the other side -- the work that produces metals, produces products manufactures a variety of items, transports finished goods and thus creates exchange value, which to it did not exist and without it would not have appeared at all. There is no doubt that, for Ricardo as for Smith, labour can to measure the equivalence of the goods that pass through the loop exchanges: "In an immature state of society exchange value of things or rule that establishes what is the number one the product should be given in exchange for another product only from the comparative quantity of labor expended in the production of each of them"1<$F1 Ricardo, loc. cit., p. 3.>. However, the difference between Smith and Ricardo is this: for the first work can serve as a common measure for all other goods (part of which are and the products needed to maintain existence), just because it can be divided into working days; for the second same amount of labor allows you to establish the value of some things are not just because it can be represented in units of labor, but first and foremost because labour as activities production is the "source of all value." In contrast to the classic century here the cost is not can more be determined on the basis of a unified system of equivalents and characteristic of the products ability to represent each other. The cost has ceased to be familiar, it has become a product. If the cost of things created is equal to the value of their labor, or even proportionate to that labour, it does not mean that labor is stable and constant value, suitable for sharing at any cost is labor. And the best proof of this is that the cost of things increases the amount of labor which must be expended on them production; however, it does not change with an increase or the lowering of wages, which, on any other product exchanges
the other side -- the work that produces metals,
ReplyDeleteproduces products manufactures a variety of items, transports
finished goods and thus creates exchange value, which to
it did not exist and without it would not have appeared at all.
There is no doubt that, for Ricardo as for Smith, labour can
to measure the equivalence of the goods that pass through the loop
exchanges: "In an immature state of society exchange value of things
or rule that establishes what is the number one
the product should be given in exchange for another product only
from the comparative quantity of labor expended in the production of
each of them"1<$F1 Ricardo, loc. cit., p. 3.>. However, the difference
between Smith and Ricardo is this: for the first work
can serve as a common measure for all other goods (part of which
are and the products needed to maintain existence),
just because it can be divided into working days; for the second
same amount of labor allows you to establish the value of some things are not
just because it can be represented in units of labor,
but first and foremost because labour as
activities production is the "source of all value."
In contrast to the classic century here the cost is not
can more be determined on the basis of a unified system of equivalents and
characteristic of the products ability to represent each other.
The cost has ceased to be familiar, it has become a product. If
the cost of things created is equal to the value of their labor, or even
proportionate to that labour, it does not mean that labor
is stable and constant value, suitable for sharing
at any cost is labor. And the best proof of this
is that the cost of things increases
the amount of labor which must be expended on them
production; however, it does not change with an increase or
the lowering of wages, which, on any other
product exchanges