Marx comments on Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, and Say's notes on it in Constancio's translation of Ricardo's “Principles”. Say notes that sugar imported to France, from the Caribbean, was cheaper than sugar produced in France. Under colonialism, that can be the result of simple cheating, but, as Marx points out, Say fails to mention Ricardo's other point that, as well as absolute comparative advantage there is also relative comparative advantage.
“Here the law of value undergoes essential modification. The relationship between labour days of different countries may be similar to that existing between skilled, complex labour and unskilled, simple labour within a country. In this case, the richer country exploits the poorer one, even where the latter gains by the exchange, as John Stuart Mill explains in his Some Unsettled Questions.” (p 106-6)
Mill in the above says,
“... 'Laws of interchange between Nations; and the Distribution of the Gains of Commerce among the Countries of the Commercial World' and remarks that ' We may often, by trading with foreigners, obtain their commodities at a smaller expense of labour and capital than they cost to the foreigners themselves. The bargain is still advantageous to the foreigner, because the commodity which he receives in exchange, though it has cost us less, would have cost him more' (pp. 1, 2-3)”, (Note 39, p 106)
““We admit that, in general, the rate of agricultural profit determines that of industrial profit. But at the same time we must point out that the latter also reacts of necessity on the former. If the price of corn rises to a certain point, industrial capitals turn to agriculture, and necessarily depress agricultural profits” (loc. cit., p. 179).” (p 106)
This question was discussed earlier. There is a distinction between the Smithian and Ricardian theories of the falling rate of profit. For Smith, capital accumulates faster than the growth of the working population. Competition for labour drives up wages and squeezes profits. Ricardo rejected this concept, as does Marx, from a long term perspective. Ricardo believes that the working population increases at least in line with the accumulation of capital, but this growth requires increases in food production, and continually increasing pressure on agriculture. Production is forced on to less fertile land, causing food prices to rise, which raises agricultural prices, causing rents to rise, again squeezing profits.
“But Ricardo himself admits that profits can also fall when capitals increase faster than population, when the competition of capitals causes wages to rise. This [corresponds to] Adam Smith’s theory. Prévost says:
“When the growing demand of the capitals increases the price of the labourer, that is, wages, does it not then appear that there are no grounds for asserting that the growing supply of these selfsame capitals never causes the price of capitals, in other words, profit, to fall?” (op. cit., p. 188.)” (p 106)
No comments:
Post a Comment