1 4

ON THE NATURE

leads either to vague and nugatory propositions,
or to positive error.
An illustration of these remarks may be
found in a passage of Mr. Ricardo’s work,
where he maintains, in opposition to M. Say,
that if, in consequence of increased facility
in producing other commodities, cloth should
exchange for a double quantity of them,
compared to what it did before, we ought to
say, that cloth retained its former value, and that
the commodities, compared with it, had fallen
to half their former value.* This language,
* ¢¢ According to M. Say, if the difficulty of producing
cloth were to double, and consequently cloth was to exthange
 for double the quantity of the commodities for
which it exchanged before, it would be doubled in value,
to which I give my fullest assent ; but if there were any
peculiar facility in producing the commodities, and no increased
 difficulty in producing cloth, and cloth should in
consequence exchange as before for double the quantity of
commodities, M. Say would still say that cloth had doubled
in value ; whereas, according to my view of the subject, he
should say, that cloth retained its’ former value, and those
particular commodities had fallen to half their former
value.”—Principles of Political Economy, chap. xx, p. 328,
3d edit.