FOOTNOTES:
[82] See inter alia Böhm-Bawerk, "Ultimate Standard of Value," Annals of the American Academy, vol. v; also his "Grundzüge," p. 516, n.; Wieser, op. cit., bk. v.
[83] See Laughlin, J. L., "Marshall's Theory of Value and Distribution," Q. J. E. vol. i, pp. 227-32. See also Marshall's reply in the same volume.
[84] There is a needless complication here. For Professor Clark's purposes it is not necessary to seek a unit of value; what is needed is simply a vindication of the quantitative social value concept. The unit may then be arbitrarily chosen—e.g., the amount of value in 23.22 grains of gold. Cf. the discussion of abstract units of value, infra, chap. xvii, pp. 183-84.
[85] The issue appears to be shifted here. If an ultimate cause of value is being sought, it is certain that labor does not supply it for the monopolized goods; and if it be simply a measure of the amount of value embodied in the monopolized goods that is looked for, then it is clear that goods produced entirely by competitive labor (assuming that such goods exist, which I deny) can fulfill this function only by virtue of being themselves valuable—and that they serve this purpose no better than other goods into which a monopoly element enters. The doctrine here criticized goes back to Ricardo: "If the state charges a seignorage for coinage, the coined piece of money will generally exceed the value of the uncoined piece of metal by the whole seignorage charged, because it will require a greater quantity of labour, or, which is the same thing, the value of the produce of a greater quantity of labour, to procure it." (Italics mine.) Ricardo, Works, McCulloch edition, 1852, p. 213.
[86] Philosophy of Wealth, 1892 ed., p. 83.
[87] Tarde, The Laws of Imitation, Psychologie Économique, 2 vols., Paris, 1902. Cooley, C. H., Human Nature and the Social Order, Social Organisation. Baldwin, Mark, Social and Ethical Interpretations. Elwood, C. A., Some Prolegomena to Social Psychology, Chicago, 1901; "The Psychological View of Society," American Journal of Sociology, March, 1910. Hayden, Edwin Andrew, The Social Will, 1909. No attempt is made at an exhaustive list here, nor are the writers mentioned to be held accountable for the views maintained in the text, though their point of view is in general that which I shall maintain.