this latter statement. True it is, that the need of iron is much more universal and urgent than the need of gold. On the other hand, a pound of gold yields satisfaction to the want of that metal, much greater than is yielded by a pound of iron, to the want of iron. We may speak of a contradiction between value in use and value in exchange, at the farthest, only in case the existing quantity of an article in trade, which can be done without, is not estimated correspondingly lower than the whole existing supply of a thing which is indispensable. But this is a case which cannot often occur. When, for instance, wheat is very dear, as in years of scarcity, people prefer to pay a very high price for it rather than to dispense, even in part, with its use; and so of all the necessaries of life. As people progress in economic culture, they become more expert in adapting the value in exchange of related goods, not only to their costvalue, but also to their value in use.28 The lower the state of a nation's economy, the more isolated men live from one another, the greater is the prominence given by them to value in use, as compared with value in exchange, a fact which makes a valuation of resources, which shall be universally applicable, a more difficult matter.456 * In France, according to Cordier (Mémoire sur l'Agriculture de la Flandre Française), the wheat harvest yielded, in 1817, forty-eight million hectolitres, with a value in exchange of two thousand and forty-six million francs; in 1818, fifty-three million hectolitres, with a value in exchange of one thousand four hundred and forty-two million francs; in 1819, sixty-four million hectolitres, with a value in exchange of one thous and one hundred and seventy million francs. A rise in the value in exchange of wheat, such as was witnessed in 1817, is synonymous with a decline in the value in exchange of money, and of all those goods whose money price has not risen. It is no objection to the views here advocated, that when the necessaries of life are very scarce, the want of clothing, furniture, articles of luxury etc., is not felt so keenly as at other times, and that the value in use of these commodities really falls; and vice versa. 3 Compare B. Hildebrand, N. Ekonomie der Gegenwart und Zukunft, 1848, I, p. 316 ff. Knies, loc. cit. The greater importance attached, in our days, to value in exchange, than SECTION VII. RESOURCES OR MEANS (VERMÖGEN). Resources, or means, in the sense in which we here use the term, are the aggregate of economic goods owned by a physical or legal person, after deduction is made of the person's debts, and all valuable and rightful claims have been added.1 Hence, there are private resources, corporative resources, municipal resources, etc., state resources, national resources and the world's resources. In estimating the resources of a whole people, it is, of course, necessary to make deduction of the debts due by the individual members of the nation to their fellow countrymen.2 to value in use, is seen especially in the attitude which the buyer, who is possessed of the more current commodity (money), assumes toward the seller,an attitude not unlike that of a patron towards his client. In the interior of Africa, the possessor of money, as such, would scarcely look down on the possessor of the means of subsistence. The South American Indians are ready to render an amount of service for a little brandy, which it would be in vain to ask them to perform for ten times its value in gold. (Ausland, Jan. 15, 1870.) The miser estimates the possibility of being able to procure for himself, for one dollar, a hundred different articles worth a dollar each, to be worth one hundred dollars. When the wants of a person or of a people change, it is possible for the value in use of one kind of goods, which had the greater prominence before, to take the place occupied previously by its value in exchange; and vice versa. Thus, the youth sells the plaything he used in childhood; the man, the educational apparatus of his earlier years; the old man, the implements that enabled him to acquire wealth, and which he can no longer use except with great effort. (Menger, Grundsätze, I, 220 ff.) Rau (Lehrbuch, I, § 61 ff.) distinguishes between the concrete or quantitative value which a certain kind of goods may have for a certain person, under certain circumstances, and the abstract or species-value which a whole class of commodities may have for men in general. But F. J. Neumann, (Tübinger Zeitschrift, 1872, p. 288 ff.) objects, that even the abstract value of a commodity always suggests the relation of a definite number of concrete men to a definite quantity of goods; else, by the expression, value of goods, is to be understood not what it is generally meant to signify, but only the capacity to satisfy a single want. Storch, Ueber die Natur des Nationaleinkommens (1824, 1825), 5, defines VOL. I.-5 SECTION VIII. VALUATION OF RESOURCES. It has often been made a question, whether the valuation of resources should be based on the value in use, or the value in exchange of their constituent parts. The latter has, of course, no interest, except in so far as we are concerned with the possibility of obtaining the control of part of the resources, or means, of another, by the surrender of a part of one's own goods. In estimating the value of private resources, which require to be made continually an object of trade, this point is, of course, of the greatest importance. If certain of their component elements, lands, for instance, belonging to a fidei commissum, are incapable of entering immediately into the market, at least the revenue they yield is measured by its value in exchange. It is quite otherwise, even with the resources of a whole nation. Such resources are, evidently, much more independent, and have much less need of being exchanged against their equals, than private resources. The foreign commerce, of the greatest and most advanced nations, has, hitherto, been but a small quota of their internal commerce. A valuation, resources (Vermögen) thus: a source of income, permanent in its nature, and capable of being transmitted, the possessor of which does not need to work, on its account. Hence he does not approve of the expression "the people's resources" (Volksvermögen). See especially Lord Lauderdale, Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth, 1804, ch. 2. Storch, loc. cit. Moreau de Fonnès, Le Commerce au 19. Siècle (1825) I, 114 ff., says that the United States imported from abroad 9.6, France 6, and Great Britain 5.8 per cent. of their annual consumption; and exported respectively 10.4, 6.2, 9.8 per cent. of their annual production. The recent free trade tendencies, and the improvement in the international means of transportation, have certainly increased the relative importance of foreign commerce. In the kingdom of Saxony (1853), Engel estimates that 19 of the whole production of the country was destined for foreign countries, and that of the consump tion was imported. therefore, based on value in exchange, however interesting it might be to enable us to determine how property is shared by the different classes and persons that compose the nation, would afford but little information concerning the absolute amount of the national wealth. This, of course, applies in a much higher degree to the resources of the whole world. If, now, we were to estimate the resources of an entire people, or even of the world, by summing up the value in exchange of their several component parts, many very important elements would be left out of the account entirely; as for instance, harbors, navigable streams, numberless relations which have, indeed, no value in exchange whatever, but which are of the highest importance, because promotive of the economy of the nation. The same may be said of made roads of every description, the politico-economical value of which may be much greater than the value in exchange of their stock, than their cost of production etc. The increase of the value in exchange of any of the branches of the resources of a physical or legal person contributes towards really enriching the nation or the world, only in case that the increased value in exchange is based on an increased utility in quality or quantity. Should an earthquake suddenly dry up a number of our springs, and thus give value in exchange to the drinking water from the remaining ones, we should, indeed, witness the introduction of a new object into the list of exchangeable goods; the owners of springs would be able to command a larger portion of the national resources, but at the expense of the rest of the population; and the whole country would have become poorer in goods by the catastrophe. Even the value in exchange of the national resources would not be increased; for all other goods, which, hitherto, as compared with water, had an unlimited capacity for exchange, would lose just as much of that capacity as water had gained, as compared with them. On the other hand, if a new mineral 3 When the land of a country beco nes dearer, simply on account of the increase of population, or goods, the quantity of which is susceptible of increase, spring should be discovered, the great value in use of the water of which gave it value in exchange, the resources of the nation would be really increased, not only in point of utility, but in exchange value; for no other goods, formerly known, would, in consequence of the discovery, lose in their exchange power. SECTION IX. WEALTH. The possession of large and also of potentially lasting resources; objectively, such resources themselves, we call wealth. But it must be large in a two-fold sense; large as compared with the rational wants of its possessor, and large, also, as compared with the resources of other people, especially with the resources of those in the same condition of life. To be called rich, it is not enough "to have a sufficiency," (the individual side); it is necessary to have more than others. If all men were pos because the cost of production has been increased, this cannot be considered an increase in the wealth of the people. (v. Mangoldt.) 4 Neither is value in exchange a quality inherent in goods, but only a relation between them and other goods. Hence it is absurd to speak of a rise or fall of all values in exchange. If the goods A lose in capacity to be exchanged against goods B, goods B of course increase in exchange power as compared with A, and vice versa. It is necessary to guard against being misled here by the intervention of money, that is, by the custom universal among men of employing a definite kind of goods as a medium of exchange for all others. Yet there are many writers who have been thus misled. Thus Galiani, Della Moneta ((1750), II, p. 2, who regards the lasting increase of the prices of all commodities as an infallible sign of national prosperity. To the same effect is the motto of the Physiocrates: Abondance et cherté c'est opulence. In its coarsest form, in Saint Chamans, Nouv. Essai sur la Richesse des Nations (1824), 456, who would have that which is now the free gift of nature, to come to us or be produced only as the reward of toil. Verri, on the other hand, Meditazioni sull. econ. pol. (1771), ch. V, thinks that the number of buyers in a country should be as small as possible, and that of sellers as great as possible, in order that thus prices might be low; (as if every buyer was not, eo ipso, also a seller.) 5 Kaufmann, Untersuchungen, I, p. 165 seq. Also, Verri, Meditazioni, XVII, 2. |