SURVEY OF THE THEORY OF VALUE
§ I. REVIEW OF THE PLAN FOLLOWED
The cycle and order of economic study
1. The beginning and end of economic study is man. Before leaving the more theoretical and abstracter part of the theory of value, it may be well, at the cost of some repetition, to restate and review the relations of the various parts of the argument. Intent on details of the theory of value the student is in danger of losing its broader perspective.
The proposition with which this section opens was accepted as our axiomatic starting-point. It was not so in the older political economy; men too often were looked upon rather as a means to an end, namely, the creation of wealth. This proposition refers to all classes, not to a small group of men. The aim of economic study is democratic, being the welfare of all men. Economics does not purpose, however, to explain man's action with reference to all things. It asks and attempts to answer the question: "Why does man attach value to certain things and actions; why does he measure them in certain ratios as expressed in terms of each other; and why do these ratios change with changing conditions?" This purpose has determined the order of our study. Beginning with an analysis of the nature of wants, and of the mental process of valuing consumption goods, the circle of inquiry widened to the problem of valuing things whose relation to wants is more remote and indirect (though not less important).
The problem of future uses, the major part of the theory of value, leads back to the question of the use man makes of things—a field claimed by the moralist, but one that cannot be neglected by the economist. Economics is not the whole science of social relations. It is a restricted part of the field. But it comes into relation with great practical questions that touch all sides of life. Thus economics broadens and unites with the general stream of sociology. In the pursuit of our study one comes back to the starting-point and cause of value—human wants and the use made of wealth to gratify them. The circle is completed. We have surveyed, rapidly and imperfectly it is true, the whole range of economic inquiry.
The unit in value problems
2. The central point in economic study is the simplest problem of exchange value. The first look at the economic world reveals so many things that have relation to wants, and relations so complex, that the mind is confused. The object of science is to simplify; it seeks unity in the midst of chaos. Relations exist between wants and things that certainly never can gratify them directly. Where is the simplest aspect of the problem to be found? Evidently in the exchange of consumption goods, for these are in closest touch with wants. Out of the complex of direct and indirect goods, those few which are at the moment gratifying wants must be somewhat abstractly, but logically, set apart and studied. In the simplest problem, the exchange of the most typical consumption goods, is the key to the larger problem of value. If one could follow it step by step into its complexer relations, he might hope to understand everything in economics.
Former or conventional conceptions of rent and interest
3. The problems of rent and of time-value are successive steps in the explanation of the exchange value of indirect agents. The term rent has been so variously defined that no caution to the student as to its use can be deemed superfluous. Until recently economists sought to confine the term to the income from natural resources (or land). Rent, in their conception, was the income from one group of goods, physically distinguishable from another group of goods, called capital, which were supposed to yield interest. That is, rent and interest was each supposed to bear much the same relation to a particular set of durable agents; the difference between them was primarily in the agent that yielded them (though there were other complicating thoughts) rather than in the aspect of value they represented.
Rent and time-value as here used
Rent as defined in this volume has the much broader meaning of the usufruct of any material agent as contrasted with the use-bearer. Usufruct is a conception most intimately related to that of consumption goods, but is logically one step further removed from want. Time-value, as here considered, is a broader conception than that of contract interest, for it has to do with the all-pervading element of time in its influence on value. Some rents are logically, and in practical business as well, not measured over periods of time, but at the moment of their accrual. The measurement of time differences is mainly required in setting a valuation upon a more or less permanent use-bearer. This process, which is capitalization, has only recently been recognized to be the discounting of all the future uses to their present worth. While in its essence this is merely a problem in exchange value, it is the highest, subtlest, and most difficult of such problems. Its understanding presupposes rent, just as rent presupposes the analysis of wants and marginal utility. It is the outer zone of the value problem, carrying the thought of value years away (all but an eternity away) from present enjoyment.
Different stages in value
While both rent and time value are widened so that each applies in some manner to all durable agents, it is a grave error to conclude hastily that the intention is to make synonymous the old terms rent and interest. Rent and time-discount remain essentially different stages in the value problem. Actual concrete net economic incomes as they arise are always rents. Interest never accrues in a concrete form except under the interest contract for a money loan (a contract income, not an economic income), and this evidently is a species of contract rent. Time-value is a phase of value connected logically with investment, or the calculation of future earning power; rents are both actual and expectative, or future, but as realized incomes they always express present earning power. Together, rent and capitalization embrace the whole problem of valuing durable material agents.
Wages and profits related
4. Wages and profits are of the same genus, the value of human services of different grades. The attempt has been made in the foregoing treatment to show the unity between the problems of wages and profits, and to point out the difference between the conditions that surround them. Through the common characteristic, social utility, the employer's service can be compared with the most ordinary or the most artistic labor. Profits and wages, therefore, are simply different aspects of the same question. A common power, or principle, is found in all objects of value, a power to gratify human wants. In the variety of human services and in material goods must be sought this unity.
The different kinds of services range from direct to most indirect goods. The commonest labor may serve welfare at the moment or may be embodied in a form to be used years later. In that light, wages seems a more complex problem than either rent or capitalization. But the moment the service embodies itself in a material good with future uses the general theory of capitalization applies to it.
§ II. RELATION OF VALUE THEORIES TO SOCIAL REFORMS
"Orthodox" political economy
1. The earlier theories of political economy implied a dismal view of the future of the masses. The theory of value one holds is sure to affect his view of economic progress and of social reform. The theories from the middle of the eighteenth to the middle of the nineteenth centuries, however varied they were in other respects, nearly all gave a gloomy view of the condition of the laboring-men. The physiocratic school in France, the so-called "orthodox" economists in England (that is, the writers from about 1800 to 1850 that were in sympathy with the landholding or commercial classes), and the socialistic or laboring-class theorists, all inclined to this view. It was while this view prevailed that Carlyle characterized political economy by the term still sometimes heard—"the dismal science." The thinkers of that time started their study of value at wages, and assumed that population would always increase so fast as to force labor to a bare subsistence. The other shares (or the other classes of society) were supposed then to absorb all the surplus income. Economics to-day is not especially lugubrious, and its more cheerful note is due as well to its changed theory of value as to the evidence of advancing welfare among the masses.
The gloomy socialistic theory
2. The socialistic theory of value, akin to the other, holds that capitalists absorb all the benefits of progress. The socialists (of the radical school) claim that their theory is merely the logical conclusion to be drawn from the old "orthodox" theory, stated in its extremest form. Usually, however, the orthodox theorists softened and modified greatly the statement of their harsher views. The socialists have not been willing to recognize any ameliorating conditions. They say: economic theory shows that under a competitive condition of society the laboring-man must be forever ground down in helpless misery; therefore the only hope of the laboring masses is to do away with competitive society and to substitute for it central, governmental control of all industry. They did not and do not attempt to distinguish carefully the part of production, due to brains and effort, from the part due to ownership of capital. The socialist theory is a plan for political agitation rather than a scientific theory of value. It was originated or elaborated by men such as Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Ferdinand Lasalle, as labor leaders and political agitators, who found a ready weapon in the bungling economic analysis of the time. The claim of a scientific basis for socialism has continued to be proudly made by their followers, but it has a tottering support in their defective theory of value.
George's single-tax theory
3. The single-tax theory of value is that ground-rent automatically absorbs all benefits of progress. This is the most notable example of a plan of social reform growing out of an abstract theory of value. While the socialists first had their plan of social reform (or revolution), in whose support Marx's fanciful theory of value was invented, Henry George appears first to have got hold of a theory of value that suggested his plan of social reform. Studying the political economy of Ricardo and Mill, he accepted their ideas regarding the hopeless outlook of the laboring classes, and their conception of the theory of ground-rent with its false implication that landowners get all the surplus in society. George thus came to believe that, with private ownership in land, competition steadily robbed all but landlords, even the non-landholding capitalist, of any share in the benefits of progress. This theory of value is thought to explain all the poverty in the world. It calls, in the single-taxer's opinion, for a radical measure of reform, namely, the taking of all rent of land for public purposes as a common instead of an individual income. If the theory of value on which it is based were sound, the doctrine would have irresistible reasons in its favor; if it is false, most of the argument falls to the ground, though there may still be substantial reasons of a different nature for the exceptional treatment of ground-rents for purposes of taxation.
Recent hopeful theories of wages; Walker's
4. Recent theories of value assign to labor a more hopeful position. A most optimistic theory of wages is "the residual claimant theory," presented by Francis A. Walker. His view was that the various shares of production, such as land-rent, the income from machinery, etc., and the enterpriser's profits, were fixed by forces independent of wages, and any increase in the product must therefore fall to the laborer as the residual claimant. This conclusion has the one merit of explaining somehow the rise in wages in the past century, but the fallacy of its method is too evident to call for exposure. Not to enter into the details of the method, it is enough to note that it involves the circular reasoning that land-rent is a surplus over cost of production, and is fixed regardless of wages, whereas the cost of production itself is made up of money wages.
Clark's wage theory
Another American economist, John B. Clark, is led by his theory of profits to a most hopeful conclusion as to the future of wages. Profits he considers to be essentially the reward for improvements in productive processes, which gradually accrue to the general benefit. As profits thus disappear, the average wage-earner is correspondingly uplifted, a conclusion quite as hopeful as that of Walker. In discussing profits above, dissent from the narrow conception of their source has been expressed.
Some facts lend support to every one of these theories of social progress, but other facts refuse to be harmonized. The temptation to get a simple, dogmatic explanation of value should be resisted. When the interrelation of the factors is recognized there is little likelihood of concluding that some one of them will absorb all the benefits of progress. One is not driven to the extreme either of optimism or of pessimism. While the theory of value is not in itself a theory of society, it greatly influences social conclusions. Clear economic analysis is a condition to sound thinking on practical questions.
§ III. INTERRELATION OF ECONOMIC AGENTS
Organic nature of the productive process
1. The industrial process is a unity and the different agents bear an organic relation to each other. The problem of value is not one of physical division; it is one of logical analysis, and this is not possible in isolation or without the competition of men. Production as now carried on is a social process; the determination of market price is a social process. The different agents are complementary goods, each necessary to the best use of the various other agents. The value of seed is not to be found apart from the use of the ground; or the value of the leather apart from the shoemaker or the thread he uses. When these things are brought together in society their value is found by the comparison and measurement of marginal utilities. Economic forces, like other classes of forces, act and react upon each other. Two bodies attract each other in space; two chemicals uniting are both transformed into a substance differing from either. The economic result of materials and men coöperating is something differing from either factor, yet dependent on both.
The conventional divisions of economics
2. The divisions of the older political economy are aspects of the general problem of value. The divisions conventional in the text-books on political economy, namely, "production, exchange, distribution, and consumption," have not been observed in the plan of this work. It has not seemed possible to accept the view that each of these phases of the vital economic process could be discussed completely apart from the others. Consumption must be studied at the beginning, as the basis of exchange value, and again at the end, when the circle of thought has returned to the use man makes of wealth; and it pervades the whole subject of value, for back of every price is the potential utility of the good. Exchange is coextensive with the whole process of associated industry; for wherever there is a price, there is exchange. Subjective value outside a market forms a small, though not negligible, part of the problem for the student of to-day. Production is implied in every exchange, as exchange is in all social production. They are, indeed, but different phases of the larger phenomenon, the economic process. Nor is distribution, considered in its impersonal or economic form, any other than the logical valuing of the shares of the factors in economic production. Impersonal distribution is coextensive with economic production. Whatever a good, logically considered, contributes to value in production, that is its share of the product. Personal distribution, it is true, brings in other great influences which have been partly considered, but which will be treated more fully in the division to follow, on the influence of the state in the distribution of income.
The broadest principle of value
3. The law of diminishing returns is the broadest principle of value. The one character common to all goods is that their importance varies with their quantity in any given connection. This is true of direct goods whose power to gratify wants falls as the supply grows; it is true of indirect goods, whose technical importance diminishes as the quantity increases, and which when taken at any given cost can be applied, after a point, only with diminishing advantage. The gradual extension of the marginal principle from land used in agriculture to every conceivable economic agent is the most important development of the last century of economic theory.
Generality of the law of value
It being true that things are measured by the utility of the unit used last, logically considered, the least change in the combination alters the value of all the factors. Practical economic problems, therefore, are dynamic, not static. The view that the shares of the different factors are fixed by quite separate laws has not been accepted here. The law of rent is the same as the law of wages in its essential point and principle. It is a general law of value applied to a particular kind of want-gratifier. The law of substitution likewise is a general law, for within limits some substitution of factors is always possible along the margin. That being true, every movement of price creates its own resistance; substitutes will be found for materials, demand will decline, and a new equilibrium of price will be attained.
Mutual employment of the factors
An ever changing problem
4. The factors and agents of production mutually furnish the field of employment for each other. Each factor is dependent for its technical efficiency on the presence of the other factors. If labor is plentiful and machines are scarce, machines bear a high rent. In accordance with the law of diminishing returns, the last unit of labor in that case contributes little to the product, and labor gets low wages, while more is attributed to the machine. Each machine thus may be considered to offer a field for the employment of labor. If population increases and land remains fixed, the need for food raises the rental value of land. But if population increases slowly, and capital and science progress, the field for the employment of labor is enlarged; and if new lands are opened up or new resources are discovered beneath the surface of the land, the field for labor is still more enlarged and a greater share is attributed to labor. This changing character of the problem must be recognized; no share is foreordained in size.
The pursuit of the analysis of value along the lines of marginal utility thus leads to conclusions far less mechanical, and, to the superficial student, less simple than were the doctrines prevailing in the older economics. But the conclusions are, let us hope, more exact and more applicable to the real world, enabling the student to arrive at juster views of the present interests and of the future welfare of society.