Let it be possible that the hat may advance to nineteen shillings; or, to express this more generally, from x (or eighteen shillings)— which it was worth before the rise in wages—to x + y; that is to say, the hat will now be worth x + y quantity of money—having previously been worth no more than x. That is your meaning?
Phil. It is.
X. And if in money, of necessity in everything else; because otherwise, if the hat were worth more money only, but more of nothing besides, that would simply argue that money had fallen in value; in which case undoubtedly the hat might rise in any proportion that money fell; but, then, without gaining any increased value, which is essential to your argument.
Phil. Certainly; if in money, then in everything else.
X. Therefore, for instance, in gloves; having previously been worth four pair of buckskin gloves, the hat will now be worth four pair + y?
Phil. It will.
X. But, Philebus, either the rise in wages is universal or it is not universal. If not universal, it must be a case of accidental rise from mere scarcity of hands; which is the case of a rise in market value; and that is not the case of Mr. Ricardo, who is laying down the laws of natural value. It is, therefore, universal; but, if universal, the gloves from the same cause will have risen from the value of x to x + y.
Hence, therefore, the price of the hat, estimated in gloves, is = x + y.
And again, the price of the gloves, estimated in hats, is = x + y.
In other words, H - y = x.
H + y = x.
That is to say, H - y = H + y.