OF VALUE.

11

be produced by half the labour formerly expended
 upon them, the value of corn could in
no sense. be said to remain the same. In proof
of this, take Mr. Ricardo’s own definition of
value, “the power of purchasing other goods,
which the possession of an object conveys.”
To say that a commodity is of unvarying value,
is, according ‘to this definition, equivalent to
saying that its power of purchasing other goods
remains constantly uniform; or, to vary the
language, that the quantity of other goods for
which it will exchange never alters. But, in
the example we have adduced, the same quantity
 of corn would exchange for an increased
quantity of any other commodity; and consequently,
 by Mr. Ricardo’s own definition, would
have risen in value,
It may possibly be alleged, that it is not the
corn, but other commodities which have varied
in value, and therefore Mr. Ricardo’s language
is correct. If value were a positive or intrinsic
quality, this might be true; but since it denotes
a mere relation between two objects, to suppose
any alteration could take place in this relation