coach and does not come nearer to our house than within four miles on the Cirencester Road.

If you prefer this coach, we will send for you to the place where the roads diverge. This is of course in case Mrs. Malthus does not accompany you....

It is true the case[236] in my book is stated to be temporary, and in my opinion it can only be temporary because it cannot exist when the population has increased with the demand for people. When we meet we must agree upon the meaning to be attached to 'a neat surplus from the land'; it may mean the whole material produce after deducting from it what is absolutely necessary to feed the men who obtained it, or it may mean the value of the produce which falls to the share of the capitalist, or to the share of the capitalist and landlord together. If the first be neat surplus it is equally so whether given to labourers, capitalists, or landlords. If the second it may fall short of giving as great a value to the capitalist as he expended in obtaining it, and therefore for him there would be no neat produce. This term neat produce is used ambiguously in your book, and is made the ground of an observation on something [which I s]aid about neat and gross produce.

The observation is [just] or not just, according to the meaning attached to the term neat produce; but more of this when we meet.

Knowing as I do how much we are influenced by taking a particular view of a subject, and how difficult it is to destroy a train of ideas which have long followed each other in the mind, I will not say I am right about the effects of unproductive demand, and therefore it is possible that five years hence I may think as you do on the subject, but at present I do not see the least probability of such a change, for every renewed consideration of the question confirms me in the opinion which I have long held.

Ever truly yours, DAVID RICARDO.

NOTE.--On the 8th May, 1821, Ricardo writes to J. B. Say from London (Say, Oeuvres Diverses, p. 416), acknowledging receipt of Say's 'Letters to Malthus,' and sending him an early copy of the 3rd edition of his 'Pol. Econ. and Tax.' He finds fault again with Say's use of the word Value. He adopts Say's doctrine of 'productive services'; but 'rent being the effect and not the cause of the rise of prices, I submit afresh to you the question whether it is not well to leave rent out of account when we are estimating the comparative value of the productions of the soil. Suppose that I have before me two loaves, the one from the best land in the country, a land yielding three or four pounds sterling per acre, the other from a land rented at about three or four s.h.i.+llings. The two are precisely of the same quality and the same price. You would say that the price of the one is largely a payment for the service of the soil, while it gives little profit for the capital and the labour that have made that land produce. This is incontestable; but what consequence can you draw from it for our practical guidance?

What we want to know is the general law which regulates the value of bread relatively to the value of all other things; and I believe that we shall find that one of those loaves, the one that comes from the land that pays little or no rent, determines the value of the whole of the bread; consequently its value, compared with that of all other things, depends on the quant.i.ty of labour employed in its production, comparatively with the quant.i.ty of labour employed in every other production. Your book (the Traite) would have gained much if you had considered the laws of rent and profits more deeply: 'Adam Smith was certainly wrong in supposing that the rate of profits depends on the amount of acc.u.mulated capitals without regard to the population, and the means of providing for it.' In other points I agree with your book and with the greater part of your 'Letters to Malthus.' 'Mr. Malthus and I see each other frequently, without convincing one another. I am glad to be able to inform you that economical science is more and more studied by the youth of this country. We have recently formed a club of political economists, in which we are proud to include Messrs. Torrens, Malthus, and Mill. Many others besides are actively maintaining the principles of free trade, though their names are not so well known to the public.'

In his reply (Paris, 19th July, 1821) Say points out that Ricardo neglects the distinction between 'natural wealth' and 'social wealth,' or he would agree more than he does with Say in his view of value. 'Value in use,' if it means anything, means utility pure and simple, and we may leave out the 'value.' But utility may be gratuitously presented to us by nature, or added by our labour and outlay. We measure the new utility thus added, not as you say by the _quant.i.ty of labour_ it costs us, but by the different _quant.i.ties of another product_ which are given for it (for the new utility not for the nature-given utility) by others. For instance, a pound of iron is perhaps 2000 times less valuable than a pound of gold, though the utility of the iron may be equal, if not superior, to that of the gold; and the reason is that nearly all the utility of the iron is a gratuitous gift of nature to us. I neglect, therefore, the distinction of value in use and value in exchange deliberately, for I think Political Economy has to do only with the latter. As to the two loaves, the phenomenon you speak of is due, first, to the appropriation of land, apart from which such produce of the soil as was got without labour would cost nothing to anybody,--second, taking things as they are, to the fact that progress in production essentially consists in the subst.i.tution of nature's gratuitous services for our own costly ones--our ideal being the complete displacement of the latter by the former, which would make us all 'richer than David Ricardo.' Again, I consider that the determining causes of value include the causes that influence demand as well as supply, the cost to the demander of the productive services he offers in exchange, and not only the cost in labour of the article supplied. I am glad to hear of your Club.

'What I desire above all is that such economical principles as are not abstract, but are only the frank exposition of facts and their consequences, should be diffused among all cla.s.ses of citizens. We have need not of controversialists expert in syllogistic weapons, but of practical economists; and all that is wanted, for that, is notions accessible to plain common sense, which I fear we repel by our too abstract reasonings.' If you admit strangers, I should be glad to be a member. He adds in a postscript that his eulogies (in the letters to Malthus) of the Essay on Population have been taken by some English writers as ironical; and he would like Ricardo to tell Malthus this is not so; he considers the position of the Essay impregnable, and has a genuine esteem for the author (Oeuvres Diverses, pp. 418-22). Say was of opinion that the time had not yet come for setting up a dogmatic orthodoxy in economical doctrines; and he begins the above letter by saying to Ricardo:--'I see in your book a new proof that the subjects of political economy are prodigiously complicated, for, though you and I are both seeking the truth in good faith, yet after devoting whole years to sounding the depths of its fundamental questions we find several points on which we do not agree. It is well we are agreed on the essential point, the possibility of the progress of man in wealth and happiness, as well as on the means needful to that end. We reach the same conclusions, though sometimes in different ways' (p. 418).

LXXVI[237].

[Addressed to St. Catherine's, Bath.]

GATCOMB PARK, MINCHINHAMPTON, _9 July, 1821_.

MY DEAR SIR,

I am sorry that you will not spare me a few days before you return to London. Pray reconsider your determination, and, if you can alter it, do. On Sat.u.r.day I expect Mr. Tooke; it is a long time since he fixed on that day to come to me, and I am sure the pleasure of his visit will be much increased, both to him and to me, if you also formed one of our party.

McCulloch has specifically and strongly objected to my chapter on Machinery[238]; he thinks I have ruined my book by admitting it, and have done a serious injury to the science, both by the opinions which I avow, and by the manner I have avowed them[239]. Two or three letters have pa.s.sed between us on this subject; in his last, he appears to me to acknowledge that the effect of the use of machinery may be to diminish the annual quant.i.ty and value of gross produce. In yielding this, he gives up the question, for it is impossible to contend that with a diminished quant.i.ty of gross produce there would be the same means of employing labour. The truth of my propositions on this subject appear to me absolutely demonstrable. McCulloch is lamenting over the departure from my plan of currency, and means to make it the subject of an article in the Edinburgh Review, as he has already done in the Scotsman. I very much regret that in the great change we have made from an unregulated currency to one regulated by a fixed standard we had not more able men to manage it than the present Bank directors. If their object had been to make the revulsion as oppressive as possible, they could not have pursued measures more calculated to make it so than those which they have actually pursued. Almost the whole of the pressure has arisen from the increased value which their operations have given to the standard itself. They are indeed a very ignorant set.

You are right in supposing that I have understood you in your book not to profess to enquire into the motives for producing, but into the effects which would result from abundant production. You say in your letter--'We see in almost every part of the world vast powers of production which are not put into action, and I explain this phenomenon by saying that from the want of the proper distribution of the actual produce adequate motives are not furnished to continued production.' If this had been what I conceived you to have said, I should not have a word to say against you; but I have rather understood you to say that vast powers of production are put into action and the result is unfavourable to the interests of mankind; and you have suggested as a remedy either that less should be produced or more should be unproductively consumed. If you had said 'After arriving at a certain limit, there will in the actual circ.u.mstances be no use to try to produce more; the end cannot be accomplished, and, if it could, instead of more, less would belong to the cla.s.s which provided the capital,' I should have agreed with you; yet in that case I should say the real cause of this faulty distribution would be to be found in the inadequate quant.i.ty of labour in the market, and would be effectually cured by an additional supply of it. But I say with you there could be no adequate motive to push production to this length, and therefore it would never go so far. I do not know whether I am correct in my observation that 'I say so with you,' for you often appear to me to contend not only that production can go on so far without an adequate motive, but that it actually has done so lately, and that we are now suffering the consequences of it in stagnation of trade, in a want of employment for our labourers, etc., etc.; and the remedy you propose is an increase of consumption. It is against this latter doctrine that I protest, and give my decided opposition. I acknowledge there may not be adequate motives for production, and therefore things will not be produced; but I cannot allow first that with these inadequate motives commodities will be produced, and secondly that, if their production is attended with loss to the producer, it is for any other reason than because too great a proportion is given to the labourers employed. Increase their number and the evil is remedied. Let the employer consume more himself and there will be no diminution of demand for labour; but the pay of the labourer, which was before extravagantly high, will be reduced. You say in your letter, 'If an increased power of production be not accompanied by an increase of unproductive expenditure, it will inevitably lower profits and throw labourers out of employment.' In this proposition I do not wholly agree. First I say it must be accompanied with an increase either of productive or of unproductive expenditure. If the labourer receives a large proportion of the produce as wages, all that he receives more than is sufficient to prompt him to the necessary exertions of his powers, is as much unproductive consumption as if it were consumed by his master, or by the State; there is no difference whatever. A master manufacturer might be so extravagant in his expenditure, or might pay so much in taxes, that his capital might be deteriorated for many years together; his situation would be the same if, from his own will or from the inadequacy of the population, he paid so much to his labourers as to leave himself without adequate profits or without any profits whatever.

From taxation he might not be able to escape, but from this last most unnecessary _unproductive_ expenditure he could and would escape, for he could have the same quant.i.ty of labour with less pay, if he only saved less; his saving would be without an end, and would therefore be absurd.

You perceive then I fully admit more than you ask for; I say that, under these circ.u.mstances, without an increase of unproductive expenditure on the part of the masters profits will fall; but I say this further that even with an increased unproductive consumption and expenditure by the labouring cla.s.ses profits will fall. Diminish this latter unproductive expenditure and profits will again rise; this may be done two ways, either by an increase of hands which will lower wages, and therefore the unproductive expenditure of the labouring cla.s.s, or by an increase of the unproductive expenditure of the employing cla.s.s, which will also lower wages by reducing the demand for labour.

I fear I have been guilty of needless repet.i.tion, but I have really a great wish to show you what the points are on which our difference really exists. I am glad to hear that you are in a pleasant country....

Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.

LXXVII[240].

[To St. Catherine's, Bath.]

GATCOMB PARK, _21 July, 1821_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

I think that the concession which I have made will not bear the construction you have put upon it. 'An increased power of production must be accompanied with an increase of productive or unproductive expenditure.' This is the sentence on which you have remarked, and you say could not be true if the gross produce were diminished. Certainly not, but I have never said that with an increased power of production the gross produce would be diminished; I have never said that machinery enables you to get a greater quant.i.ty of gross produce; my sole complaint against it is that it sometimes actually diminishes the gross produce.

With respect to the particular subject of discussion between us, you seem to be surprised that I should understand you to say in your book 'that vast powers of production are put into action, and the result is unfavourable to the interests of mankind.' Have you not said so? Is it not your objection to machinery that it often produces a quant.i.ty of commodities for which there is no demand, and that it is the glut which is the consequence of quant.i.ty which is unfavourable to the interests of mankind? Even as you state your proposition in your present letter, I have a right to conclude that you see great evils in great powers of production from the quant.i.ty of commodities which will be the result, and the low price to which they will fall. Saving, you would say, would first lead to great production, then to low prices, which would necessarily be followed by low profits. With very low profits the motives for saving would cease, and therefore the motives for increased production would also cease. Do you not then say that increased production is often attended with evil consequences to mankind because it destroys the motives to industry, and to the keeping up of the increased production? Now in much of this I cannot agree with you. I indeed allow that the case is possible, to conceive of saving being so universal that no profit will arise from the employment of capital; but then I contend that the specific reason is because all that fund, which should, and in ordinary cases does, const.i.tute profit, goes to wages and immoderately swells that fund which is destined to the support of labour. The labourers are immoderately paid for their labour, and they necessarily become the unproductive consumers of the country. I agree too that the capitalists being in such a case without a sufficient motive for saving from revenue to add to capital, will cease doing so, will, if you please, even expend a part of their capital; but I ask what evil will result from this? None to the capitalist, you will allow, for his enjoyments and his profits will be thereby increased, or he would continue to save; none to the labourers, for which we should repine, because their situation was so exceedingly favourable that they could bear a deduction from their wages and yet be in a most prosperous condition. Here it is where we most differ. You think that the capitalist could not cease saving on account of the lowness of his profits, without a cessation in some degree of employment to the people.

I, on the contrary, think that with all the abatements from the fund destined to the payment of labour, which I acknowledge would be the consequence of the new course of the capitalists, enough would remain to employ all the labour that could be obtained and to pay it liberally, so that in fact there would be little diminution in the quant.i.ty of commodities produced; the distribution only would be different; more would go to the capitalists and less to the labourers.

I do not think that stagnation is a proper term to apply to a state of things, in which for a time there is no motive to a further increase of production. When in the course of things profits shall be so low from a great acc.u.mulation of capital and a want of means of providing food for an increasing population, all motive for further savings will cease; but there will be no stagnation; all that is produced will be at its fair relative price, and will be freely exchanged. Surely the word stagnation is improperly applied to such a state of things, for there will not be a general glut, nor will any particular commodity be necessarily produced in greater abundance than the demand shall warrant.

You say, 'We know from repeated experience that the money price of labour never falls till many workmen have been for some time out of work.' I know no such thing; and, if wages were previously high, I can see no reason whatever why they should not fall before many labourers are thrown out of work. All general reasoning, I apprehend, is in favour of my view of this question, for why should some agree to go without any wages while others were most liberally rewarded? Once more I must say that a sudden and diminished demand for labour in this case must mean a diminished reward to the labourer, and not a diminished employment of him; he will work at least as much as before, but will have a less proportion of the produce of his work, and this will be so in order that his employer may have an adequate motive for employing him at all, which he certainly would not have if his share of the produce were reduced so low as to make increased production an evil rather than a benefit to him. 'It is' (never) 'said that an increase of unproductive consumption among landlords and capitalists may not sometimes be the proper remedy for a state of things in which the motives for production fail.' I know of no one who has recommended a perseverance in parsimony even after the profits of capital have vanished. I have never done so, and I should be amongst the first to reprobate the folly of the capitalist in not indulging himself in unproductive consumption. I have indeed said that nothing can be produced for which there will not be a demand, unless from miscalculation, while the employment of stock affords even moderate profits; but I have not said that production may not in theory be pushed so far as to destroy the motive on the part of the capitalist to continue producing to the same extent. I believe it might possibly be pushed so far, but we have never witnessed it in our days, and I feel quite confident that, however injurious such a state of things may be to the capitalist, it is so only because it is attended with disproportionate and unusual benefits to the labourers. The remedy, therefore, and the sole remedy, is a more just distribution of the produce; and this can be brought about only, as I said in my last letter, by an increase of workmen or by a more liberal unproductive expenditure on the part of the capitalists. I should not make a protest against an increase of consumption as a remedy to the stagnation of trade, if I thought as you do, that we were now suffering from too great savings; as I have already said, I do not see how stagnation of trade can arise from such a cause.

We appear then not to differ _very_ widely in our general principles, but more so respecting the applications of them. Such and such evils may exist; but the question is do they exist now? I think not; none of the symptoms indicate that they do, and in my opinion increased savings would alleviate rather than aggravate the sufferings of which we have lately had to complain. Stagnation is a derangement of the system, and not too much general production, arising from too great an acc.u.mulation of capital.

Mr. Tooke has been here since Sat.u.r.day last. I am going with him to-morrow to Bromesberrow[241], from whence he will go to Ross and down the Wye to Chepstow. We have had plenty of talk on subjects of political economy, and have found out points on which there is partial difference of opinion between us. He brought with him two pamphlets, in which you are often mentioned as well as myself; perhaps you have seen them: their t.i.tles are An Inquiry into those principles advocated by Mr. Malthus relative to the Nature of Demand and the necessity of Consumption[242], the other Observations on certain Verbal Disputes in political economy[243]. Mrs. Ricardo unites with me in kind regards to Mrs.

Malthus and yourself. Mr. Tooke also desires to be kindly remembered.

Ever truly yours, DAVID RICARDO.

LXXVIII[244].

GATCOMB PARK, _18 Sept., 1821_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

Without imputing the least blame to you, I fear that I do not quite understand your 'knotty point.' You appear to me to compare things together, which cannot, under any supposable circ.u.mstances, be made the subject of comparison. You compare a commodity, in the production of which the advances in labour remain the same while the profits of stock diminish, to another commodity 'obtained by a given quant.i.ty of labour, a given quant.i.ty of capital, and a given rate of profits.' Is not this supposing two rates of profit at the same time? Perhaps this was not meant, and your question was asked on the supposition of profits varying equally in all trades. If so, I have no hesitation in answering that, if, from an increased quant.i.ty of labour on the land, corn should appear to have doubled in money price, and not from any increased facility in the production of money, we ought to say, as we always do say, that corn had risen a hundred per cent., and not that money had fallen fifty. In differing on this point we in reality come to our old dispute, whether the quant.i.ty of labour in a commodity should be the regulator of its value, or whether the value of all things should, under all circ.u.mstances, be estimated by the quant.i.ty of corn for which they would exchange. You say 'we cannot surely a.s.sume that the cost of producing the necessaries of the labourer is low absolutely when the land is productive, if what is gained by the small quant.i.ty of labour employed is counterbalanced by the very high rate of profits.' I, of course, should say the cost of these necessaries was low if they were produced with little labour, but would not you, who adopt another measure and _sometimes_ think value is to be estimated by the quant.i.ty of things generally which the commodity could command, would you not say, that the cost of these necessaries was small in value, agreeing, as you would, that they would not command an abundance of other things? I do not know what you mean by the low cost of necessaries being counterbalanced by the very high rate of profits. If a hundred quarters of corn be to be divided between my labourers and me, its cost being made up of wages and profits, its cost will be the same, whether profits be high or low, and this division will in no degree affect the price of the corn; but, if at a subsequent time eighty quarters only can be obtained with the same labour and capital, and in consequence a greater proportion of the eighty be given to the labourers than was before given of the hundred, corn will rise absolutely both in my measure and in yours. It is I who am willing to take some one or more of the external commodities[245] in the production of which, while the advances in labour increase in money value, the profits of stock diminish, as a steady measure, but which you so often reject, and insist that, whether the produce of a given quant.i.ty of labour be a hundred or eighty quarters, in either case, corn has remained a steady measure of value. In the case you have supposed, you say that the commodity, in which the same advances for labour were made, while profits diminished, 'would not only fall one half relatively to corn, but it would appear to do so estimated in any common external commodity which had all along been produced by the same quant.i.ty of labour, _and at the same rate of profits_.' I wish you had named this commodity. In the first place I deny that it would be produced at the same rate of profits, for there cannot be two rates of profit at the same time in the same country, and secondly I contend that this commodity would also fall to one half relatively to corn, and therefore would appear invariable when compared with the other commodities.

Perhaps by external commodity, you mean a foreign commodity to be imported from abroad. If so, why should not that commodity vary in reference to corn in the same degree as any home made commodity? If a hogshead of claret were worth a certain quant.i.ty of cloth, of hats, of hardware, etc., etc., would its relative value to these things alter because it was more difficult to raise corn in England, and its price rose because we refused to import it from other countries? To me it appears most clear that claret would not vary as compared with the things which I before enumerated, and that it would vary as compared with corn. Pray think of this and tell me whether I am not right. In the postscript to your letter you ask 'In the two extreme cases of the highest profits, and the lowest profits on the land, may not corn and labour remain of the same value estimated in some external commodity, although in the interval considerable variations may have taken place from supply and demand?' I answer, no, it could not remain of the same value estimated in home commodities, and as it is by means of these home commodities that we should purchase the external commodities, I cannot see the slightest reason for supposing that these commodities so exchanged could alter in relative value. I hope I have made myself understood. I am glad you approach a little towards my views, I wish you had told me to what extent. Torrens told me he should send me his book[246]; he has not done so, and I have not seen it.

Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.

LXXIX[247].

[_28 Sept., 1821._]

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

The case you put to me appears to me to be an impossible one. How can all countries produce their commodities with the same quant.i.ty of labour, all, except one, produce their _corn_ with the same quant.i.ty of labour also, and yet all, the one not excepted, have their profits on capital at the same rate? The one which you suppose to raise its corn with only half the quant.i.ty of labour required in the others would in all probability obtain its labour at a much cheaper price, and consequently profits would be higher in that country. If indeed a free trade should be established between all these countries, then their profits might be all nearly at the same rate, because the price of corn and necessaries estimated in quant.i.ty of labour would be nearly the same in all. In carrying on this supposed case we must be informed whether the country in which corn is obtained with comparatively little labour can continue to obtain it on the same terms, after she is called upon to supply the markets of other countries; if she can, then the comparative prices of corn and commodities will be altered in all countries; in the country producing the cheap corn, money will be rather at a higher level than before, and therefore corn rather dearer; but commodities generally will be at no higher price;--they will be indeed rather cheaper, because they will be imported from abroad and from countries where the level of currency will be somewhat reduced; and therefore the cost price of commodities in those countries will be lower, and consequently they can be sold cheaper to the country importing them. Bulky commodities and the price of labour will only be raised in this particular country, because the level of currency will be somewhat raised; labour will in the real measure of value be rather lowered, that is to say, the portion of produce paid to the labourer, manufactured and raw produce, together, will probably be rather increased, but in consequence of free trade and a better distribution of capital, the proportion of the whole produce of a given capital which the labourer will receive, will be diminished; his proportion will really be obtained with less labour.

The benefit to other countries cannot be doubted; corn and labour will fall very greatly in those countries, and consequently profits will rise, and, as part of their exports in return for corn must in the first instance be money, the general level of currency will be reduced and commodities generally will fall, not because they can be produced cheaper but because they are measured by a more valuable money. This is on the supposition that corn can continue to be produced with little labour in the excepted country; but suppose the increased demand for corn should oblige this country to cultivate poorer land, then the price of corn would rise from another cause besides the higher level of currency; and, if this difficulty should be nearly as great as in other countries, corn would be nearly as high; but, while it could afford on any terms to export corn for commodities, there would be previously to the importation of commodities an influx of the precious metals and a higher level of currency. Without such higher level of currency commodities could never be imported from countries where they were before at the same price, and where they required the same quant.i.ty of labour to produce them. Your case is an impossible one, first because you suppose the profits in two countries to be the same although the cost of producing necessaries in one of them be only one half of what it is in the other, secondly you a.s.sume as a matter of course that with a free trade the price of corn in the exporting country would rise to the price of corn in the importing country whereas it would fall in the importing country to the price in the exporting country if its cost of production was not increased in that country, and if it rose it would rise only in proportion to the increased cost of production. When there is a free trade between countries it is impossible that profits can differ very much, the only cause of difference in such case will be the different modes of living of the labourers; in one country they may be contented with potatoes and a mud hovel; in another they may require a decent house and wheaten bread. You say: 'Proceeding from this point it is obvious that in the course of a hundred years (if acc.u.mulation were supposed) labour and corn might continue at nearly the same price, while domestic commodities from the fall of profits to the level of other countries would fall to half their price estimated in the money of the commercial world.' Domestic commodities are to fall, because profits fall. If profits fall, _I_ do not see why domestic commodities should fall; but why should profits fall if corn and labour continued at nearly the same price? I know of no cause of the fall of profits but the fall[248] of labour. You say: 'A striking approximation to this case actually exists in America.' 'The only difference,' you continue, 'is that circ.u.mstances in America have made labour high'; but this is the only important feature in the case. I am however decidedly of opinion that, if in America labour was very low and profits consequently much higher than they are, there would be very little fall in the domestic commodities of America.

I agree indeed with you that in the progress of the cultivation of America her corn must rise with the increased difficulty of producing it; this circ.u.mstance must have a tendency to reduce the relative quant.i.ty, or rather lower the level of American currency, which will not fail by increasing the value of money to lower the value of those commodities in America which are too bulky to be exported[249]. The commodities which America exports will not be similarly affected.

Nothing is to me so little important as the fall and rise of commodities in money; the great enquiries on which to fix our attention are the rise or fall of corn, labour, and commodities, in real value, that is to say the increase or diminution of the quant.i.ty of labour necessary to raise corn and to manufacture commodities. It may be curious to develop the effect of an alteration of real value on money price; but mankind are only really interested in making labour productive, in the enjoyment of abundance, and in a good distribution of the produce obtained by capital and industry. I cannot help thinking that in your speculations you suppose these much too closely connected with money price.

I have read a very good critique on G.o.dwin in the Edinburgh Review[250]; and I am quite sure that I know the writer. It is very well done and most satisfactorily exposes G.o.dwin's ignorance as well as his disingenuousness.