Only on the basis of a definition of value as a quantity is it proper to speak of a "measure of values."[44]
I conclude that the value of a thing is a quantity, and not a ratio. It is a definite magnitude, and not a mere relation. What sort of a quantity remains to be seen.
FOOTNOTES:
[15] Clark, J. B., "Ultimate Standard of Value," Yale Review, 1892. p. 258.
[16] E.g., The Philosophy of Wealth, chap. v.
[17] Economics, p. 92. See also the article by President Hadley on "Value" in Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy, etc., and "Misunderstandings about Economic Terms," Yale Review, vol. iv, pp. 156-70. The same ideas are expressed in all.
[18] Some of my socialist friends object to the interpretation of Marx given above. I feel strengthened in my position here by finding the same view expressed by Conrad in his Grundriss, etc., 4te Aufl, Bd. i, pp. 17-18. Professor O. D. Skelton's admirable Socialism (Hart, Schaffner & Marx Series, 1911) comes to hand while the proof sheets of the present volume are being revised. Cf. his interesting chapter on the Marxian theory of value.
[19] Seligman, Principles, pp. 184-85. See also Taylor, W. G. L., "Values, Positive and Relative," Annals A. A., vol. ix, pp. 70-106. Taylor, who follows Professor Clark largely, accepts the conception of social value as a quantity.
[20] Marx, Capital and Capitalistic Production, London, 1896, pp. 2-4. George, Science of Political Economy, New York, 1898, chap. xi.
[21] Natural Value, p. 53, n.