236 NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

we express real value? His answer must be, in none. This
illustration is itself sufficient to show, that Mr. Ricardo’s
notion of real value is totally irreconcilable and incompa-
tible with his previous definition of the only kind of value
of which he professes to treat. The argument is short
and conclusive : value, as the power of purchasing, can be
expressed only by a quantity of the commodity to be pur-
chased —real value cannot be so expressed — therefore
value and real value are used in senses incompatible and
contradictory.

In a foot-note to the text we have stated, that real value,
as used by Mr. Ricardo, has no relation to any commodity
unless it be to an imaginary one; namely, a commodity
produced by an invariable quantity of labour. But it must
be observed, that if we had such a commodity, it would
still not enable Mr. Ricardo or any body else to furnish an
expression of real value; it would only enable him to ex-
press a variation in real value. For suppose gold to be
such a commodity, and take any point of time, for exam-
ple A. D. 1600: suppose further, an object 4 to be worth
at that period so much gold, so much corn, so much cloth :
in this case, the value of 4 in gold would have no more
claim to the title of real value (even on Mr. Ricardos or
any other person’s theory) than its value in corn or cloth.
But we next compare the value of a in gold, corn, and
cloth, in the year 1800, and we find that itis worth only half
as much gold, although worth as much corn as before,