FOOTNOTES
[1] Social Value, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1911.
[2] Cooley, C. H., "Valuation as a Social Process," Psych. Bull., Dec. 15, 1912; "The Institutional Character of Pecuniary Valuation," American Journal of Sociology, Jan. 1913; "The Sphere of Pecuniary Valuation," Ibid., Sept. 1913; "The Progress of Pecuniary Valuation," Quart. Jour. of Econ., Nov. 1915. Clark, J. M., "The Concept of Value," and "A Rejoinder," Quart. Jour. of Econ., Aug. 1915. Anderson, B. M., Jr., "The Concept of Value Further Considered," Ibid.; "Schumpeter's Dynamic Economics," Pol. Sci. Quart., Dec. 1915. Perry, R. B., "Economic Value and Moral Value," Quart. Jour. of Econ., May, 1916. Bilgram, Hugo, "The Equivalent Concept of Value," Ibid., Nov. 1915. Haney, L. H., "The Social Point of View in Economics," Ibid., Nov. 1913 and Feb. 1914. Johnson, A. S., in American Economic Review, June, 1912, pp. 320 et seq. Carver, T. N., in Jour. of Pol. Econ., June, 1912. Mead, G. H., in Psych. Bull., Dec. 1911. Ellwood, C. A., in American Jour. of Sociology, 1913. Ansiaux, M., in Archives Sociologiques, Bulletin de l'Institut de Sociologie Solvay, May 25, 1912, pp. 949-55.
Professor Cooley's articles, which I have listed first in this note, have in certain important particulars shifted the emphasis and changed the method of approach. He is more interested in the general sociological aspects of the value problem than in the technical economic aspects. In considering economic value, he is more interested in its general social functions than in its function as a tool of thought for the economic theorist. He has, therefore, been less bound by schemata than I have in the discussion. This different method of approach, coupled with a singular charm in exposition which characterizes everything Professor Cooley writes, makes it seem probable to me that readers who may find the doctrine as I set it forth unconvincing, will be convinced by Professor Cooley's exposition. I hope, too, that Professor Cooley's articles, which have been scattered among three periodicals, may soon appear together under one cover.
[3] Including many whose formal definitions are quite different, and who would repudiate the contentions here advanced! Cf. my article, "The Concept of Value Further Considered," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Aug. 1915, and Social Value, chs. 2 and 11.
[4] Definitions of wealth differ, and there are few if any definitions of wealth broad enough to make it true that only items of wealth have value. All wealth has value, but not all value is embodied in wealth. Thus, stocks and bonds, and "good will" have value. Few writers would classify them as wealth. The distinction between wealth and property is employed by many writers to meet the difficulty here presented, and it is held that these intangibles have only the value of the wealth to which they give title. In a logical schema, on the assumption of a fluid, static equilibrium, this may serve. It is true in fact, however, that many of these intangibles have value apart from the wealth to which they give title. But these are complications which I reserve for a later part of this chapter, for the chapter on "Statics and Dynamics," and (in the case of irredeemable paper money) for the chapter on "Dodo Bones."
[5] The notion of ratio of exchange as a ratio between values is strictly accurate only under static assumptions. Goods, in actual life, are not always exchanged strictly in accordance with their values. Cf. my article, "The Concept of Value Further Considered," Q. J. E., Aug. 1915, pp. 698-702. In cases where prices, or exchange relations, are not in accord with values, the term "ratio of exchange" is inapplicable, since there are no quantities to be terms of the ratio—except the pure abstract numbers of the commodities, each measured in its own unit, exchanged.
[6] In chapter 17 of Social Value, I have followed the German usage in broadening the term, price, to cover all exchange relations. This has led to misunderstanding on the part of some readers, and it has seemed best to me to return to what appears to be the more familiar usage. It is purely a question of convenience. Practically, ratios of exchange which are not money-prices rarely come in for discussion, outside the preliminary chapter on definition! Professor Fetter, in his article on the "Definition of Price," in the American Economic Review, Dec. 1912, proposes to broaden the term price in the manner which I am here abandoning, and his count of economists would seem to leave usage about equally divided between the broader and narrower uses of the term. It does not seem to me to be a point worth arguing about, however, and since I am practically convinced that cause of misunderstanding will be removed by using price to mean "money-price," I shall so use the term in this book, using ratio of exchange, or exchange relation, to express the broader concept.
[7] E. g., Böhm-Bawerk, Grundzüge der Theorie des wirtschaftlichen Güterwerts, Conrad's Jahrbücher, 1886, p. 478, n.; Carver, "Concept of an Economic Quantity," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1907.