"Economist" answers—a/b.
Many thanks. That is certainly Cocker's view of it.
I ask, finally, What is it all worth?
"Economist" answers, 1⅔ a, or 3⅓ b, or 10 c.
Thanks again. But now, intrinsic value not being in "Economist's" domain, but—if I chance to be a philosopher—in mine, I may any day discover any given intrinsic value to belong to any one of these articles.
Suppose I find, for instance, the value of c to be intrinsically zero, then the entire national property = 10c = intrinsically 0.
Shall I be justified in this conclusion?
3. In relation to the question of strikes, the difficulty, you told me yourself, Mr. Editor[36] (and doubtless "Economist" will tell me also), depends simply on supply and demand: that is to say, on an under-supply of wages and an over-supply of laborers. Profoundest thanks again; but I, poor blundering, thick-headed collier, feel disposed further to ask, "On what do this underness and overness of supply depend?" Have they any remote connection with marriage, or with improvidence, or with avarice, or with accumulativeness, or any other human weaknesses out of the ken of political economy? And, whatever they arise from, how are they to be dealt with? It appears to me, poor simple collier, that the shortest way of dealing with this "darned" supply of laborers will be by knocking some of them down, or otherwise disabling them for the present. Why is this mode of regulating the supply interdicted to me? and what have Economists to do with the morality of any proceeding whatever? and, in the name of economy generally, what else can I do?[37]
I am, Sir, yours, etc.,
J. Ruskin.
Denmark Hill, Oct. 29. [Monday.]