It 
ON THE VALUE 
at one time a quarter, and at another time half, 
his labour at the latter period will be doubled 
in value in relation to these commodities. 
Mr. Ricardo’s error, it deserves to be repeated, 
lies in considering this change in the propor- 
tion to be the only cause of change, or rather 
the only case of change in the value of labour*. 
* Mr. Ricardo’s inference is-a legitimate deduction from 
his premises, if we concede certain postulates. Grant 
him the kind of value ealled real, which has no relation to 
the quantity of commodities commanded, but solely to the 
quantity of producing labour, and it inevitably follows, that 
there could be no alteration in the real value of labour, 
but from an alteration in the proportion of the product 
which went to the labourer. Neither, if money were al- 
ways produced by a uniform quantity of labour, could 
there be any other alteration in the money-value of labour. 
But to say in this case, that although the labourer obtained 
a larger quantity of hats, coats, and corn, yet if he ob- 
tained less money, the value of his labour would have 
fallen, is altogether nugatory. Money-value has no 
greater claim to the general term value,” than any 
other kind of value; and the simple state of the case 
would be, that labour had risen in value in relation to hats, 
coats, and corn, and fallen in relation to money. As to 
real value, the last chapter has shown that it is a nonentity.