<SPAN name="toc192" id="toc192"></SPAN>
<SPAN name="pdf193" id="pdf193"></SPAN>
<h2><span>Chapter XII. Of Some Peculiar Cases Of Value.</span></h2>
<SPAN name="toc194" id="toc194"></SPAN>
<h3><span>§ 1. Values of commodities which have a joint cost of production.</span></h3>
<p>
The general laws of value, in all the more important
cases of the interchange of commodities in the same
country, have now been investigated. We examined, first,
the case of monopoly, in which the value is determined by
either a natural or an artificial limitation of quantity, that
is, by demand and supply: secondly, the case of free competition,
when the article can be produced in indefinite quantity
at the same cost; in which case the permanent value is
determined by the cost of production, and only the fluctuations
by supply and demand: thirdly, a mixed case, that of
the articles which can be produced in indefinite quantity,
but not at the same cost; in which case the permanent value
is determined by the greatest cost which it is necessary to
incur in order to obtain the required supply: and, lastly,
we have found that money itself is a commodity of the third
class; that its value, in a state of freedom, is governed by
the same laws as the values of other commodities of its
class; and that prices, therefore, follow the same laws as
values.</p>
<p>
From this it appears that demand and supply govern the
fluctuations of values and prices in all cases, and the permanent
values and prices of all things of which the supply is
determined by any agency other than that of free competition:
but that, under the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">régime</span></span> of competition, things are,
on the average, exchanged for each other at such values, and
sold at such prices, as afford equal expectation of advantage
to all classes of producers; which can only be when things
exchange for one another in the ratio of their cost of production.</p>
<span style="font-size: 90%">
Here, again, is a distinct recognition of the true meaning of
cost of production, and its ruling influence within a competing
group, which has been seen in its full significance by Mr.
Cairnes.
</span>
<p>
It sometimes happens [however] that two different commodities
have what may be termed a joint cost of production.
They are both products of the same operation, or set
of operations, and the outlay is incurred for the sake of both
together, not part for one and part for the other. The same
outlay would have to be incurred for either of the two, if the
other were not wanted or used at all. There are not a few
instances of commodities thus associated in their production.
For example, coke and coal-gas are both produced from the
same material, and by the same operation. In a more partial
sense, mutton and wool are an example; beef, hides, and tallow;
calves and dairy produce; chickens and eggs. Cost of
production can have nothing to do with deciding the value
of the associated commodities relatively to each other. It
only decides their joint value. Cost of production does not
determine their prices, but the sum of their prices. A principle
is wanting to apportion the expenses of production between
the two.</p>
<p>
Since cost of production here fails us, we must revert to
a law of value anterior to cost of production, and more
fundamental, the law of demand and supply. The law is,
that the demand for a commodity varies with its value, and
that the value adjusts itself so that the demand shall be
equal to the supply. This supplies the principle of repartition
which we are in quest of.</p>
<p>
Suppose that a certain quantity of gas is produced and
sold at a certain price, and that the residuum of coke is
offered at a price which, together with that of the gas, repays
the expenses with the ordinary rate of profit. Suppose,
too, that, at the price put upon the gas and coke respectively,
the whole of the gas finds an easy market, without
either surplus or deficiency, but that purchasers can not
be found for all the coke corresponding to it. The coke will
be offered at a lower price in order to force a market. But
this lower price, together with the price of the gas, will not
be remunerating; the manufacture, as a whole, will not pay
its expenses with the ordinary profit, and will not, on these
terms, continue to be carried on. The gas, therefore, must
be sold at a higher price, to make up for the deficiency on
the coke. The demand consequently contracting, the production
will be somewhat reduced; and prices will become
stationary when, by the joint effect of the rise of gas and
the fall of coke, so much less of the first is sold, and so much
more of the second, that there is now a market for all the
coke which results from the existing extent of the gas-manufacture.</p>
<p>
Or suppose the reverse case; that more coke is wanted
at the present prices than can be supplied by the operations
required by the existing demand for gas. Coke, being now
in deficiency, will rise in price. The whole operation will
yield more than the usual rate of profit, and additional capital
will be attracted to the manufacture. The unsatisfied
demand for coke will be supplied; but this can not be done
without increasing the supply of gas too; and, as the existing
demand was fully supplied already, an increased quantity can
only find a market by lowering the price. Equilibrium will
be attained when the demand for each article fits so well
with the demand for the other, that the quantity required of
each is exactly as much as is generated in producing the
quantity required of the other.</p>
<p>
When, therefore, two or more commodities have a joint
cost of production, their natural values relatively to each
other are those which will create a demand for each, in the
ratio of the quantities in which they are sent forth by the
productive process.</p>
<SPAN name="toc195" id="toc195"></SPAN>
<h3><span>§ 2. Values of the different kinds of agricultural produce.</span></h3>
<p>
Another case of value which merits attention is
that of the different kinds of agricultural produce. The case
would present nothing peculiar, if different agricultural products
were either grown indiscriminately and with equal advantage
on the same soils, or wholly on different soils. The
difficulty arises from two things: first, that most soils are
fitter for one kind of produce than another, without being
absolutely unfit for any; and, secondly, the rotation of crops.</p>
<p>
For simplicity, we will confine our supposition to two
kinds of agricultural produce; for instance, wheat and oats.
If all soils were equally adapted for wheat and for oats, both
would be grown indiscriminately on all soils, and their relative
cost of production, being the same everywhere, would
govern their relative value. If the same labor which grows
three quarters of wheat on any given soil would always
grow on that soil five quarters of oats, the three and the five
quarters would be of the same value. The fact is, that both
wheat and oats can be grown on almost any soil which is
capable of producing either.</p>
<p>
It is evident that each grain will be cultivated in preference
on the soils which are better adapted for it than for
the other; and, if the demand is supplied from these alone,
the values of the two grains will have no reference to one
another. But when the demand for both is such as to require
that each should be grown not only on the soils peculiarly
fitted for it, but on the medium soils which, without
being specifically adapted to either, are about equally suited
for both, the cost of production on those medium soils will
determine the relative value of the two grains; while the
rent of the soils specifically adapted to each will be regulated
by their productive power, considered
with reference to that one [grain]
alone to which they are peculiarly applicable.
Thus far the question presents
no difficulty, to any one to whom the
general principles of value are familiar.</p>
<p></p>
<ANTIMG src="images/agricultural-produce.png" width-obs="393" height-obs="460" alt="Illustration: Agricultural Produce." />
<span style="font-size: 90%">
This may be easily shown by a diagram,
in which A represents the grade of
land best adapted for oats; B, C, D, respectively,
lands of diminishing productiveness for oats, until
</span><span style="font-size: 90%">
E is reached, which is, perhaps, equally good for oats or wheat;
</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">a</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">b</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">,
</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">c</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">d</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">,
and E likewise represent the wheat-lands, the best
beginning with </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">a</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">. The rent of A, or B, is determined by a
comparison with whatever grade of land planted in oats is cultivated
at the least return, as E, for example. So, if all the
wheat-lands are cultivated, land </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">a</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">,
or </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">b</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, is compared with E,
but in regard to the capacity of E to produce wheat.
</span>
<p>
It may happen, however, that the demand for one of the
two, as for example wheat, may so outstrip the demand for
the other, as not only to occupy the soils specially suited for
wheat, but to engross entirely those equally suitable to both,
and even encroach upon those which are better adapted to
oats. To create an inducement for this unequal apportionment
of the cultivation, wheat must be relatively dearer, and
oats cheaper, than according to the cost of their production
on the medium land. Their relative value must be in proportion
to the cost on that quality of land, whatever it may
be, on which the comparative demand for the two grains
requires that both of them should be grown. If, from the
state of the demand, the two cultivations meet on land more
favorable to one than to the other, that one will be cheaper
and the other dearer, in relation to each other and to things
in general, than if the proportional demand were as we at
first supposed.</p>
<span style="font-size: 90%">
As in the diagram just mentioned, if the demand for wheat
forces its cultivation downward not only on to land E, suited
to either indifferently, but, still farther on, to lands still less
adapted for wheat (although good land for oats), wheat may
be pushed down one stem of the V and up the other to D, or
even to C. Then the value of wheat will be regulated by the
cost of production on C, and the rent will be determined by a
comparison between the productiveness of </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">a</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">,
</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">b</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, etc. (running
downward through E), with C. The price of wheat will be
high relatively to oats, which are now cultivated only on lands,
A, B, better suited to growing oats, and whose cost of production
on C is much less than on D or E.
</span>
<p>
Here, then, we obtain a fresh illustration, in a somewhat
different manner, of the operation of demand, not as an occasional
disturber of value, but as a permanent regulator of
it, conjoined with, or supplementary to, cost of production.</p>
<hr class="page" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />