1.12 Adam Smith said that the value of all things was relative to the amount of labour bestowed on their production. He sometimes used corn, sometimes labour, as a standard measure.
[ Our Comment: Smith uses corn and labour for real value, and precious metals for nominal value. ]
1.13 If it were true that worker's reward was always proportional to what he produced, then he could buy other things of equal value. But they are not equal. The measure of value is an invariable standard, whereas the price of commodities varies. Adam Smith, said that the value of gold and silver varies, so he chose corn or labour as an invariable medium.
[ Our Comment: Here it is so obvious that Ricardo misunderstands Smith. Although he correctly mentions Smith having precious metals as a variable measure (nominal value) and corn as an invariable measure (real value), he does not understand that both are not to be used together, just as you do not compare apples to oranges if you want to get the relative value of an apple (instead, you compare it with other apples). ]
1.14 Gold and silver are subject to fluctuations, but why is corn exempted? [ Our Comment: Because of that very basic misunderstanding, Ricardo asks many silly questions.]
1.15 Double the work may be required to produce food and necessaries at one time, than another time, but the worker's reward could be reduced. If the worker's prior wages were n food and necessaries, he probably could not have subsisted if that amount was reduced. Food and necessaries would have risen 100% or to 2n if it were estimated by the amount of labour needed to produce them. They would not have increased in value, if measured by the amount of labour for which they will exchange. [ Our comment: this actually happens during hyperinflation wherein nominal prices even of wages can increase 100%, but the real value is halved. ]
1.16 The same is true between countries. In America and Poland, a year's labour will produce much more corn than in England. But the amount of corn awarded to the worker is not proportional to the produce in each country. [ Our comment: Both the real and nominal reward for Polish corn is less than England because the English economy has more manufactures to give for its corn. The last sentence of Ricardo can be overturned by a global free trade on corn which will lower corn prices globally]
1.17 If the worker's shoes and clothing could be produced at 25% of the cost in labour, they would probably fall 75%. But it is not true that:
1.18 Adam Smith is therefore wrong in saying, "that as labour may sometimes buy a varying amount of goods, it is their value which varies, not the value of the labour which buys them;" and therefore, "that labour alone never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared;"
[ Our Comment: No, Smith is not wrong, it is Ricardo's understanding that is wrong. This quote is about real value or the store of value]
But he is correct in saying "that the proportion between the amounts of labour needed to acquire objects provides the rules for exchange;" In other words, it is the comparative amount of commodities produced by labour which that determines their relative value, and not the comparative amounts of commodities given to the labourer in exchange for his labour.
[ Our Comment: This quote is about nominal value or the tool of trade (money). Yes, Smith is correct about nominal value. Unfortunately, businessmen, merchants, and capitalists, only agree with nominal value because to them money = wealth, which is the most basic fallacy that the whole Wealth of Nations was attacking, which Ricardo exposes himself as having in the very first chapter of his book.]
1.19 Thing A's value is different from that of Thing B now, but was the same in the past. Thing A has the same value as Thing X + Thing Y + Thing Z, then and now. Thing B had the same value from the combined values of Thing X + Thing y + Thing Z in the past, but has a different value now. We can infer that the variation is in Thing B. If the cost of producing Thing X, Y, and Z has not changed, then it means that the change happened in the production cost of Thing B.
[ Our Comment: Here, Ricardo is talking about nominal value in production.]
1.20 If an ounce of gold exchange for fewer commodities, the cause of the change in the value of gold relative to other commodities, was its abundant production, or the fewer labour needed to obtain it.
[Our comment: This is nominal inflation]
Similarly, if labour fell in value because of an abundance of labour caused by cheaper corn and basic goods, then corn and basic goods have 'fallen' in value because fewer labour was needed to produce them.
[Our comment: This is the reduction of nominal/real wages.]
Smith and Malthus say no. In the case of the gold, the variation is a fall of its value, because corn and labour had not changed. As gold commanded fewer of them then all things had remained stationary, and only gold changed. But when corn and labour fall (measure of value), it is improper to say so or that corn and labour have remained stationary, and all other things have risen in value.
[ Our Comment: Here, Ricardo is complaining why nominal value of gold falls, while real value doesn't. He shows his failure to understand that real value is a store of value. Even if an oversupply of workers causes a reduction in nominal wages, their real value stays the same (their knowledge, skills, passions, stay the same and can increase during better conditions, and can only decrease through constant calamities)]
1.21 I protest this. The cause of the variation between corn and other things, is the fewer labour needed to produce it. The variation of corn and labour is 'a fall in their value', and not a rise in the value of the other things. If I hire a labourer for a week, and pay him 8 shillings instead of ten, the labourer can get more food and necessaries if the value of consumable things fall. This fall [price deflation?] is called a fall in the real value of wages. This is not reconcileable with the true principles of the science. This is unusual for me.
[Our Comment: Ricardo protests Smith because it appears that value is inherently subjective and not objective to Smith. Unfortunately, businessmen, merchants, and academics always want it to be objective, because objectivity is the foundation of business, trade, and 'sciences.' Note: That is why our proposed new science from Smith is in a new field called 'meta-science', based in turn on David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, balancing the subjectivity and objectivity of nature)]