CHAPTER I

ECONOMIC VALUE

The problem of the value of money is a special case of the general problem of economic value. The present chapter is concerned with the general theory of value, while the rest of the book will consider the numerous peculiarities and complications which make money a special case. The main proof of the theory here presented is to be found in a previous book[1] by the present writer. A number of periodical articles by several writers which have since appeared, in criticism or in further development of the theory, have at various points led to shifting emphasis and clearer understanding on the author's part, and the present exposition, without seeking explicitly to meet many of these criticisms, or to embody the new developments, will none the less be different because of them. To one writer in particular, Professor C. H. Cooley, the theory is indebted for restatement, amplification, and important additions.[2] On the whole, however, the theory presented in this chapter is substantially the theory presented in the earlier book. The theory is set forth in the present chapter with sufficient fullness to make the present volume independent of the earlier book.

Value has long been recognized as the fundamental economic concept. There have been many and divergent definitions of value, and many different theories as to its origin. It is the belief of the present writer--not shared by all his critics!--that the definition of value which follows, and the conception of the function of value in economic theory involved in it, conform to the actual use of the term in the main body of economic literature. The theory of the _causes_ of value here advanced is new, but the definition of value, and the conception of the relation of value to wealth, to price, to exchange, and to other economic ideas, seem to the present writer to conform to what is implied, and often expressed, in the general usage of economists.[3]

It is important to separate sharply two questions: one, the theory of the causes of value, and the other, the definition of value, or the question of the formal and logical aspects of the value concept. The two questions cannot be wholly divorced, but clarity is promoted by considering them separately. We shall take up the formal and logical aspects of the matter first.

Value is the common quality of wealth. Wealth in most of its aspects is highly heterogeneous: hay and milk, iron and corn-land, cows and calico, human services and gold watches, dollars and doughnuts, pig-pens and pearls--all these things, diverse though they be in their physical attributes, have one quality in common: Economic Value.[4] By virtue of this common or generic quality, it is possible to add wealth together to get a sum, to compare items of wealth with one another, to see which is greater, to get ratios of exchange between items of wealth, to speak of one item of wealth, say a crop of wheat, as being a percentage of another, say the land which produced it, etc. This common quality, value, is also a _quantity_. It belongs to that class of qualities which can be greater or less, can mount or descend a scale, without ceasing to be the same quality,--like heat or weight or length. Such qualities are _quantities_. There is nothing novel in the statement that a quality is also a quantity. It is implied in every day speech. We say that a man is tall, or heavy, or that the room is hot--qualitative statements; or we may say exactly how tall, or how heavy, or how hot--quantitative statements. The distinction between qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis in chemistry implies the same idea. Thus we may speak of a piece of wealth as having a definite quantity of value, or say that the value of the piece of wealth is a definite quantity. We may then work out mathematical relations among the different quantities of value, sums, ratios, percentages, etc.

Ratios of Exchange are ratios between two quantities of value, the values of the units of the two kinds of wealth exchanged.[5] A good many economists, particularly in their chapters on definition, have defined value as a ratio of exchange. This is inaccurate. The ratio of exchange presupposes _two_ values, which are the terms of the ratio. The ratio is not between milk and wheat in all their attributes. It is between milk and wheat with respect to one particular attribute. Compare them on the basis of weight, or cubic contents, and you would get ratios quite different from the ratio which actually is the ratio of exchange. The ratio is between their values.

In the diagram above, something of what is to follow is anticipated, since the cause of value is indicated. Wheat is shown to be exerting an influence on milk, and milk exerts an influence on wheat. The comparative strength of these two influences determines the ratio of exchange between them. But these two influences are not ultimate. The ratio of exchange is a relation, a _reciprocal_ relation. It works both ways. But behind this relativity, this scheme of relations between values, there lie two values which are absolute. These values rest in the pull exerted on wheat and on milk by the human factor which is fundamental, which in our diagram we have called the "social mind." Values lie behind ratios of exchange, and causally determine them. The important thing for present purposes is merely to note that value is prior to exchange relations, that it is an absolute quantity, and not, as many economists have put it, purely relative. The ratio of exchange is relative, but there must be absolutes behind relations.

A _price_ is merely one particular kind of ratio of exchange, namely, a ratio of exchange in which one of the terms is the value of the money unit.[6] In modern life, prices are the chief form of ratio of exchange, but it is important for some purposes to remember that they are not the only form.

Values may simultaneously rise and fall. There may be an increase or decrease in the sum total of values. Ratios of exchange cannot all rise or fall. A rise in the ratio of the value of wheat to the value of milk means a fall in the ratio of the value of milk to the value of wheat. Both may have fallen in absolute value, but both cannot simultaneously rise or fall with reference to one another. This is the truism regarding ratios of exchange which many economists have inaccurately applied to value itself in the doctrine that there cannot be a simultaneous rise or fall of values. There can be a simultaneous rise or fall of values, but not a simultaneous rise or fall of ratios of exchange.

There can be a general rise or fall of prices. Goods in general, other than money, may rise in value, while money remains constant in value. This would mean a rise in prices. Or, money may fall in value while goods in general are stationary in value. This would also mean a rise in prices. In either case, more money would be given for other goods, and the ratio between the value of the money unit and the value of other goods would have altered adversely to money. There are writers to whom the term, value of money, means merely the average of prices (or the reciprocal of the average of prices). For them, a rise in the average of prices is, _ipso facto_, a fall in the value of money. This view will receive repeated attention in later chapters. The view maintained in the present book is that the value of money is a quality of money, that quality which money shares with other forms of wealth, which lies behind, and causally explains, the exchange relations into which money enters. Every price implies _two_ values, the value of the money-unit and the value of the unit of the good in question.

Value is prior to _exchange_. Value is not to be defined as "power in exchange." Certain writers[7] who see the need of a quantitative value, which can be attributed to goods as a quality, still cling to the notion that value is relative, that two goods must exist before one value can exist, and that value is "power in exchange," or "purchasing power." The power is conceived of as something more than the fact of exchange, and as a cause of the exchange relations, but is, none the less, defined in terms of exchange. This position, however, does not really advance the analysis. It is a verbal solution of difficulties merely. To say that goods command a price because they have power in exchange is like saying that opium puts men to sleep because it has a dormitive power. Physicians now recognize that this is no solution of difficulties, that it is merely a repetition of the problem in other words. If we wish to explain exchange, we must seek the explanation in something anterior to exchange. If value is to be distinguished from ratio of exchange at all, it cannot be defined as "power in exchange."

To seek to confine value to exchange relations, moreover, makes it impossible to speak of the value of such things as the Capitol at Washington City, or the value of an entailed estate, or of values as existing _between_ exchanges. Nor can we make the price which a good would command at a given moment the test of its value, except in the case of the highly organized, fluid market. Land, at forced sale, notoriously often brings prices which do not correctly express its value. Moreover, even for wheat in the grain pit, the exchange test is valid only on the assumption that a comparatively small amount is to be sold. If very much is put on the market, the situation is changed, and the value falls. In other words, if "bulls" cease to be "bulls," and shift to the other side of the market, the very elements which were sustaining the value of the wheat have been weakened, and of course its value falls. "Power in exchange" is a function of two factors, (1) value and (2) saleability. A copper cent has high saleability, with little value, while land has high value with little saleability.[8] Some things have value with no saleability at all. In a socialistic community, where all lands, houses, tools, machines, etc., are owned by the state, and where such "prices" as exist are authoritatively prescribed, value and exchange would have no necessary connection. Values would remain, however, guiding the economic activity of the socialistic community, directing labor now here, now there, determining the employment of lands now in this sort of production, now in that. Exchange is only one of the manifestations of value. More fundamental, and more general, including "power in exchange," but not exhausted by it, is the power which objects of value have over the economic activities of men. This is the fundamental function of values. The entailed estate, which cannot be sold, still has power over the actions of men. The care which is taken of it, the amount of insurance which an insurance company will write on it, etc., are manifestations and measures of its value. The same may be said of the Capitol at Washington.[9]

In the fluid market, prices correctly express values. Assuming that the money-unit is fixed in value, variations in prices in the fluid market correctly indicate variations in values. The great bulk of our economic theory, the laws of supply and demand, cost of production, the capitalization theory, etc., do assume the fluid market, and a fixed value of the dollar.[10] Our economic theory is static theory, in general, and abstracts from the time factor and from "friction." In fact, values change first, and then, more or less rapidly, and more or less completely, prices respond. In the active wholesale and speculative markets, where the overwhelming bulk of exchanging takes place, the prices respond quickly. Static theory is thus adequate for the explanation of these prices, for most practical purposes, so long as the changes in prices are due to changing values of goods, rather than to changing value of the money-unit. Moreover, the distinction between value and price is, in a fluid market, where the value of money is changing slowly, often not important. In the assumption of money, and of a fixed value of money, the absolute value concept is already assumed. No harm is done, however, if the economist does not explicitly refer to this, but goes on merely talking about money-prices. Very many economic problems indeed may be solved that way. This is why the inadequate character of the conceptions of value as "ratio of exchange" or "purchasing power" has not prevented these notions from being serviceable tools in the hands of many writers. But there are many problems for which these conceptions are not adequate, because the implicit assumption of a fixed value of money cannot be made. Among these problems is the problem of the value of money itself, which constitutes the subject of this book. For that problem, an absolute value concept is vital.

If, in our diagram above, we substitute for "social mind" the more general expression, "human factor," we should find that our value concept is the common property of many writers. We should find it fitting in with the absolute value notion of Adam Smith and of Ricardo.[11] The "human factor" which _explains_ the absolute value is, for them, labor. We should find it fitting in with the "socially necessary labor time" of Marx: the value of a bushel of wheat is the amount of labor time which, on the _average_, is required to produce a bushel of wheat. It is an absolute value. It is a causal coefficient with the absolute value, similarly explained, of the bushel of corn, in explaining the wheat-price of corn. Our concept will fit in exactly with the "social use-value" of Carl Knies, according to whom the economic value of a good in society is an _average_ of its varying use-values to different individuals in the market. This average is an absolute quantity. The absolute values of units of two goods, thus explained, causally fix the exchange ratio between the goods. Knies' value-theory, it may be noticed, is explicitly modeled on that of Marx, to whom he refers, the difference being that Knies takes an average of individual use-values, while Marx takes an average of individual labor-times, as the causal explanation.[12] Our value concept will fit perfectly with Professor J. B. Clark's "social marginal utility" theory of value. Indeed, the present writer gratefully acknowledges that the concept is Professor Clark's rather than his own, and that all that is necessary for its explanation has been set forth by Professor Clark.[13] Professor Clark's _causal_ theory of value, his explanation of this absolute quantity of value as a _sum_ of individual marginal utilities, we have elsewhere[14] criticised as involving circular reasoning, like all marginal utility theories, in so far as they offer causal explanations. But his statement of the logical character of value, of the relation of value to wealth, of value to price, of value to exchange, of the functions of the value concept in economic theory, and of the functions of value in economic life,--Clark's doctrines on these points we have accepted bodily, and in so far as the present writer has added anything to them it has been by way of elaboration and defence.

The concept of value here developed is explicitly adopted by T. S. Adams, David Kinley, W. A. Scott, W. G. L. Taylor, L. S. Merriam, and A. S. Johnson, among American writers, to name no others. All of these writers would concur in the formal and logical considerations[15] as to the nature of value here presented, whatever differences might appear among them as to the causal explanation of value.

The value concept here presented performs the same logical functions as the "inner objective value" of Karl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Karl Helfferich, discussed in our chapter on "Marginal Utility," below, and is, in its formal and logical aspects, to be identified with that notion. It is essentially like Wieser's "public economic value," discussed in the same chapter.[16] That there should remain critics[17] who consider the present writer a daring innovator, who is thrusting a personal idiosyncracy in terminology upon economic theory, is striking evidence that men often talk about books which they have not read! The reader who accepts, provisionally, the doctrine so far presented, as a tool of thought which will aid us in the further progress of the argument, may do so with the full assurance that he is accepting a tried and tested concept, which has seemed necessary to very many indeed of the great masters of the science.[18]

So far, the writer feels himself in accord with the main current of economic thought. When we come to a causal explanation of the value quantity, however, earlier theories appear unsatisfactory. The labor theory of value has long since broken down, and has been generally abandoned. The reasons for this will appear in the chapter on "Cost of Production." The effort to explain value by marginal utility, by the satisfactions which individuals derive from the last increment consumed of a commodity, has likewise broken down, as will appear in the chapter on "Marginal Utility." In general, it may be said that the effort to pick out feeling magnitudes,[19] either of pleasure or pain, in the minds of individuals, and combine them into a social quantity, leads to circular reasoning. Thus, the utility theory: It is not alone the intensity of a man's marginal desire for a good which determines his influence on the market. If he has no money, he may desire a thing ever so intensely without giving it value. If he is rich, a slight desire counts for a great deal. In other words, utility, backed by _value_, gives a commodity value. But this is to explain value by value, which is circular. So with the theory of average labor _time_. How shall we average labor time? The problem is easy if we confine ourselves, say, to wheat. If one bushel of wheat is produced with ten hours' labor, a second with eight hours' labor and a third with six hours' labor, the average is eight hours, and we may fix the value of the bushel of wheat according. But suppose we wish to compare the labor engaged in making _hats_ with the labor engaged in raising wheat. How can such labor be compared? Hats are, in their physical aspects, incommensurable with wheat. The one quality which they have in common, relevant to the present interest, is _value_. Given the value of the wheat and the value of the hats, you may compare and average out the labor engaged in producing them. But if value must be employed as a means of averaging labor, it is clear that average labor can be no explanation of value. This is not the only flaw in the labor-time theory, but it illustrates a vice which it has in common with all those theories which start with individual elements, and seek to combine them into a social quantity. The whole method of approach is wrong. It makes two abstractions, neither of which is legitimate: first, it abstracts the individual from his vital and organic connections with his fellows, and then, second, it takes from the individual, thus abstracted, only a small part, that part immediately concerned with the consumption or production of wealth. In this process of abstraction, very much of the explanation of value is left out. The _whole_ man, in his _social_ relations, must be taken into account before we can get an adequate theory of value. We turn, then, to a brief discussion of society and the individual, and to a discussion of those individual activities and social relations which are most significant in the explanation of economic value.

* * * * *

All mental processes are in the minds of individual men. There is no social "oversoul" which transcends individual minds, and there is no social "consciousness" which stands outside of and above the consciousnesses of individuals. So much by way of emphatic concurrence with those critics of the social value theory[20] who persist in foisting upon the theory the notion that there is a social oversoul, or that the "social organism" is some so far unclassified biological specimen. To say that economic value is a social value, the product of many minds in organic interplay, is not to say that economic value is independent of processes in the minds of individual men, or that it results from any mysterious behavior of a social oversoul.

The human animal is born with certain innate instincts and capacities. Human animals of different races and different strains are in highly important points different in their instincts and capacities. But the human animal is not born with a _human mind_. Nor could the human animal, apart from association with his fellows, ever develop a human mind. "The human mind is what happens to the human animal in a social situation."[21] Of course, without the care of adults, the infant would, in general, promptly perish. But, more fundamental for our purposes, is the fact that all the important stimuli which play upon the child during his first two years, when the human mind is being developed, are social stimuli. So true is this, that the child's commerce with physical things runs in social terms. The child interprets the physical objects about him _personally_, attributes life and human attributes to them, holds conversation with them, praises and blames them, makes companions of them. This _animism_ of the child, so puzzling to an old-fashioned psychology, is readily explained by social psychology. It is a social interpretation of the universe. It follows naturally from the principle of apperception: the interpretation of the unknown in terms of the known; the extension of accumulated experience to the interpretation of new experiences. The first experiences of the human animal are social experiences.

In the history of human society, a similar generalization is possible. The human _individual_ is found, not in primitive life, but late in the scale of social evolution. Individuality is a social product. The savage is not a free, self-conscious person, who can set himself off against the group, and feel himself an isolated centre of power. His life is wrapped up in the group life. In the great barbarian states like Ancient Egypt or China, the life of the individual was so controlled by social tradition, and innovation was so ruthlessly crushed out that individuality had little scope. Greece and Judea gave larger scope to individual variation, but the individual still felt himself bound up with his group, and was stoned, given hemlock, or crucified if he challenged the existing social order too seriously. The break-up of the Greek city states, as independent sovereignties, and their subjection to the universal sway of Rome, made it possible for the cultured Greek to set himself up in opposition to the State; the coming of Christianity, substituting personal relations with deity, for the communal worship which had preceded it, gave the individual a vital interest apart from the life of the group about him, so that he could still further feel independent of his immediate social environment. The development by the Roman lawyers of the _Jus Gentium_, the law which is common to all nations as distinguished from the particular law of a given group, emphasized the doctrine of the Christian religion and of the Stoic philosophy of a humanity which transcends the limits of a given state,[22]--a notion which tended to free the individual from dependence on his immediate associates. But note that in all this we have merely a widening and multiplying of social relationships, and that the individual gains freedom from one set of social relationships only by coming into others. The Christian gains freedom from his immediate surroundings because he feels himself in communion with "angels and archangels and all the glorious company of Heaven." Francis Bacon could survive his degradation in the England of his day because he could leave his "name and memory ... to foreign nations and to the next age."

Bagehot, in his _Physics and Politics_, Tarde, and Baldwin, to name no others,[23] have shown how tremendously responsive human beings are to suggestion, how wide is the sway of imitation in human life, how fashion, mode, custom, etc., make and mold the individual. Cooley,[24] with an improved psychology, has amplified the analysis, tracing the development of the individual mind in interaction with the minds of those about him, making still clearer the sweep and pervasiveness of social factors in framing the very self of the individual. In what follows, I assume the results of these investigations. They constitute the starting point from which we set out on the quest of a theory of economic value.

So much for the individual. He is a social product. But what of society? Objective, external, constraining and impelling forces, which are not physical, which are seemingly not the products of the will of other individuals with whom the individual holds converse, meet the individual on every hand. There is the Moral Law, sacred and majestic, which stands above him, demanding the sacrifice of many of his impulses and desires. There is the Law, external to him and to his fellows, in seeming, failure to obey which may ruin his life. There is Public Opinion, which presents itself to him as an opaque, impersonal force, before which he must bow, and which he feels quite powerless to change. There are Economic Values ruling in the market place, directing industry in its changing from one sort of production to another, bringing prosperity to one individual and bankruptcy to another, not with the caprice of an individual will, but with the remorseless impersonality of wind and tide. He who conforms to them, who anticipates their mutations, gains great wealth--but no business man dare set his personal values against them. There are great Institutions, Church and State and Courts and Professions and giant Corporations and Political Parties, and multitudinous other less formal or smaller institutions, which go on in continuous life, though the men who act within them pass and change. Their Life seems an independent life, and the individual who tries to change their course finds that his efforts mean little indeed, as a rule. There is a realm of Social Objectivity, a realm of organization, activity, purpose and power, not physical in character, not mechanical in nature, which is set in opposition to individual will, purpose, power, and activity. How is the individual related to this objective social world?

Three main types of theory have sought to answer this question. On the one hand, there is a type of theory, doubtless the oldest type, a type which arises easily in a period when social changes are slow, which sees in the objective social world something really separate and distinct from individual life, having a non-human origin, and deriving its power from something other than the human will. On the other hand, there is an extreme individualism, which emphasizes individual separateness, which posits as a _datum_ the individuality which we have seen to be a social product, and thinks of the objective social realm as a mere mechanical, mathematical summing up of individual factors, or as a something which individuals have consciously made, by contract or agreement, or what not. Finally, there is a type of theory, to which the present writer would adhere, which finds a false antithesis in the contrast thus sharply made between society and individual, which holds that the individual is not, in his psychological activity, so much set off from the activities of his fellows as the contrast would indicate, but rather shares in the give and take of a larger mental life. This larger mental life is completely accounted for when all the individuals are completely accounted for, but it cannot be accounted for by considering the individuals _separately_. No individual is completely, or primarily, accounted for until his _relations_ to the rest of the group are analyzed. Thinkers who start out with the individuals separately conceived, and then seek to combine them in some arithmetical way, abstract from those organic social relations which constitute the very heart of the phenomenon we are seeking to explain. The parts are in the whole, but the whole is not the _sum_ of the parts. The relationships are not arithmetical, additive, mechanical, but are vital and organic. Men's minds _function_ together, in an organic unity.[25]

The first two of these types of theory (perhaps because individuals are _physically_ sharply marked off from one another, and go on in _biological_ functioning in obvious separateness) have falsely accentuated the self-dependence and separateness of individual _minds_. The second type of theory, which has sought to work out the whole thing on the basis of this false conception of the individual, has largely failed to see the objective social realities, or has, with methodological rigor, denied their existence. This second type of thinking has especially characterized a good deal of economic theory, which rests on the philosophy and psychology of David Hume.[26] We will set our doctrine in clearer light if we contrast three parallel types of theory which have appeared with reference to the nature of morality, of law, and of economic value. For each of these phenomena, we have theories which represent all three of the types of social thinking to which we have referred.

In the theory of morals, we have, at one extreme, doctrines like those of Kant and Fichte, according to whom morality is a matter of obligation, independent of the human will, independent of consequences, inherent in the nature of things. Man's mind can find out what the moral law is, but man's mind has nothing to do with the making of the moral law. The same notion is involved in the ideas of "natural rights," "justice though the heavens fall," and the like. The conception is strikingly brought out in the question about which old theologians sometimes debated: is Right right because God enjoins it, or does God enjoin Right because it is Right? Whether or not Right is supreme over God, these old theologians never questioned that Right is supreme over all human wishes and desires, and in no sense an outcome of them. At the other extreme, we have the moral doctrine of the Sophists, for whom each man's _will_ was right for him--a doctrine which reappears in every individualistic and anarchistic age. For this doctrine, there are no valid social standards of right and wrong. There is nothing binding on the moral agent but his own will. In between, is the moral doctrine of such thinkers as Friedrich Paulsen, or John Dewey, who represent the reigning type of moral theory to-day. For them, morality is a purely human matter. It grows out of the needs and interests of men. What is good at one time and place is not necessarily good at another time and place. There are no immutable moral principles, valid throughout the ages. None the less, morality is not a private matter, about which men may do as they please. Morality is the product of an organic society, the product of the interplay of many minds. To a given individual, the moral law is, indeed, an external constraining and impelling force. It is the will of the rest of the group. It may be his own will too, but if it is not, it overrides his personal preference, He, on the other hand, is part of the group which constrains and guides every other individual. There are, in fact, many sets of moral values: on the one hand, the social moral values _par excellence_, which the group will _enforce_ in various ways; and then, for each individual, his own moral values, which may correspond qualitatively more or less with the group values, or may antagonize them. But the Moral Law is the will of the group. It is no simple composite of the moral values of individuals. It has its organic interrelations with all phases of social life. Economic changes modify it, legal changes modify it, religious values modify it, all phases of social life are expressed in it.

In legal theory, we find these three types of doctrine also. The first type is clearly indicated in the general attitude of American and English courts, especially toward the common law, though it influences their interpretation of all law. The law is something which the mind of man may find out, but may not make. If a new situation arises, the court "finds" the law--in theory the principle "discovered" by the court was in the common law at the beginning. Of course, we know that the judge invents the rule he makes, to fit a novel case, but the judge himself will not admit it. The theory of the law and the theory of morality have developed in close connection, and the notion of "natural right" is a juristic as well as a moral idea. At the other extreme, we have from certain recent students of law the doctrine that "The Law" is a myth, that there is nothing but the particular opinion of a particular judge at a particular time. Individualism cannot go so far in legal theory as to give every individual in society a chance to put his oar in, and have a separate law for himself! The social and institutional character of law is too obvious to permit that. But individualism has gone so far in legal theory as to deny all objectivity to law except in a given decision in a particular case. In between these two extreme views, appear the views of writers like Savigny, or Professor Munroe Smith, for whom the law is a changing product of social psychology, volitional[27] rather than intellectual in character, objective enough to the individual who violates it, or the judge who seeks to pervert it, but none the less not outside the minds and interests of men. In Professor Munroe Smith's phrase, law is "that part of the social order which by virtue of the social will may be supported by physical force."[28] I venture to describe this type of legal theory as the "social value" theory of the law. In the chapter on "The Reconciliation of Statics and Dynamics," _infra_, I have cited certain opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes which apply it, and even bring into it the notions of the marginal analysis.

There are, similarly, three types of economic theory. At the one extreme we have theories of "intrinsic" value, which would place economic value outside the wills of men. The mediaeval discussions of "just price" often illustrate this notion. It creeps not infrequently into judicial opinions,--to which such notions are essentially congenial! The working economist of our own day has found little use for it, but in periods when economic change was slow it suggested itself not unnaturally to men, as an explanation of the seeming impersonality of market phenomena, and as a practical idea for combatting extortion and injustice. Something of the idea is involved in a sentence of Shakspere's:[29]

"But value dwells not in particular will; It holds his estimate and dignity As well wherein 'tis precious of itself As in the prizer."

At the opposite extreme would be those economists, as Professor Davenport and Jevons, who find no value for a good except in the minds of individual men, so that there may be as many different values as there are different men. That something social and objective exists in the market place can hardly be denied, but when pressed for an account of it, these writers reduce it to a bare, abstract, mathematical ratio.[30] Each individual mind is shut up within its own limits, inscrutable to other minds, and there can be no psychological phenomena which include activities in many minds, for this view. In between these two extremes, is the social value theory of the present writer. Economic value is not intrinsic in goods, independent of the minds of men. But it is a fact which is in large degree independent of the mind of any given man. To a given individual in the market, the economic value of a good is a fact as external, as objective, as opaque and stubborn, as is the weight of the object, or the law against murder. There are individual values, marginal utilities, of goods which may differ in magnitude and in quality from man to man, but there is, over and above these, influenced by them in part, influencing them much more than they influence it, a social value for each commodity, a product of a complex social psychology, which includes the individual values, but includes very much more as well. Our theory puts law, moral values, and economic values in the same general class, _species_ of the _genus_, social value, alike in their psychological "stuff" and character, to be explained by the same general principles, even though differentiated in their functions, and in the extent to which they depend on various factors in the social situation. They are parts of a social system of motivation and control. They are the _social forces_, which govern, in a social scheme, the actions of men.

It may be well to suggest rough _differentiae_ which mark off these values from one another. Legal values are social values which will be enforced, if need be, by the organized _physical_ force of the group, through the government. Moral values are social values which the group enforces by approbation and disapprobation, by cold shoulders and ostracism or by honor and praise. Economic values are values which the group enforces under a system of free enterprise, by means of profits and losses, by riches or bankruptcy. The group may, under a communistic or socialistic system, rely in whole or in part upon the machinery of the law; in which case economic values appear not in their own form as immediately guiding production, but as "presuppositions" of some of the legal values.

The differentiation of these types of social value may also run in terms of their _functions_,[31] though it is not so easy to mark them off here, since their functions overlap. The function of economic values is to guide and control the economic activities of men, to send labor from one industry to another, to cause one sort of thing to be produced or another, to supply the motive force which _impels_ industry. Legal and moral values also directly affect industry, often working to check the results which the economic values alone would lead to--as when the law forbids the production and sale of liquor, or checks child labor, etc. The law, on the other hand, does not, primarily, in its influence on industry, seek _positively_ to determine its direction. The law forbids the production of liquor, but does not decree the production of bread. The law may seek to affect industry positively, by protective tariffs, for example, which aim at the building up of certain industries, but its effects are here indirect, reached through modifications in the economic values. Economic values, on the other hand, do not primarily aim at the regulation of the conduct of men outside the market place, or the shop or the farm, etc. Economic values are not primarily concerned with making men be good husbands or good neighbors, or brave soldiers. Economic values may be used, in part, for these purposes, as when a father-in-law uses his wealth as a lever to make his son-in-law behave--or, indeed, as a bait to get a son-in-law! It is hard to find a phase of social life which is not touched by all types of social values, but it is possible, roughly, to mark off those phases of social life which are subject to primary regulation by one or the other sort of social value.

The differentiation is easier when we look at the social _institutions_ which have to do primarily with the one or the other sort of value. Courts and legislatures are easily marked off from stock exchanges and banking houses. There is not so clearly an institutional nucleus for moral values, since the church has lost its control over the moral situation.

When we view the matter from the standpoint of the _objects_ of value, _differentiae_ also appear. The main type of object of moral value is modes of conduct; the "type object" of economic value is physical things which men eat, wear, drink, etc., even though _quantitatively_ the major part of the sum total of economic values attach to other things, instrumental goods, lands, labor, and social relations, like franchise rights, good will, which in the main reflect the values of consumers' goods;[32] objects of legal value are in large degree the same as objects of moral value, namely, modes of conduct, but moral values attach to a wider group of objects, and legal values attach to certain forms of conduct which are morally indifferent.

It is not so easy to make the differentiation when we view the thing from the standpoint of the consciousness of men who are at the centre of the situation, to whose consciousness the social values are presented. We may put at the very forefront of the economic value of oranges the gustatory feelings or desires of those who consume them; at the forefront of the moral value of a heroic rescue by a fireman the thrill that runs through the onlookers. Qualitatively, these psychological states are different, as those who have experienced both will know. But it is difficult indeed to put the difference into words. When it comes to a legal value, say the legal value of a given contract right which a man seeks to enforce in court, it is not easy to find any particular emotion or state of consciousness which is peculiar or appropriate to it. The value is so highly institutionalized and impersonal, that it seems to the court and lawyers and even the litigants to be merely a question of fact to be intellectually analyzed. Its roots are deep in human emotions, but not in the emotions, primarily, of those who are handling the transaction. Perhaps the jurist has states of consciousness we know not of. There may be a distinctively legal emotion. It seems to crop out at times when one questions, in conversation with a judge or lawyer, the infallibility of the courts. But the law does not derive its power therefrom! Rather, the law derives its power from the general consent and acquiescence and support of the mass of men, who turn over to experts the details of administering it, and who support The Law in general, rather than the rule of the _corpus delicti_, with their emotional sanction.

I think that we have here a clue to a vital point for our theory. We need not expect to find the major part of the explanation of any of these social values in the conscious emotions of those who are moved by them. In the case of the orange or the heroic act, we are, indeed, close to pretty simple human feelings and desires. In general, in the case of moral values, the individual emotion and the social value are _qualitatively_ comparable, since moral values rarely take on a highly institutional character. They are more free from class or institutional control than other social values. This need not be true. Thus, the plantation negro need not feel any personal shame in the moral delinquency which he none the less hides from the "white folks" whose values he must more or less conform to. But, on the whole, moral values are much more "participation values,"[33] shared by the whole group in common, than are economic values or legal values. When we pass beyond the simple case of a consumption good, and get into the realm of the more institutional economic values, we lose all guidance from the clue of satisfactions in consumption. Just what emotion, for example, is appropriate in the presence of the four and a half per cent convertible bond of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co.? If it be answered that ultimately that bond represents satisfactions in consumption, since the owner of it may spend the income for consumers' goods, or since the railroad in question carries coal which goes to Italy to be used in a cruiser which will sink an Austrian warship, thereby giving consumers' satisfactions to individuals in Italy, so that the value of the bond is ultimately reducible to specific satisfactions of given individuals, we may still hold that those satisfactions do not constitute the value of the bond, as such. Moreover, the same is true of the legal values. Ultimately, very specific human emotions are affected by the rule of the _corpus delicti_, or the rule governing pleas in _estoppel_. Both in legal and in economic values we have an elaborate and complex system of social psychological character, which can by no means be reduced to elementary desires or feelings of individuals, even though when the whole story is told, no part of the system will be found outside the minds of individual men. The point has been well put by Professor C. H. Cooley: "It would be as reasonable to attempt to explain the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, or the _Institutes_ of Calvin, by the immediate working of religious instinct as to explain the market values of the present time by the immediate working of natural wants."[34] I think that any attempt to differentiate the various kinds of social value on the basis of the type of emotion in the minds of those who have most immediately to do with them, or to explain them primarily by those emotions, is foredoomed. The law does not get its power from the emotion of the judge who gives a decision, nor does the value of a rare painting rest chiefly in the intensity of desire of the few rich connoisseurs who compete for it. Back of the judge, giving _validity_ to his decision, stands the will of the group; back of the rich connoisseurs stand the legal and other social values concerned with the distribution of wealth, by virtue of which they are able to make their wants felt in the market. Both judge and connoisseur are focal points, through which stream the social forces affecting the values in question. Both are important. But the emotions and ideas of neither exhaust the psychological causation involved in the values.

This is very much more apparent when we consider the values that arise in the great speculative markets, say in the wheat pit, or the stock exchange. Those who buy and sell are primarily interpreters, students, of impersonal, social forces, seeking to adjust themselves to them, to forecast them, in such a way as to derive profit from them. Their choices and decisions are also factors. Indeed, it is possible to view the matter in such a way as to make their decisions the whole story. In the same way, it is possible to make the mind of the judge the final explanation of the legal value. But the speculators themselves are under no such illusion. They know very well that if they run counter to the facts they will lose money. And the judge knows very well that the range of arbitrary choice which he can exercise without impeachment, or at least without reversal by a higher court, is very limited. Nor is even a Supreme Court of the United States free to do its arbitrary will. Just because it is so conspicuous, and because its doings are so important, it has manifested more respect for judicial tradition, and more responsiveness to the tides of public sentiment, than any other court in the Federal Judiciary.[35]

The head of a great banking house makes a decision regarding an underwriting operation. On his decision depends the question of whether or not the securities are issued. On the issue of the new securities depends, in part, the values of the existing securities of the corporation in question, and the nature of the future employment of thousands of men and great quantities of land and capital. Tremendous power is concentrated in the hands of this banker. But it is not _his_ power! He cannot exercise it in an arbitrary or capricious way. He approaches his problem in much the same spirit that the judge approaches a disputed question of law. He analyzes the factors involved. He considers the condition of the money-market, the question of the probable ease or difficulty of marketing the new securities to investors, the prospects of the business of the corporation in question, the probable future demand for its products, the stability of that demand, the personnel of the management of the corporation, the attitude of the government toward it, the nature of its other outstanding securities, with special reference to the proportion of bonds to stocks, and the amount of "fixed charges" against its earnings. He may also take into account other enterprises of similar character which he has connections with, and the question of whether or not building up the corporation in question may injure other corporations to which he has responsibilities. He looks far into the future, seeking to conserve his prestige, and unwilling to assume responsibility for an issue which investors will later lose faith in. Proximately, his decision is tremendously important, and his thoughts and feelings are of immense significance, but ultimately, _they_ are determined by all manner of social considerations, and _always_, _the degree to which they count_ in determining values depends on his weight in the economic situation, which rests (1) on his _prestige_, _i. e._, the massing of beliefs and hopes of many men, (2) on his _wealth_, which rests in the legal and moral values governing distribution, and (3) on his institutional relationships, which again are psychological facts, partly legal in character. He is as much a social instrument as is the judge. Both may abuse their power. Both do at times abuse their power. But the significant point is that the power both have is social power, and is in no sense proportional to the intensity of their own emotions. It arises from the emotional power in the minds of many men.

It would be easy to elaborate the points in which morals, laws, and economic values are alike, and to show in detail that the theory of economic value is merely a special case of the general theory of social value. For our present purposes, however, it is enough to have illustrated the general doctrine, and to have set up the economic values as true social forces. It may be noticed that the effort to differentiate the different kinds of value is not altogether successful. They are not in watertight compartments in social life. It is a commonplace among students of ethics that moral values grow, in greater or less degree, out of economic factors. Indeed, the "economic interpretation of history" has as its central theme the doctrine that morality, law, and ideal values in general are governed by the economic situation. This is a one-sided view. Moral and legal values are influenced and modified by economic forces. Legal and moral values do, in part, derive their power from economic values. But on the other hand, economic values likewise derive part of their power from legal and moral values. The "social mind" is an organic whole, in which no factors exist "pure," and in which there is constant give and take. The effort to explain moral values by a single principle, as sympathy, legal values by another simple principle, as fear, and economic values by a different simple principle, as utility, is foredoomed. It has been given up by the students of law and morals, and should be abandoned by the students of economics.

Let us consider more narrowly the main factors affecting and explaining economic social values. Let us take, first, the simplest case, that of goods and services which minister directly to human wants, goods and services "of the first order." Goods of this sort would be oranges, bread, clothing, jewels. Services of this sort would be the services of the barber, the valet, the physician, the preacher, the teacher, the actor. I abstract, in discussing these values, from the complications that grow out of the friction in retail trade, and the existence of many customary prices, and prices fixed by other than economic values, in the case of teachers, or preachers. I shall concentrate attention upon such things as oranges, bread, clothing, and jewels. The _focus_ of the values of these things, and an essential condition of their existence, is their utility, that is to say, their power to satisfy human wants. Utility as used in economics does not mean usefulness in any moral sense. From the standpoint of the economist, whiskey and opium are as useful as bread, if they satisfy wants equally intense. And the economist is not concerned with the general utility of things considered in their totality. Air is more useful than jewels, but a carat of air is not as useful as a one-carat diamond. Air exists in such abundance that it does not need to be economized. Scarcity with reference to the extent of the wants involved is also essential to economic value. A combination of the ideas of utility and scarcity gives us the simple notion for which the formidable name of "marginal utility" has been devised. The marginal utility of a good to a man is the power the last, or "marginal," unit of the good which the man consumes has to give him satisfaction, or, viewed from the standpoint of the man, is the intensity of his desire[36] for, or of his satisfaction in, the final unit consumed. So far, our account of the value of the orange will seem perfectly acceptable to those accustomed to traditional discussions of the problem in the text-books. The difference is that many text-books stop at this point, leaving the impression that with the definition of marginal utility the whole value problem has been solved. For the social value theory, the conception of marginal utility is barely a starting point. Indeed, it is not even a starting point. We shall have to look both in front of it and _behind it_. Recognizing that marginal utilities to individuals are essential to economic values of consumption goods, we shall have to point out other things which are also essential, and we shall have to explain the factors determining these marginal utilities themselves.

The last point may be considered first. Men's desires are socially determined. Even the simplest, most instinctive, wants of human nature are, in their concrete manifestations, the product of social culture in overwhelming degree. Consider sex and hunger. We do not enjoy our food when our neighbors pick their teeth with their forks. This would not trouble a chimpanzee, whose _instinctive_ equipment in the matter of hunger is vastly more like that of a man than is the _actual_ hunger impulse of a highly civilized man like that of a savage. Civilized men will often starve rather than eat human flesh. Even when moral scruples are overcome, actual physical revulsion may prevent it. Men of different times and places wish food of special sorts, served in special ways. They wish to eat in the company of their fellows, but only of those fellows who can know and obey the ritual that is appropriate to the time and place. This is true of humble folk as of those who "dress for dinner." The ritual differs for the two sorts of people. But there is a spirit, a type of conversation, a code of etiquette, which prevails at the mealtime of virtually all men, and too serious digressions therefrom will take away the appetites of all. About the mealtime and the festal board have gathered a great host of traditions, ideals, and social activities, till they have become in verity an institution, and not the least important, by any means, of social institutions. Out of the simple instinct of sex, we have evolved many of the most precious things of our civilization, and between the sex impulse of the animal and the sex impulse of the gentleman who is seeking to marry the one woman in all the world, there is a difference so great that comparison between the two is difficult.

Here we have wants which grow out of the most elementary things in human nature, wants which are intense and universal, but which vary, in their concrete manifestations, enormously from age to age and from place to place. When we come to the wants which change more quickly, the fact that social factors dominate needs no arguing. Fashion, mode, custom, obviously account for the concrete wants that exist in clothing, ornamentation, amusement, housing, etc. If we wish to know what women will be wanting to wear six months hence, we do not go to women individually and ask them. We could not find out that way. They would not know. We go rather to the theatre, and study the stage and the boxes, to the famous designers of women's dress, to the metropolitan centres of various sorts, to the "radiant points of social control"[37] from which emanate the suggestions which pass in imitative waves through the women of the country in the next few months. The laws of imitation have been elaborately developed by Bagehot, Tarde, Baldwin, Ross, LeBon, Cooley, and others, and I content myself here with referring to their writings. The wants of women--and men--are socially given, grow out of a give and take, a social process. And in this social process, it is not true that each man counts one! Rather, a few lead, and many follow. There are centres of prestige which count overwhelmingly.

Certain wants are competitive.[38] Where social status depends on having as good a house as one's neighbors, and where social leadership depends on having a better house than one's neighbors, there is no limit to men's desires for better houses. With each improvement which one introduces, each feels the desire to improve, however contented he might have been had the other not made the improvement. To this we shall recur in our discussion of the origin of money, in explaining the value of gold.

So much for the human wants which stand as the focus of economic values in the case of articles of immediate consumption.

But, given these wants, and given their marginal intensities, we are only at the beginning of our explanation of the economic values of the consumption goods. It is again not a case of each want counting one, to the extent of its intensity. There are again, by virtue of the legal and moral values governing the distribution of wealth, _centres_ of power. The wants of some men count for nothing, however intense they may be. The pauper, the prisoner, the beggar--popular proverb about "beggars and horses" understands them, however much the "marginal utilitarian" may forget that their wants count for nothing.[39] The slightest whim, on the other hand, of the man who has inherited millions may count heavily in giving values to goods. For the explanation of the values of consumption goods, then, we need both the socially determined marginal utilities of individuals, and the socially determined _weight_ which these individuals have in our economic system. This _weight_ would involve a very elaborate explanation. Many factors affect it. We call attention here, however, especially to the fact that it rests in large part on the legal and moral values and institutions concerned with the distribution of wealth. Changes in the distribution of wealth are as important as changes in the wants themselves in giving the explanation of changes in values. The economic social values of consumption goods include not merely the values of those goods _to_ the individuals who consume them, but also the values _of_ the individuals themselves in the social scheme of things.

What of the values of instrumental goods, of goods of "higher orders," of labor, of stocks and bonds, of lands, of franchise rights and good will?

It is the one great contribution of the Austrian economists to have shown that the causation in value runs, primarily, from consumption goods to the goods of higher "orders" which are concerned with their production, and that these values of instrumental goods, etc., are derived and secondary values. The value of wheat is based on the value of bread, the value of land on the value of wheat. The value of the stock of United States Steel rests in part on the value of iron lands, which rests on the value of ore, which rests on the value of pig iron, which rests on the value of steel rails, which rests on the value of the service of transporting building materials, which rests on the value of a building, which rests on the value of the services which a dentist performs in an office in the building. This is the main line of causation. This is the first approximation which gives us a clue, without which we should find problems insoluble. But is it not clear that this cannot be the whole story? At every step complications enter. The whole thing cannot be got out of the value of the dentist's services, and the other consumers' goods and services, which are indirectly aided by the property to which title is given by ownership of U.S. Steel stock; nor is the value of the stock to be fully explained by the value of the property to which it gives title.

At every step, we meet the complication that men must estimate and calculate, for one thing. And rarely indeed can men see all the steps, the end from the beginning. Take first a very simple case, wheat land. The value of the wheat land of to-day rests on the value of wheat, but it is the wheat of to-morrow and for many years to come; the wheat of to-morrow rests for its value on the value of the bread of the day after to-morrow. Sometimes the differential between goods at two consecutive steps in the productive process is pretty constant. Wheat and flour vary pretty closely together. The differential is not strictly fixed even there. But bread and wheat land have a much looser connection in their variations. If land could produce no wheat or corn or other good that would satisfy human wants, and if it could not itself satisfy human wants, it would ordinarily have no value.[40] But the connection between the value of the bread and the value of the land is loose and uncertain, while the connection between the value of the land and the intensity of the wants actually satisfied by the bread produced from it, is absolutely _nil_. Whether the bread saves a starving man or feeds the pet pigeons of a millionaire, is a matter of indifference so far as the value of the land (or of the bread) is concerned.

We take the values of consumption goods, and break them up, attributing part to the labor that immediately produced them, part to the raw materials that entered into them, part to the machine that fashioned them, and so on. We then break up the value attributed to the raw material, attributing part to the labor that worked in producing it immediately, part to the machine that fashioned it, part to the rawer material of which it was made. And so with the values of the machines. Ultimately we get back to the values of labor, or of land, or of securities giving title to complexes of lands, machines, etc.--values which we do not further break up. But at every step, we find additional factors. We find these derived values becoming independent, substantial, standing in their own right. Moral and legal values affect them directly, as in the case of patriotic support of government securities, moral antagonism to the securities of the Distillers' Securities Corporation, or the influence of court decisions, legislation and elections on security values. Such values rest, in large degree, on the massing of _beliefs_ and hopes, not concerned with specific satisfactions of wants, but with the existence of _future_ economic values. These beliefs and hopes again have their social explanation. It is not a case where each man counts one. There are centres of prestige and power, bankers and financial magnates, whose opinions and decisions count heavily, and waves of optimism and pessimism, which affect the whole group. We shall discuss these matters more fully in connection with the analysis of credit, at a later point of our study. For the present, it is enough to point out that the whole thing cannot be explained on the basis of the values of consumers' goods, and that the values of consumers' goods are only in small part explained by the intensities of the wants they serve.

In summary: Economic value is the common quality of wealth, by virtue of which it is possible to compare divers kinds of wealth, and treat wealth quantitatively, getting ratios of exchange, sums of wealth, etc. Value is a quantity, _i. e._, a quality which has degrees of intensity. Ratios of exchange are ratios between values. Price is a particular sort of ratio of exchange, namely, a ratio in which one of the terms is the value of the money-unit. Prices correctly express values on the assumption of the fluid market, and on the assumption that the value of the money-unit does not vary.

The value quality is psychological in character. It rests in human minds. But not in the minds of individuals thought of separately. It is a complex of many individual mental activities, highly institutionalized, and including legal and moral values, hopes and beliefs and expectations, as well as the immediate intensities of men's wants for consumption goods.

The ultimate test of scientific theory must be practice. If a theory aids in manipulating facts, if it leads to the discovery of ways of doing things which are better than old ways, if it solves problems which have hitherto remained unsolved, or carries the solution of problems farther than has hitherto been the case, it is a good theory. It need not be the best possible theory. It need not be a final theory. The chief claim for the present theory of value is that it not only unlocks all the doors that earlier theories have unlocked, but also others which have resisted the old keys. The man who goes into the modern stock market armed with marginal utility and the quantity theory is like the man who would fight Hindenburg with bows and arrows. Bows and arrows are effective in the hands of expert archers, and the great figures in the history of economics have done wonderful things with marginal utility, "real costs," and the quantity theory. But the social value theory is offered as a better weapon.

The writer believes that the problem of the value of money has not been solved by the older theories of value. He believes that the social value theory will solve it. He proposes on the basis of the social value theory to make clearer the nature of credit phenomena, and to assimilate the laws of credit to the general laws of value. He proposes with the social value theory to bring together in a higher synthesis two divergent types of economic theory, the "static" and the "dynamic." He thinks that a rigorous and consistent application of the absolute concept of value will clarify confusions at various points in the general body of price theory, as the laws of supply and demand, etc.

He offers the social value theory as the only way of giving a _psychological_ explanation to the demand-curve, and a marginal _value_ explanation of marginal demand-_price_. Demand-curves are social value curves, on the assumption of the fixed social value of the dollar. The utility theory, as will appear in the chapter on "Marginal Utility," has failed to give psychological magnitudes corresponding to _any_ point on the demand-curve. In general, he offers the social value notion as the justification for the assumption of a quantitative value which, as we shall see, underlies the whole of our current price analysis.

The theory here outlined has been, as stated, developed and defended more fully in a previous book. For the rest, the author would have it judged by its usefulness or failure as a tool of thought in the investigations which follow.

NOTE. It has seemed best not to break the main course of the argument of this chapter for the elaboration of one point on which there has appeared to some critics to be vagueness in the exposition of the social value theory in my earlier volume, namely, the relation of social values to the individual values of those who are moved by the social values. Social values have as their function the guidance and control of the activities of men. But men are also moved by their own individual feelings, interests, and desires.

What is the relation between these two sets of factors? In what has gone before, it has been made clear that social values present themselves to the individual as opaque, objective facts, largely beyond his control, to which he must adjust himself. They represent the minds of other men, acting in corporate and organic ways, putting pressure on him, or offering him lures. Now the individual reckons with these social values in the same way that he reckons with any other of the facts affecting the economy of his life. He must adjust himself to them in the same way that he must, if he is a blacksmith, adjust himself to the technical qualities of the iron he is manipulating. This does not mean that he is passive before them, any more than he is passive before the iron. He rather seeks to carry out his personal purposes and desires by actively adapting himself to objective facts, whatever they be. This means that different individuals will react in different ways to the same social value. The fear of the law will keep one man from burning dead leaves in the street where it will not keep another man from murder. A given degree of social pressure will make one man crease his trousers, while another man will not even know that the pressure to crease one's trousers exists! There are great individual variations in responsiveness and sensitiveness to social pressure. In part, these variations are due to inborn qualities. In larger part, they are due to social education, and to social status. Thus, the fact that one man will work all day in a ditch in response to the lure of a dollar and a half, while another will not work in the ditch for a hundred dollars a day, may rest in slight degree on the greater inborn sensitiveness of the latter to the physical pain of labor, but rests primarily on the fact that the latter doesn't need the money, and has a social standard, growing out of his class-associations and education, which would make him ashamed to be seen in the ditch. Indeed, we may think of the social standard in question as a social value acting _on_ him, rather than _in_ him. He fears ridicule. The same degree of social power, luring men toward the ditch, exists in the dollar in each case, but the response is very different in the two cases.

Later formulations of the utility theory and the labor cost theory, as represented by the theory of Schumpeter, which we shall discuss in the chapter on "Marginal Utility," give us, in a scheme of purely static equilibrium, a picture of the adjustment of the individual values to the social values. As we shall see, they give us no account whatever of the social values. They do not explain causation at all. But they do show that there is a tendency for the individual marginal utilities of consumption to become proportional to the social values of the goods consumed by each individual; and for the individual marginal disutilities in production to become proportional to the social values of the rewards that come to producers. The scheme is highly unrealistic. It has been emphatically repudiated by Boehm-Bawerk, so far as the disutility equilibrium is concerned. ("Ultimate Standard of Value," _Annals of the American Academy_, Vol. V, pp. 149-209.) But it is worth something, not as explaining social values or market prices, but rather, as showing how individuals _conform_ to social values and market prices. _Cf. Social Value_, pp. 43-44, n. 2, and 148.

The theory that individual marginal utilities and disutilities are proportional to market values is unrealistic enough, in the light of the analysis of individual utilities which we have given, even for the utilities. It is quite impossible to make anything of importance of it from the side of individual disutilities. The length of the working day is not fixed for each worker by a comparison of his own labor pain with the satisfactions he expects from his wages. It is fixed by conditions largely external to him, and the whole group works the same number of hours, with the machine. The law may limit the working day. Trades-union effort may do it. Opportunities for alternative employment may do it, for the labor force of a factory as a whole. But the theory, which really must rest in the notion that each individual has many options, and that the working period is flexible, cannot mean much. The prosperity of the laborer does more to limit the working day than does his suffering!

The reactions of individuals as consumers or producers on the social values modify the social values. But, as we have shown, the primary explanation of the social values is not to be found in the individual utilities and disutilities of those who react to them. Utilities and labor pains are parts, but minor parts, in the explanation of social values.