the ultimate standard of value-第2部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


ions；　each　of　which　is　held　with　the　greatest　persistence。　　　　　　The　most　extreme　opinion　at　one　end　of　the　series　is　that　which　finds　statement　in　Jevons'　proposition；　that　〃value　depends　entirely　upon　utility。〃　It　must；　however；　be　added　that　while　Jevons　occasionally　give　statement　to　this　proposition　in　the　above　sweeping　and　uncompromising　terms；　yet　the　doctrine　as　expounded　by　him　contains　elements　which　necessarily　lead　to　a　limitation　of　this　proposition。　The　addition　of　these　necessary；　though　not　highly　important　limitations；　give　us　the　doctrine　as　taught　by　the　Austrian　economists。（1*）　They；　therefore；　stand　next　to　Jevons　in　the　series　of　opinions。　Their　position　is　that　cost　does　not　officiate　as　the　original　and　ultimate　determinant　of　value；　except　in　a　comparatively　limited　number　of　unimportant　cases。（2*）　The　great　majority　of　value　phenomena　are　subject　to　the　dominion　of　utility。　This　dominion　is　exercised　in　some　cases　directly；　but　in　a　still　greater　number　of　cases　indirectly。　When　exercised　indirectly　the　value　is；　of　course；　first　determined　by　certain　costs；　but　closer　analysis　shows　that　these　costs　are　themselves　determined　by　utility。　　　　　　At　the　other　extreme　end　of　the　series；　we　find　the　eminent　Danish　economist；　Scharling；　who　would　establish　cost　（under　the　title　of　〃difficulties　of　attainment〃）　as　the　sole　ruler　over　the　entire　domain　of　value；　over　value　in　use；　as　well　as　over　value　in　exchange；　over　the　value　of　freely　reproducible　goods；　as　well　as　over　the　value　of　scarcity　goods。（3*）　　　　　Quite　close　to　Scharling；　who　is　a　very　pronounced　opponent　of　the　theory　of　marginal　utility；　we　find　the　acute　American　thinker；　J。B。　Clark；　who　is　a　no　less　decided　adherent　of　that　theory。　This　illustrates　how　strangely　confused　the　controversy　has　become。　Clark　also　make　cost　the　general　and　ultimate　〃standard　of　value；〃　though　in　a　different　sense　from　Scharling。　According　to　Clark；　the　final　and　determining　condition　is　the　amount　of　personal　fatigue；　pain　or　disutility　which　is　imposed　upon　the　laborer　by　the　last　and　most　fatiguing　increment　of　his　day's　work。（4*）　　　　　　Somewhat　nearer　the　middle　of　our　series；　though　still　not　far　from　the　cost　end；　we　find　those　writers　who；　with　certain　modifications；　uphold　the　old　classical　theory。　It　is　here　that　we　find　the　learned　and　contentious　Dietzel；（5*）　of　Bonn；　who　so　divide　the　field　of　value　that　the　value　of　scarcity　goods　is　determined　by　utility；　while　the　value　of　freely　reproducible　goods　is　determined　by　the　cost。　His　position　differs　from　the　classical　theory；　in　that　he　divide　the　domain　of　value　in　use　between　utility　and　cost；　in　the　same　way　that　he　divide　the　domain　of　value　in　exchange。　The　classical　theory；　on　the　other　hand；　puts　the　use　value　entirely　under　the　dominion　of　utility。　Quite　close　to　Dietzel；　we　find　the　Italian　economist；　Achille　Loria；　and　the　able　American　defender　of　the　classical　school；　Professor　Macvane。　The　latter　has　recently　attacked　the　position　of　the　Austrian　economists；　in　two　polemical　papers　of　great　acuteness。　His　interpretation　of　the　Austrian　theory；　however；　is　not　always　accurate；　nor　always　free　from　polemic　exaggeration。　His　chief　objection　is　that　their　conception　of　cost　as　〃a　sum　of　producer's　goods　possessing　value〃　is　obsolete　and　untenable。　He　holds　that　the　only　genuine　economic　cost　of　production　is　labor　and　abstinence　（more　correctly；　waiting）；　which；　in　the　case　of　freely　reproducible　goods；　are　the　final　and　entirely　independent　regulators　of　value。（6*）　　　　　Where　opinions　vary　so　widely　from　one　another；　some　one　is　usually　found　who　will　take　a　middle　course；　hoping　to　find　a　solution　for　the　problem　in　the　golden　mean。　This　mission　of　conciliation　has　been　undertaken　in　this　case　by　no　less　eminent　economists　than　Professor　Marshall；　of　Cambridge；（7*）　and　Professor　Edgeworth；　of　Oxford。（8*）　Both　of　these　writers　incline　toward　the　theory　of　marginal　utility；　but　have　perched　themselves　very　nicely　upon　the　middle　round　of　the　ladder；　from　which　vantage…ground　they　send　forth　gentle　blame　and　conciliating　applause　to　both　parties　in　the　discussion。　Jevons　and　the　Austrian　economists　are　censured　for　exaggerating　the　importance　of　marginal　utility；　while　the　adherents　of　the　classical　theory　are　taken　to　task　for　underrating　its　importance；　the　truth；　they　say；　lies　in　the　middle。　Scarcity　goods；　without　doubt；　have　their　value　determined　entirely　by　utility。　In　the　case　of　freely　reproducible　goods　the　demand　is　governed　by　utility；　and　the　supply　by　cost；　since　the　price　is　determined　by　the　interaction　of　these　two　factors；　one　cannot　say　either　that　utility　alone　or　that　cost　alone　determines　value；　but　rather　that　utility　and　cost　cooperate　with　each　other　in　the　determination　of　price；　like；　to　use　Professor　Marshall's　figure；　the　two　blades　of　a　pair　of　shears。（9*）　　　　　Criminal　lawyers　of　long　experience　are　wont　to　apply　to　obscure　and　complicated　cases　the　motto：　Cherchez　la　femme！　　　　　　For　my　own　part；　when；　in　our　science；　I　find　many　clear　and　able　thinkers　at　odds　about　a　given　point；　I　usually　ask　myself；　where　is　the　ambitious　or　elusive　concept　with　which　they　are　playing。　In　this　case　we　need　not　search　far　afield；　it　is　the　concept　of　〃cost。〃



II。　THE　VARIOUS　MEANINGS　OF　THE　WORD　〃COST。〃

　　　　The　term　〃cost〃；　like　many　of　the　other　terms　employed　in　political　economy；　is　used；　both　in　scientific　discussions　and　in　practical　life；　in　several　different　senses。　Even　when　in　a　general　way　we　agree　in　saying　that　the　〃cost　of　production〃　of　a　good　is　the　sum　of　the　sacrifices　involved　in　the　creation　of　the　good；　this；　by　no　means；　guarantees　that　we　all　have　the　same　thing　in　mind。　In　the　estimation　of　these　sacrifice；　we　may　employ　several　different　methods　of　measurement。　Thee　give　us　results　which；　under　certain　circumstances；　will　differ　not　merely　with　reference　to　the　terms　employed；　but　also　with　reference　to　the　phenomena　indicated　by　these　terms。　　　　　　First　of　all；　we　may　distinguish　between　what　might　be　called　the　〃synchronous〃　and　the　〃historical〃　methods　of　estimating　sacrifices。　According　to　the　former；　we　take　a　unit　of　the　total　sacrifices　as　the　basis　for　our　reckoning；　a　unit　which　contains　an　increment　of　all　the　forms　of　sacrifice；　which；　at　any　instant；　must　enter　into　the　production　of　the　commodity。　In　the　production　of　cloth；　for　instance；　we　consume　at　the　same　time；　yarn；　looms　（wear　and　tear）；　the　labor　of　weavers；　coal；　etc。；　beside　a　great　many　subordinate　aids　to　production。　By　this　method　we　usually　arrive　at　a　very　extensive　list　of　production　sacrifices。　In　order　to　obtain　a　single　expression　for　this　aggregate；　or　for　the　height　of　the　cost；　we　must　bring　these　various　elements　in　production　under　a　common　denominator。　This　may　be　done　by　estimating　them　all　according　to　their　value　or　price。　Hence；　by　this　synchronous　method　of　reckoning；　the　cost　equals　the　aggregate　of　the　means　of　production；　that　have　been　sacrificed　in　the　creation　of　the　commodities；　estimated　according　to　their　value。　　　　　This　is　undoubtedly　the　sense　in　which　the　term　cost　is　understood　in　practical　business　life。　It　is　in　this　way；　that　the　manufacturer；　the　farmer　and　the　merchant　reckon　their　cost。　This；　too；　is　the　sense　in　which　Professor　Marshall　employs　the　term　when　he　speaks　of　the　〃money　cost　of　production；〃（10*）　and　in　my　own　writings　about　value　and　capital；　I　usually　employ　the　term　cost　in　the　same　way。　Usually　but　not　always；　because　for　certain　purposes　another　mode　of　estimating　sacrifices；　become　important　and　may　not　be　neglected。　This　is　the　historical　method。　It　is　quite　manifest　that　many　of　the　concrete　forms　of　goods；　which　we　today　are　compelled　to　sacrifice　to　purse　of　production；　are　themselves　the　product　of　past　and　more　original　sacrifices。　For　example；　the　wood　and　coal　that　we　consume　to…day　in　the　production　of　cloth；　and　likewise　the　machine　which　we　wear　out；　are　themselves　the　product　of　previous　sacrifices　of　labor。　If　we　go　behind　these　material　commodities　to　the　sacrifice　which　the　human　race　has　suffered　in　successive　periods　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