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！
iods of time； in bringing them into existence； or if you like the sacrifices necessary to reproduce them； the list of the historical production sacrifices would be greatly simplified。 It would include two； or at most three； elements。 First of all come labor； which without doubt is the most important of these elements。 Then come a second to which many economists have given the name； abstinence。 Perhaps a third might be added； namely； valuable original natural power； though many might decline to regard this last as a sacrifice。 For our present purse； the extension of the discussion to the last two elements； about which there may be some question； is not at all necessary。 We may indeed leave them entirely out of the discussion； and take the most important of the above elements labor as the representative of the elementary production sacrifices。 Of course we do not mean that we would either deny or overlook the co…operation of the other elements； but； in the question which here interests us； these elements play a part in no way different from that played by labor； so that the result obtained for the latter may in a general way be regarded as true of the other elementary production sacrifices。 It is therefore hardly necessary to repeat the same argument for the other elements。 As I have already remarked； the historical mode of viewing cost is regarded by Professor Macvane as the only correct method；（11*） whether or not he is right we have yet to inquire。 It is employed by Professor Marshall in the statement of his conception； of 〃the real cost of production。〃（12*） In numerous instances I also have had occasion to make use of it； as when I endeavor to show that capital does not possess original productive power。 Again； when in explaining the operation of the law of cost；（13*） say in the iron industry； I declare in a brief way； that the necessary means of production are mines； direct； and indirect labor。（14*） According to this historical method of reckoning cost； labor may be regarded as the chief representative of all production costs。 But the sacrifice arising from the expenditure of labor may itself be measured by different standards or scale。 We can measure it either according to the amount of the labor （i。e。； the duration of the labor）； according to the value of the labor； or； finally according to the amount of the pain or disutility； which is associated with the labor。 Obviously； through the use of these different standards of measurements； one will arrive at very different formulas for expressing the amount of the costs。 If； for instance； one were asked： What is the cost of production of a certain piece of cloth？ he would answer according to the first scale or standard； twenty days' labor； according to the second （if a day's labor cost say eighty cents）； labor to the value of sixteen dollars； and according to the third； a certain sum of pain or disutility； which the laborer must endure。 But it is important that we should here see clearly； that this involve more than a mere difference in the terms employed。 For according as we employ one or the other of these scales or standards； our estimate of the actual amount of the cost of any commodity will vary。 They will not only be different； but may even positively contradict each other。 Suppose； for instance； that a certain commodity A require for its production twenty days' labor； which is paid for at the rate of eighty cents per day； again let us assume that a certain other commodity； B； require thirty days' labor； which is paid for at the rate of forty cents per day。 Now if we employed the first scale or standard； we would reach the conclusion that the cost of A was less than the cost of B； （twenty against thirty days' labor）。 By the application of the second； we reach the directly opposite conclusion； that the cost of A is greater than the cost of B （labor to the value of sixteen dollars against labor to the value of twelve dollars）。 It is also clear that even though we assume that the labor in these case is equal； either in amount or in value； this does not necessitate the conclusion that the amounts of pain or disutility are equal。 The labor of a great artist； which perhaps is paid the highest of any form of labor； may not only not cause him any pain； but may even yield him； quite independent of all economical considerations； a large measure of pleasure。 It might therefore very readily happen that by the application of the third standard； the cost of a commodity would seem very small； while its cost； according to the other two standards； would seem very large； and conversely。 This short resume of the uses that have been made of the term 〃cost of production〃 makes it clear； that if we would avoid idle disputation； all further discussion of this subject must be preceded by the consideration of a preliminary question。 A question which； for the most part； has been neglected by those who have taken part in the general discussion。 The whole controversy； in its final issue； turns upon the famous 〃law of cost；〃 which holds that the value of the majority of goods； namely； those which may be regarded as freely reproducible； adjusts itself in the long run according to the cost of production。 As to the actual manifestation of such a law； there can be no question。 Its existence is empirically proven； and so far as the actual fact is concerned is unanimously acknowledged by all parties to the discussion。 The real question is as to the deeper meaning； the final theoretical conclusions； which may be deduced from this empirically established law of cost。 But before we can enter upon any inquiry in regard to this deeper meaning； we must first know in what sense the term 〃cost〃 is to be employed。 That it cannot at one and the same time； have all of the above enumerated meanings； the preceding example make very manifest。 If the cost of a commodity A； taken in one sense is higher； and taken in another sense is lower； than the cost of a commodity B； it is manifest that the price cannot； at one and the same time； be adjusted in both senses according to the cost。 In that event the price of the commodity A would at one and the same time be higher and lower than the price of the commodity B。 Our most pressing problem； therefore； is to find a solution for that preliminary question； to which we have referred； a question which finds statement in the title of the following chapter。
III。 For Which of the Different Meanings of the Word 〃Cost〃 is it Really True That； According to The Experience of Industrial Life； Prices Adjust Themselves According to Cost
It is undoubtedly true for the value sum of the synchronously reckoned cost； or for what Professor Marshall calls the 〃money cost of production。〃 This is the cost from which； in practical life； the 〃law of cost〃 receive its most direct and effective confirmation。 The action of the merchant is determined by the amount which he must expend for all the necessaries of production。 If the price of the ware is not sufficient to cover this outlay； he cease to bring the ware to market； conversely； if the price yields a fair surplus over and above this outlay； the producers increase the supply until the price； in the above sense； is adjusted according to the cost。 It is therefore； from the standpoint of the practical man's estimate of the money cost of production； that the 〃law of cost〃 is always demonstrated。 Even such writers as Professor Marshall have recourse in the first instance； to this method of proof。（15*） We do not mean to say that this 〃law of cost〃 is only true for the synchronous method of reckoning money cost。 On the contrary； it is in a certain sense applicable also to the historically reckoned cost； and it is this extension of it which； since the time of Adam Smith； has excited the greatest interest among writers on the theory of value。 The only question is； to which of the different conceptions that are included under the historical method of reckoning cost may this be applied。 There is no doubt that it is true in that approximate way in which any 〃law of cost〃 can be true of the primary elements of cost； labor and abstinence； measured according to their value。 We might put this in a more concrete form as follows： In those goods that generally obey the 〃law of cost；〃 the price of the finished product tends to an approximate equality with the total sum； that must be expended in wages and interest during the whole course of its production。 This proposition； I believe； is common to all theories of value including the classical （see A。 Smith and J。S。 Mill）； and really follows as a logical consequence from the older theories。 We have said that the price； say of cloth； tends to adjust itself to the money cost of producing cloth。 This consists in part of the wages and interest； which are paid directly in this industry （the wages of weavers）； also； in part； of the money expended for the consumption and durable goods sacrificed in its production； for instance； the yarn consumed。 But here again； the money price of yarn； according to our proposition； would tend to adjust itself to the spinner's money cost。 This again consists； in part； of interest and wages of spinners； and in part； of the money expended upo