Notes on Ricardo’s Principles (19) – 価値 18

中湖 康太

リカードの論理展開が完璧な理由: 完全雇用均衡で裁定が働いている状況を想定しているから




But a rise in the wages of labor would not equally affect commodities produced with machinery quickly consumed, and commodities produced with machinery slowly consumed. In the production of the one, a great deal of labor would be continually transferred to the commodity produced – in the other very little would be so transferred. Every rise of wages, therefore, or, which is the same thing, every fall of profits, would lower the relative value of those commodities which were produced with a capital of a durable nature, and would proportionally elevated those which were produced with capital more perishable. A fall of wages would have precisely the contrary effect.


I have already said that fixed capital is of various degrees of durability – suppose now a machine which could in any particular trade be employed to do the work of one hundred men for year, and that it would last only for one year. Suppose, too, the machine to cost £5000, and the wages annually paid to one hundred men to be £5000, it is evident that it would be a matter of indifference to the manufacturer whether he bought the machine or employed the men.


But suppose labor to rise, and consequently the wages of one hundred men for a year to amount to £5500, it is obvious that the manufacturer would now no longer hesitate, it would be for his interest to buy the machine and get his work done for £5000. But will not the machine rise in price, will not that also be worth £5500 in consequence of the rise of labor? It would rise in price if there were no stock employed on its construction, and no profits to be paid to the maker of it.



「一方、仮に、その商品が100人の労働により1年で生産されたとすると、その商品の価格は£5000になるだろう。賃金が£55に上昇した場合、その機械の価格は£5500にならないだろうか。そうはならないだろう。逆に、100人以下の労働で生産されても、価格は£5000にならないであろう。というのも£5000のうち、資本家に利益が支払わなければならないからである(=資本の収益率は市場で決定され高くはならないからである; KN注)。」

If, for example, the machine were the produce of the labor of one hundred men, working one year upon it with wages of £50 each, and its price were consequently £5000; should those wages rise to £55, its price would be £5500, but this cannot be the case; less than one hundred men are employed or it could not be sold for £5000, for out of the £5000 must be paid the profits of stock which employed the men. 



£50(1人当り賃金) x 85(人) + £750(利益) = £5000 (利益率15%)
£55 x 85 + £325 = £5000 (利益率6.5%)
ここで、利益率=”common rate of profit”=(完全雇用経済で)市場で決定される資本収益率、と解することができる。

「ここで、1当り人£50の賃金で80人、つまり総額£4250で雇用し、機械を生産するとする。このうち利益が£750だったとする。賃金が10%上昇すると、製造業者は、追加で£425支払わなければならず、賃金の総額は£4675になる。もし、製造業者が機械を£5000で売れば、その利益は£325に減少する。賃金の上昇の影響は、製造業者と資本家について正確に言えることである。もし、機械の製造者が賃金の上昇に伴い、価格を引き上げようとしても、市場で決定される利益率(“common rate of profit”をこのように訳した; KN注)に相応する分だけしか価格に反映できないであろう。したがって、賃金が上昇しても、機械の価格は上昇することにはならないのである。」

Suppose then that only eighty-five men were employed at an expense of £50 each, or £4250 per annum, and that the £750 which the sale of the machine would produce over and above the wages advanced to the men constituted the profits of the engineer’s stock. When wages rose 10 percent, he would be obliged to employ an additional capital of £425, and would therefore employ £4675 instead of £4250, on which capital he would only get a profit of £325 if he continued to sell his machine for £5000; but this is precisely the case of all manufacturers and capitalists; the rise of wages affects them all. If therefore the maker of the machine should raise the price of it in consequence of a rise of wages, an unusual quantity of capital would be employed in the construction of such machines, till their price afforded only the common rate of profits. We see then that machines would not rise in price in consequence of a rise of wages.


Copyright© 2020 株式会社ジー・シー・エス(GCS) 中湖康太 経済投資コラム All Rights Reserved.