What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation/An Essay on Profits
David Ricardo contributed many aspects of economics as the follows:
1)Labor theory of value.
2)Exchange value
3)Value in use
4)Rent
5)Accumulation of inequality
6)Protectionism
7)Comparative advantage
The collection contains the following two most works written by David Ricardo:
1) ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, AND TAXATION – David Ricardo
2) An Essay on Profits – David Ricardo
To systemically study core economic subjects, the collection is a must.
The collection has a table of contents for readers to access each chapter of the two books easily.
1)Labor theory of value.
2)Exchange value
3)Value in use
4)Rent
5)Accumulation of inequality
6)Protectionism
7)Comparative advantage
The collection contains the following two most works written by David Ricardo:
1) ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, AND TAXATION – David Ricardo
2) An Essay on Profits – David Ricardo
To systemically study core economic subjects, the collection is a must.
The collection has a table of contents for readers to access each chapter of the two books easily.
363 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1817
208 people are currently reading
4075 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
December 3, 2014
In an age where undergraduates around the world are forced, cajoled and encouraged to take a course in Keynesian economics (as presented by some vulgarizer most notably Paul Samuelson) the brilliant writing of David Ricardo is virtually unknown to the general reading public. There are two good reasons for reading Ricardo. First he proposed several important theses that were used by later economists such as Marx (in this case the labour theory of value) and Keynes (in this case the law of diminishing marginal returns from increasing production.) The second reason, for reading Ricardo is that by doing so one gains insight in the theoretical framework used by politicians most notably in England to manage and stimulate the economy.
Students who major in economics are discouraged from reading pre-Keynesian economists (known as classical economists) primarily because they provide no assistance in understanding how to manage an economy in the normative Keynes manner. The second reason may be subconscious. Economists (who today are all Keynesians) prefer to think that Economics is a science which it is not. Keynesian economics is a mathematical game or a model that can be used to effectively manage the normal economic cycle if properly applied by governments.
The danger of studying classical economics is that it highlights the fact that Keynesian economics was simply a stage in a long intellectual process aimed at understanding our economy and not a science built on immutable truths. I think that anyone who has studied economics should at some time delve into the classics. Doing so will not undo your understanding of Keynes. It may however prepare you for the time when some new genius appears to take us to the next stage of understanding beyond Keynes. For the moment however we are all still Keynesians. The fact that the Marxist model of a command economy has been thoroughly discredited does not mean that there will never be a new revolution in economic thinking.
Read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and then read Ricardo's "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation."
Students who major in economics are discouraged from reading pre-Keynesian economists (known as classical economists) primarily because they provide no assistance in understanding how to manage an economy in the normative Keynes manner. The second reason may be subconscious. Economists (who today are all Keynesians) prefer to think that Economics is a science which it is not. Keynesian economics is a mathematical game or a model that can be used to effectively manage the normal economic cycle if properly applied by governments.
The danger of studying classical economics is that it highlights the fact that Keynesian economics was simply a stage in a long intellectual process aimed at understanding our economy and not a science built on immutable truths. I think that anyone who has studied economics should at some time delve into the classics. Doing so will not undo your understanding of Keynes. It may however prepare you for the time when some new genius appears to take us to the next stage of understanding beyond Keynes. For the moment however we are all still Keynesians. The fact that the Marxist model of a command economy has been thoroughly discredited does not mean that there will never be a new revolution in economic thinking.
Read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and then read Ricardo's "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation."
May 20, 2019
After Adam smith, one name that has changed the concept of the market economy is undoubtedly David Ricard. It's hard to believe that he was not introduced to economics even he was thirty years old.
His book political economy and taxation ahs change the discourse of many theories of economics ad paved the way for further analysis in this field. He laid the foundation of public finance and the market economy in his book.
His book political economy and taxation ahs change the discourse of many theories of economics ad paved the way for further analysis in this field. He laid the foundation of public finance and the market economy in his book.
March 4, 2018
This is a terrible, long-winding and boring book. Economist David Ricardo published The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1821) to pick up where Adam Smith - according to Ricardo - had left. The treatise is a comment on Smith (and in lesser degree Jean Baptiste Say) and it is in this antagonism that Ricardo's position becomes clear.
Ricardo advocates free trade, since every country (or economy) should produce what they produce best, according to land, skill and other environmental factors. So for example, even though England might produce better wines and cloth than Portugal, it pays both economies to produce what they're best at: Portugal produces wines and England produces cloth, they exchange these goods and both are better off than they would be if they both produced both types of commodity. This is, in short, what modern day economists call the law of comparative advantage.
But how do we know what the exchange value of commodities is? Well, according to Ricardo there's no absolute exchange value. The most stable means of exchange is gold - supposing that the production costs of gold coins remains stable, something which is not as rigid as Ricardo supposes. All commodities can be compared to gold and hence gold is the medium by which to value the commodities.
But whence derives the value of commodities in gold? According to Ricardo the value of commodities is determined by the costs of production, more specifically the labour costs that are necessary to produce these commodities. And how are these labour costs determined? Uhm, well they're determined by the necessary costs labourers have to make to subsist: primarily food, drink and shelter.
It follows from this that, according to Ricardo at least, the labourer is the (metaphorical) fool. The costs the labourer has to make to subsist - food, drink, clothing, shelter - are rather stable and hence the labourer is dependent on population growth. If the population grows, the demand for food (as an example) will increase, while the agircultural production doesn't necessarily increase (or is rather limited). This means food will become more expensive, so the labourer has to cut down on food, or starve (or both - after a short time) and population will decline, leading to lesser demand for food and hence to lower prices of food.
(One can see that Ricardo is heavily influenced by Thomas Malthus's theory of population checks: population growth is exponentially higher than increase of means of production, leading to starvation and decreasing populations.)
But labour costs - or wages - aren't the only component of the economy. There's also profits - without profit capitalism wouldn't work and capital always seeks the most profitable means of production. It follows from the above mentioned facts that - again, according to Malthus - the higher the means of subsistence are, the higher the wages will be (or else labourers wouldn't work), and consequently the lower the profits for the capitalist are. High wages equal low profits.
Now that we know the antagonism between labourer and capitalist - it isn't a miracle that Karl Marx was heavily influenced by Ricardo! - we see why Ricardo fulminates against the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws of his time. The Corn Laws were initiated by the British government to protect the home grown production of corn against imports from abroad (by applying tariffs). According to Ricardo, this artificially created British monopoly on the production of corn led to lower rents and hence to less production of corn. Less corn means higher prices, higher corn prices means higher wages, higher wages means less profit - in other words: the Corn Laws destroy capital. Ricardo dresses this capitalistic theory in ethical motives: the poor suffer from higher corn prices and less job opportunities because the British government wants to protect them!
The British poor were not only hurt by their government with the Corn Laws, but even more so by the Poor Laws. These laws were instituted by the government to garantuee the labourer a bare minimum of subsistence. If he or she couldn't find work, he or she could go their parish and ask for help. This help meant forced labour in a workhouse in exchange for the bare minimum of food, cloth and shelter. According to Ricardo, this system was destroying the labour market by artificially creating higher wages. Labourers had something to fall back on so wages had to be (relatively) higher than before, leading - again - to less profit for capital. Again, it is a serious question how sincere Ricardo is when dressing his economic arguments in ethical language. Garantueeing a bare minimum of subsistence for the poor leads to...more suffering of the poor! Let's do away with the workhouse - it's better for the poor to starve to death, since this will lead to a decreased population and hence to lower food prices.
Ricardo, the liberal and free trade promoter that he was, saw the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws as a means of taxing the capitalist (not the landlord, mind you! - rents weren't taxed by these laws) and transferring their wealth to the poor. This would lead, inevitably, to the destruction of the capitalist class - all of Britain would end up as one class - the poor - because of good intentions of the government. This, of course, is ridiculous, and disproved with hindsight. It (sometimes, at least) pays to pay labourers more, since they then can buy your products, meaning a larger business. Men like Henri Ford saw this practical significant fact, while principled economists like Ricardo were clinging to their theories.
A large part of the book is devoted to Ricardo's views on taxes, but this can be summarized rather easily. Ricardo sees taxes as not really disturbing international trade (since this is governed by bills of exchange and gold) and is a staunch advoce of taxing consumers to spread taxation equally. For this last point he gives obscure arguments: taxing rents and profits would lessen the productive capital of a nation (or economy), while taxing commodities would lessen the consumptive capital. It is better to decrease consumptive than productive capital, since productive capital is used to put labourer to work. There's truth in this view, yet it is too simplistic.
There are numerous problems involved in taxing consumers and leaving capital (relatively) un-taxed, but the more principled one is the following. You can only make money with money. This means that the capitalist has the means to perpetually increase his or her property by investing it and making profits. This leads to the accumulation of wealth, over generations, in the hands of a few individuals and families - especially when inheritance is left un-taxed. Adam Smith, not really a socialist one would argue, already warns against the forming of monopolies. And besides the danger of monopolies, how liberal or meritocratic is it to be born in wealth and be able to do anything that your fellow human beings aren't able to do, without this having anything to do with your own merits.
To sum up: Ricardo advocates free trade (based on the law of comparative advantage) and low/no taxation; claims the exchange value of commodities is determined by the costs of production (the labour theory of value); and disproves of government intervention to alleviate the suffering of the lower classes. If you understand these points, there's no need to read this book - especially since it's a terrible book to read. Ricardo isn't a gifted writer and it's hard to get through the chapters with all the repetition and abstract reasoning.
I consider myself a liberal, but I am not convinced (and actually a little bit shaken) by cold, rational calculations to let the poor suffer in order for the restoration of economic balance. I believe Ricardo even says somewhere in the book (can't remember the exact chapter and passage) that, even though it is inhuman to witness, it's better for the population to let poor people starve. Government intervention will only make things worse, since the problems arise from unbalance in the economy (too much population growth, too high wages). I think economic principles are important to understand the economy better, and even to guide policy. But we shouldn't look away from suffering human beings just because it suits our theories better. I think a price can be asked to pay by the community to help people in distress. And since we live in a democracy, let the voters decide (partly) how much this price will be.
There's also a major problem with rational analyses of the economy. First, human beings aren't rational decision makers, so one of the assumptions of this rational economic approach is plain wrong. Second, and more importantly, rational economics leaves out (selectively) a lot of important factors in life. For example, sociological studies clearly show that higher inequalities of income strongly correlate with higher rates of crime, higer rates of disease and poverty, lesser well-being of large masses, etc.
So, from a perspective of political economy (the ambition of people like Ricardo) it can be just as rational to apply progressive income taxes and taxation of capital and inheritance, if this leads to a society in which average well-being, health and safety are higher than before. These are political goals that can be democratically legitimated and hence are just as rational as excluding these 'soft' factors from your theories. It is strange that economists like Ricardo, who were so closely affiliated with utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, were so blind to these 'soft' factors.
Utilitarians strive for the greatest happiness of the greatest number, so it isn't really obvious to me that the economic disadvantages of workhouses on taxation of capital weigh heavily against the social and political advantages of a happier and healthier society. One can dispute, of course, whether workhouses really were a better alternative for the poor than starvation, but the point is that utilitarianism is - at least in principle - inclusive towards 'soft' parts of the economy, so it's strange that brilliant men like Ricardo couldn't make the connection. One suspects Marx was (partly) right in viewing the bourgeousie as a hindrance to a more equal society: someone like Ricardo (and Malthus, and Mill, etc.) was more bent on protecting the status quo, which was for him a good situation, than on trying to enlighten and emancipate the lesser fortunate in society. (Again, when reading Ricardo's arguments on things like the Poor Laws and Corn Laws, I cannot help but suspect that he dresses his cold opportunistic arguments in ethical language, to make it seem he cares for the poor, while he really cares for his own class).
A final remark on my own part: I believe Ricardo, and after him Marx, were the last ones to fully advocate the labour theory of value. Economists nowadays believe that the value of commodities isn't related to the costs of production, but purely to the law of supply and demand. This is, inherently, an irrational process, since human beings are, almost by definition, irrational. This explains the many crises and speculative bubbles: when it goes well, we believe heaven has descended on earth; when it goes bad, we believe the world is about to end. We behave accordingly.
(I'm no economist, so please take my comments with a grain of salt and refute me on my misstaken assumptions).
Ricardo advocates free trade, since every country (or economy) should produce what they produce best, according to land, skill and other environmental factors. So for example, even though England might produce better wines and cloth than Portugal, it pays both economies to produce what they're best at: Portugal produces wines and England produces cloth, they exchange these goods and both are better off than they would be if they both produced both types of commodity. This is, in short, what modern day economists call the law of comparative advantage.
But how do we know what the exchange value of commodities is? Well, according to Ricardo there's no absolute exchange value. The most stable means of exchange is gold - supposing that the production costs of gold coins remains stable, something which is not as rigid as Ricardo supposes. All commodities can be compared to gold and hence gold is the medium by which to value the commodities.
But whence derives the value of commodities in gold? According to Ricardo the value of commodities is determined by the costs of production, more specifically the labour costs that are necessary to produce these commodities. And how are these labour costs determined? Uhm, well they're determined by the necessary costs labourers have to make to subsist: primarily food, drink and shelter.
It follows from this that, according to Ricardo at least, the labourer is the (metaphorical) fool. The costs the labourer has to make to subsist - food, drink, clothing, shelter - are rather stable and hence the labourer is dependent on population growth. If the population grows, the demand for food (as an example) will increase, while the agircultural production doesn't necessarily increase (or is rather limited). This means food will become more expensive, so the labourer has to cut down on food, or starve (or both - after a short time) and population will decline, leading to lesser demand for food and hence to lower prices of food.
(One can see that Ricardo is heavily influenced by Thomas Malthus's theory of population checks: population growth is exponentially higher than increase of means of production, leading to starvation and decreasing populations.)
But labour costs - or wages - aren't the only component of the economy. There's also profits - without profit capitalism wouldn't work and capital always seeks the most profitable means of production. It follows from the above mentioned facts that - again, according to Malthus - the higher the means of subsistence are, the higher the wages will be (or else labourers wouldn't work), and consequently the lower the profits for the capitalist are. High wages equal low profits.
Now that we know the antagonism between labourer and capitalist - it isn't a miracle that Karl Marx was heavily influenced by Ricardo! - we see why Ricardo fulminates against the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws of his time. The Corn Laws were initiated by the British government to protect the home grown production of corn against imports from abroad (by applying tariffs). According to Ricardo, this artificially created British monopoly on the production of corn led to lower rents and hence to less production of corn. Less corn means higher prices, higher corn prices means higher wages, higher wages means less profit - in other words: the Corn Laws destroy capital. Ricardo dresses this capitalistic theory in ethical motives: the poor suffer from higher corn prices and less job opportunities because the British government wants to protect them!
The British poor were not only hurt by their government with the Corn Laws, but even more so by the Poor Laws. These laws were instituted by the government to garantuee the labourer a bare minimum of subsistence. If he or she couldn't find work, he or she could go their parish and ask for help. This help meant forced labour in a workhouse in exchange for the bare minimum of food, cloth and shelter. According to Ricardo, this system was destroying the labour market by artificially creating higher wages. Labourers had something to fall back on so wages had to be (relatively) higher than before, leading - again - to less profit for capital. Again, it is a serious question how sincere Ricardo is when dressing his economic arguments in ethical language. Garantueeing a bare minimum of subsistence for the poor leads to...more suffering of the poor! Let's do away with the workhouse - it's better for the poor to starve to death, since this will lead to a decreased population and hence to lower food prices.
Ricardo, the liberal and free trade promoter that he was, saw the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws as a means of taxing the capitalist (not the landlord, mind you! - rents weren't taxed by these laws) and transferring their wealth to the poor. This would lead, inevitably, to the destruction of the capitalist class - all of Britain would end up as one class - the poor - because of good intentions of the government. This, of course, is ridiculous, and disproved with hindsight. It (sometimes, at least) pays to pay labourers more, since they then can buy your products, meaning a larger business. Men like Henri Ford saw this practical significant fact, while principled economists like Ricardo were clinging to their theories.
A large part of the book is devoted to Ricardo's views on taxes, but this can be summarized rather easily. Ricardo sees taxes as not really disturbing international trade (since this is governed by bills of exchange and gold) and is a staunch advoce of taxing consumers to spread taxation equally. For this last point he gives obscure arguments: taxing rents and profits would lessen the productive capital of a nation (or economy), while taxing commodities would lessen the consumptive capital. It is better to decrease consumptive than productive capital, since productive capital is used to put labourer to work. There's truth in this view, yet it is too simplistic.
There are numerous problems involved in taxing consumers and leaving capital (relatively) un-taxed, but the more principled one is the following. You can only make money with money. This means that the capitalist has the means to perpetually increase his or her property by investing it and making profits. This leads to the accumulation of wealth, over generations, in the hands of a few individuals and families - especially when inheritance is left un-taxed. Adam Smith, not really a socialist one would argue, already warns against the forming of monopolies. And besides the danger of monopolies, how liberal or meritocratic is it to be born in wealth and be able to do anything that your fellow human beings aren't able to do, without this having anything to do with your own merits.
To sum up: Ricardo advocates free trade (based on the law of comparative advantage) and low/no taxation; claims the exchange value of commodities is determined by the costs of production (the labour theory of value); and disproves of government intervention to alleviate the suffering of the lower classes. If you understand these points, there's no need to read this book - especially since it's a terrible book to read. Ricardo isn't a gifted writer and it's hard to get through the chapters with all the repetition and abstract reasoning.
I consider myself a liberal, but I am not convinced (and actually a little bit shaken) by cold, rational calculations to let the poor suffer in order for the restoration of economic balance. I believe Ricardo even says somewhere in the book (can't remember the exact chapter and passage) that, even though it is inhuman to witness, it's better for the population to let poor people starve. Government intervention will only make things worse, since the problems arise from unbalance in the economy (too much population growth, too high wages). I think economic principles are important to understand the economy better, and even to guide policy. But we shouldn't look away from suffering human beings just because it suits our theories better. I think a price can be asked to pay by the community to help people in distress. And since we live in a democracy, let the voters decide (partly) how much this price will be.
There's also a major problem with rational analyses of the economy. First, human beings aren't rational decision makers, so one of the assumptions of this rational economic approach is plain wrong. Second, and more importantly, rational economics leaves out (selectively) a lot of important factors in life. For example, sociological studies clearly show that higher inequalities of income strongly correlate with higher rates of crime, higer rates of disease and poverty, lesser well-being of large masses, etc.
So, from a perspective of political economy (the ambition of people like Ricardo) it can be just as rational to apply progressive income taxes and taxation of capital and inheritance, if this leads to a society in which average well-being, health and safety are higher than before. These are political goals that can be democratically legitimated and hence are just as rational as excluding these 'soft' factors from your theories. It is strange that economists like Ricardo, who were so closely affiliated with utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, were so blind to these 'soft' factors.
Utilitarians strive for the greatest happiness of the greatest number, so it isn't really obvious to me that the economic disadvantages of workhouses on taxation of capital weigh heavily against the social and political advantages of a happier and healthier society. One can dispute, of course, whether workhouses really were a better alternative for the poor than starvation, but the point is that utilitarianism is - at least in principle - inclusive towards 'soft' parts of the economy, so it's strange that brilliant men like Ricardo couldn't make the connection. One suspects Marx was (partly) right in viewing the bourgeousie as a hindrance to a more equal society: someone like Ricardo (and Malthus, and Mill, etc.) was more bent on protecting the status quo, which was for him a good situation, than on trying to enlighten and emancipate the lesser fortunate in society. (Again, when reading Ricardo's arguments on things like the Poor Laws and Corn Laws, I cannot help but suspect that he dresses his cold opportunistic arguments in ethical language, to make it seem he cares for the poor, while he really cares for his own class).
A final remark on my own part: I believe Ricardo, and after him Marx, were the last ones to fully advocate the labour theory of value. Economists nowadays believe that the value of commodities isn't related to the costs of production, but purely to the law of supply and demand. This is, inherently, an irrational process, since human beings are, almost by definition, irrational. This explains the many crises and speculative bubbles: when it goes well, we believe heaven has descended on earth; when it goes bad, we believe the world is about to end. We behave accordingly.
(I'm no economist, so please take my comments with a grain of salt and refute me on my misstaken assumptions).
July 27, 2016
Несмотря на свой почтенный возраст аж в целых три века книга и тогда да и сейчас является великой по своему значению.
После книги Адама Смита «Богатство народов» она стала её прекрасным дополнением и переосмыслением не только работы Смита но и Томаса Мальтуса и тем самым Давид Рикардо по достоинству считается одним из отцов не только политической экономики, но и самой экономики ка науки.
Очень советую прочитать книгу для всех кто интересуется экономикой, или просто кто хочет легко и без усилий и, главное, без потери качества понять эти сложные на первый взгляд дисциплины.
После книги Адама Смита «Богатство народов» она стала её прекрасным дополнением и переосмыслением не только работы Смита но и Томаса Мальтуса и тем самым Давид Рикардо по достоинству считается одним из отцов не только политической экономики, но и самой экономики ка науки.
Очень советую прочитать книгу для всех кто интересуется экономикой, или просто кто хочет легко и без усилий и, главное, без потери качества понять эти сложные на первый взгляд дисциплины.
September 28, 2021
The focus on value by David Ricardo is from two sources scarcity and quantity (labour), the exchanging value for one another is the labour time and the production, and Ricardo argues the expectation of the outcome. But it is relative, example one labour takes forty-eight hours or two days and cannot expect two labours will occupy fifty per cent of previous because the output, quantity, and the resources can differ. Two coconut trees in the garden one have 50 coconuts, and another tree has 30 coconuts, which tree earn more profits? Can’t decide the tree with 50 coconuts because that coconut can be smaller than the tree with 30 coconuts.
The scale of value formed in a variation of the category of labour such as scientists, doctors, teachers, jeweler, and common labourers. In my review the comparison of skill and intensity of labour, not only for the commodity but, also for service. The invariable standard of the relative value of commodities produced the alteration and affect the labour value if a glass of milk is worth $1 and a glass of wine $2 would be worth two glasses of milk. The variation of the value based on the commodities standardized the labour market, the labour time and day occupy for gold mining and jewellery making differ from the labour time and day for cloth and related goods, it would be a perfect measure of value for the gold standard. The author stresses the quantity can be judged by the rate of profit, rent, and wages and the quantity of labour required to obtain the produce.
My view in improving the machinery and technology and the usage of the skilled labour force enhance the quality of commodities. Developed countries like USA, UK, Israel, and Australia agricultural sectors are moving towards green revolution, these counties yields are triple times in single cropping, whereas the countries located geographically equator region in Asia and economically developing counties having consistent climate all 365 days not utilizing maximum technology but fully depending only human resources, therefore, the value of natural resources lacking the quantity of produce. The relation between the natural resources and production affects the quantity and quality, the cultivation invested and utilized full of the manpower but, the natural resources (land, water, and air) or one of the resources non-cooperation will affect the value.
The author precisely arguing the “rich counties” formed monied class which they enjoy life in the interest of their money, the same type of attitude practicing in the developing counties the monied class depending on their life in interest which deposited at the banks, the monied class expects high-interest rate or they target the financial institutes willing to give more interest for their less or marginal deposits. The worst part of this drama is most of the financial institutes are bankrupt overnight and the investors unable to withdraw at least part of the capital and suffer, frustrate, and finally commit suicide.
With the rise of commodities, naturally the price of labour rise, with the fall on their price the price of labour will fall. The foreign trade earns revenue by exchanging commodities in the import and export process as such the difference of amount between the exchange, and the added value for the imported commodities is called profit. Gold is a metal and it considers assert, invest money in gold for future needs, the solid reason is the expectation of the value of gold will be increased. But gold were not used for money universally because gold were not the produce of one country. The monopoly of commodities in a county price fall, then the consumers preferred the substitutes, and the effect might in a degree take place in gold.
The author meaning the poor rate the producer losing the power of remuneration an increasing of price, the tax would reduce the general level of profits. According to Adam Smith every human should afford to enjoy all necessaries and benefits of human life, essentially the value will differ between rich and poor, labourer and manufactures, and quantity and quality, but the produce under all advantageous of the improvement withstanding in the capacity of its augmented rich and poor.
The author adopted Smith’s doctoring the rent of land and he adopted the notion that were some parts of the produce of land addon value for price to bring to market. Colonial trade monopolism is malignant and expedient of the mercantile system, some industries depress but is chiefs by the colony. The quantity of money circulates in a country that can be employed on its value and gold for the circulation of commodities, and silver also makes use for the same purpose. Gold and silver are commodities like other produce, it is high exchangeable value in rich counties and money is a demand value of the labourer.
In my conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed my reading “The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation”. I personally recommend to all economic and non-economic students (different levels of studies) this book is a great source for an individual brainstorm in terms of economics, and the author David Ricardo’s work is immense, and if any reader reads at least 100 pages of this book, they will learn a maximum number of economic vocabularies, undoubtedly and my wish for all the readers, I humbly request the review readers to write their comments.
The scale of value formed in a variation of the category of labour such as scientists, doctors, teachers, jeweler, and common labourers. In my review the comparison of skill and intensity of labour, not only for the commodity but, also for service. The invariable standard of the relative value of commodities produced the alteration and affect the labour value if a glass of milk is worth $1 and a glass of wine $2 would be worth two glasses of milk. The variation of the value based on the commodities standardized the labour market, the labour time and day occupy for gold mining and jewellery making differ from the labour time and day for cloth and related goods, it would be a perfect measure of value for the gold standard. The author stresses the quantity can be judged by the rate of profit, rent, and wages and the quantity of labour required to obtain the produce.
My view in improving the machinery and technology and the usage of the skilled labour force enhance the quality of commodities. Developed countries like USA, UK, Israel, and Australia agricultural sectors are moving towards green revolution, these counties yields are triple times in single cropping, whereas the countries located geographically equator region in Asia and economically developing counties having consistent climate all 365 days not utilizing maximum technology but fully depending only human resources, therefore, the value of natural resources lacking the quantity of produce. The relation between the natural resources and production affects the quantity and quality, the cultivation invested and utilized full of the manpower but, the natural resources (land, water, and air) or one of the resources non-cooperation will affect the value.
The author precisely arguing the “rich counties” formed monied class which they enjoy life in the interest of their money, the same type of attitude practicing in the developing counties the monied class depending on their life in interest which deposited at the banks, the monied class expects high-interest rate or they target the financial institutes willing to give more interest for their less or marginal deposits. The worst part of this drama is most of the financial institutes are bankrupt overnight and the investors unable to withdraw at least part of the capital and suffer, frustrate, and finally commit suicide.
With the rise of commodities, naturally the price of labour rise, with the fall on their price the price of labour will fall. The foreign trade earns revenue by exchanging commodities in the import and export process as such the difference of amount between the exchange, and the added value for the imported commodities is called profit. Gold is a metal and it considers assert, invest money in gold for future needs, the solid reason is the expectation of the value of gold will be increased. But gold were not used for money universally because gold were not the produce of one country. The monopoly of commodities in a county price fall, then the consumers preferred the substitutes, and the effect might in a degree take place in gold.
The author meaning the poor rate the producer losing the power of remuneration an increasing of price, the tax would reduce the general level of profits. According to Adam Smith every human should afford to enjoy all necessaries and benefits of human life, essentially the value will differ between rich and poor, labourer and manufactures, and quantity and quality, but the produce under all advantageous of the improvement withstanding in the capacity of its augmented rich and poor.
The author adopted Smith’s doctoring the rent of land and he adopted the notion that were some parts of the produce of land addon value for price to bring to market. Colonial trade monopolism is malignant and expedient of the mercantile system, some industries depress but is chiefs by the colony. The quantity of money circulates in a country that can be employed on its value and gold for the circulation of commodities, and silver also makes use for the same purpose. Gold and silver are commodities like other produce, it is high exchangeable value in rich counties and money is a demand value of the labourer.
In my conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed my reading “The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation”. I personally recommend to all economic and non-economic students (different levels of studies) this book is a great source for an individual brainstorm in terms of economics, and the author David Ricardo’s work is immense, and if any reader reads at least 100 pages of this book, they will learn a maximum number of economic vocabularies, undoubtedly and my wish for all the readers, I humbly request the review readers to write their comments.
August 12, 2024
Although not quite as dry, dated or lengthy as Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”, the fact remains that Ricardo’s seminal work is more than two centuries old and so often makes for laborious, awkward reading. It suffers from the usual problems older, specialist texts tend to carry, lack of clarity and concision, horribly dated style and language as well as using outmoded values and currency which throw in more confusion. Overall this can be periodically engaging and accessible enough for long enough spells to those who have an interest, but it is neither an easy or enjoyable read.
Ricardo comes in at interesting phase of capitalism’s history, by the time he wrote this (1817) we were more than a half a century into the Industrial Revolution. Ricardo was an English, Jewish politician who made a fortune on stocks (sorry that noise was my cliché-ometer going off!) and so you can imagine where his priorities and sympathies lie. This book is probably known most for his theory on comparative advantage, which relates to free trade, and in many ways seems obvious now, but was novel for the time, though there are some factors in there, such as varying factors of production which can impact on the reliability or effectiveness.
October 4, 2017
Ricardo’s doctrine of comparative advantage is one of the most influential economic concepts ever, and it is absolutely nontrivial. The idea that specialization in trade makes all parties better off, regardless of the absolute endowments or productivity of all trading parties, has made the world as interconnected and wealthy as it is today. In my Economics 413 course I have learned proofs that demonstrate the mathematical validity of Ricardo’s 200-year old claim. Indeed, the book was published in 1817. My, how the world has changed in 200 years.
Ricardo’s labor theory of value is quite outdated, and the chapters on rent rate are plain common sense - but his writings on comparative advantage are without equal when it comes to influence for the good of mankind.
Ricardo’s labor theory of value is quite outdated, and the chapters on rent rate are plain common sense - but his writings on comparative advantage are without equal when it comes to influence for the good of mankind.
February 13, 2011
How to say it? Ricardo is at once a brilliant thinker and a rather bad writer. It is true that he manages the occasional rhetorical flourish, as when he defines rent as returns to the "original and indestructible powers" of land. But alas, the price we pay for these occasional flashes of wit is high.
While Adam Smith, the man, had a tendency to get lost in thought and wander off into the wilderness, he somewhat restrained this propensity when he put pen to paper. But Ricardo has not the self-control. His major work's organizational scheme is infuriating. Most of the chapter about value is actually about profits and wages. Much of the chapter on rent is about value. Much of the chapter about wages is actually about rent. And in all this repetition, in discussions that are so abstract that they never alight upon empirical examples, there is nonetheless a great deal of contradiction! In Ricardo's initial definition of "rent", he explicitly excepts the coal or treasure sitting in mines from the category of "land", noting instead that these should be considered commodities (and their value deriving from the effort necessary to discover and remove them). But then twenty pages later we find him, in a chapter titled "On the Rent of Mines," seemingly having forgotten that same point, and treating the contents of mine as a kind of land. The ten (!) chapters on taxation contain both redundancy and self-contradiction. Indeed, Ricardo is always best when he quotes Smith or Say and then refutes their argument, because in using the words of others he clarifies his own exposition and is forced to precision.
Moreover, the work has an unmistakably polemical thrust. Scholars talk as though this book was a work of pure science, but in the actual text Ricardo's intent is unmistakable. His aim is to see both the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws repealed, and to win esteem for the merchant and the investor at the expense of the landowner. His definitions, and the conclusions he derives from them, betray this partisan engagement.
But for all that, Ricardo's intelligence is evident on nearly every page. The work is palpably the product of years of close thinking and rethinking about elusive and interconnected phenomena. Every chapter invites us to an exhausting intellectual exercise. It is understandable that Ricardo's work became not only influential, but influential in nearly every direction, because although one can use it as the basis for the conservative argument Ricardo intends, its implications point in other directions as well.
While Adam Smith, the man, had a tendency to get lost in thought and wander off into the wilderness, he somewhat restrained this propensity when he put pen to paper. But Ricardo has not the self-control. His major work's organizational scheme is infuriating. Most of the chapter about value is actually about profits and wages. Much of the chapter on rent is about value. Much of the chapter about wages is actually about rent. And in all this repetition, in discussions that are so abstract that they never alight upon empirical examples, there is nonetheless a great deal of contradiction! In Ricardo's initial definition of "rent", he explicitly excepts the coal or treasure sitting in mines from the category of "land", noting instead that these should be considered commodities (and their value deriving from the effort necessary to discover and remove them). But then twenty pages later we find him, in a chapter titled "On the Rent of Mines," seemingly having forgotten that same point, and treating the contents of mine as a kind of land. The ten (!) chapters on taxation contain both redundancy and self-contradiction. Indeed, Ricardo is always best when he quotes Smith or Say and then refutes their argument, because in using the words of others he clarifies his own exposition and is forced to precision.
Moreover, the work has an unmistakably polemical thrust. Scholars talk as though this book was a work of pure science, but in the actual text Ricardo's intent is unmistakable. His aim is to see both the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws repealed, and to win esteem for the merchant and the investor at the expense of the landowner. His definitions, and the conclusions he derives from them, betray this partisan engagement.
But for all that, Ricardo's intelligence is evident on nearly every page. The work is palpably the product of years of close thinking and rethinking about elusive and interconnected phenomena. Every chapter invites us to an exhausting intellectual exercise. It is understandable that Ricardo's work became not only influential, but influential in nearly every direction, because although one can use it as the basis for the conservative argument Ricardo intends, its implications point in other directions as well.
October 9, 2019
يعتبر ديڤيد ريكارد من الكتاب الكلاسيكيين فى مجال الاقتصاد السياسي . العلم الذى كان لا يزال فى مهده فى الجيل التالى لآدم سميث والذى قام ريكاردو بتعديل الكثير من أهم نظرياته .
بالرغم من انى غالبا ما أجد قراءات الاقتصاد ثقيلة وغير محببة الا ان دراسة مبادىء العلم غالبا ما تكون اكثر يسرا بالاضافة الى بساطة اسلوب ريكاردو واعتماده على ضرب الأمثلة ومراعاة تعددية الرؤية للموقف او تثبيت أغلب العوامل المؤثرة لدراسة أثر عامل محدد كل فى حينه ما جعل القراءة واضحة وممتعة فى أغلب المواضيع .
يناقش الكتاب عموما نظريات فى مختلف المواضيع الأساسية فى الإقتصاد السياسي وتأثر هذه النقاط بعضها ببعض بمرونتها الواقعية فى سوق التجارة والانتاج المحلية والدولية كمختلف أنواع الضرائب والأرباح والقوانين المتحكمة فى أجور العمل والاستيراد والتصدير وحرية التجارة والأثر الناجم على ميكنة التصنيع والإعتماد على الآلة . صك العملة والعملة الورقية . قيمة العمل . العرض والطلب والكثير من النقاط الأكثر حيوية فى مجالى الاقتصاد الفردى والاقتصاد السياسي والاقتصاد الدولى ذوى التأثير المتبادل .
ومن الضرورى الاعتراف بأهمية هذا العمل على المستوى الشخصى حيث سيدعمنى كثيرا لدى قراءاتى الاقتصادية التالية بالتأكيد . وعلى مستوى تاريخ الاقتصاد السياسي حيث أثرى هذا العلم الوليد فى حينه بالعديد من النظريات النافعة فى حينها ومنها ما يزال سليما من الناحية العملية حتى زماننا هذا كما كان له بالغ الأثر فى الدراسات الإشتراكية العلمية النامية آنذاك كما استخدم كارل ماركس واستشهد وادمج فى كتاباته وافكاره العديد من نظريات وأفكار ريكاردو .
بالرغم من انى غالبا ما أجد قراءات الاقتصاد ثقيلة وغير محببة الا ان دراسة مبادىء العلم غالبا ما تكون اكثر يسرا بالاضافة الى بساطة اسلوب ريكاردو واعتماده على ضرب الأمثلة ومراعاة تعددية الرؤية للموقف او تثبيت أغلب العوامل المؤثرة لدراسة أثر عامل محدد كل فى حينه ما جعل القراءة واضحة وممتعة فى أغلب المواضيع .
يناقش الكتاب عموما نظريات فى مختلف المواضيع الأساسية فى الإقتصاد السياسي وتأثر هذه النقاط بعضها ببعض بمرونتها الواقعية فى سوق التجارة والانتاج المحلية والدولية كمختلف أنواع الضرائب والأرباح والقوانين المتحكمة فى أجور العمل والاستيراد والتصدير وحرية التجارة والأثر الناجم على ميكنة التصنيع والإعتماد على الآلة . صك العملة والعملة الورقية . قيمة العمل . العرض والطلب والكثير من النقاط الأكثر حيوية فى مجالى الاقتصاد الفردى والاقتصاد السياسي والاقتصاد الدولى ذوى التأثير المتبادل .
ومن الضرورى الاعتراف بأهمية هذا العمل على المستوى الشخصى حيث سيدعمنى كثيرا لدى قراءاتى الاقتصادية التالية بالتأكيد . وعلى مستوى تاريخ الاقتصاد السياسي حيث أثرى هذا العلم الوليد فى حينه بالعديد من النظريات النافعة فى حينها ومنها ما يزال سليما من الناحية العملية حتى زماننا هذا كما كان له بالغ الأثر فى الدراسات الإشتراكية العلمية النامية آنذاك كما استخدم كارل ماركس واستشهد وادمج فى كتاباته وافكاره العديد من نظريات وأفكار ريكاردو .
July 13, 2016
Podstiče na razmišljanje, iako ima nekih "rupa".
Read
January 24, 2023Granted I took a substantial break after the first 50 pages or so, I already feel like I owe this text a re-read after just finishing it. Extremely dense, but lucid, even hundreds of years later. I have a greater appreciation for labor theory of value, as well as generally seeing how concepts like elasticity, demand/supply schedules, balance of payments, savings gluts, Keynesian shortfalls of consumption, rents, aspects of monetarism but also chartalism, etc etc - how all of it came about from Ricardo and his discourse with others, as well as those before and after them.
The distinction between value and wealth was interesting and elucidating for me. I need to revisit the (dense) passages on labor theory of value, as well as net vs gross revenue, among others, to fully get the richness of this text. But I feel prepared to start poking around neo-ricardian work like Sraffa's.
Another thing that struck me was that each of these people in their exchange with each other as contemporaries were still struggling to find common language to describe what they wanted, which made things all the more confusing.
It's easy to see why Ricardo was one of the central nodes for downstream economic discourse in the years after him.
The distinction between value and wealth was interesting and elucidating for me. I need to revisit the (dense) passages on labor theory of value, as well as net vs gross revenue, among others, to fully get the richness of this text. But I feel prepared to start poking around neo-ricardian work like Sraffa's.
Another thing that struck me was that each of these people in their exchange with each other as contemporaries were still struggling to find common language to describe what they wanted, which made things all the more confusing.
It's easy to see why Ricardo was one of the central nodes for downstream economic discourse in the years after him.
July 20, 2024
David Ricardo first published his book in 1817 and revised it 10 years or so later. Along with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Karl Marx’s Capital, this work shares the foundations of classical economics. It’s great achievements were the promotion of free trade and the concept of marginal cost. It is a collection of assertions which themselves do not seem to be based on data and relies for its argument on the presentation of imagined examples. It thus has to be read at face value, despite the author’s regular claim to comparison with the work of other economists.
The United Kingdom had just emerged from a long and devastating war in Europe, which had then been redesigned thanks to the Treaty of Vienna. It was also a period during which the manufacturing base of the country had been undergoing revolutionary change, and indeed was continuing to do so. It was an era when the British state and its investors were earning remarkable sums from sugar in the Caribbean and from drugs in Asia. Indeed, the East India Company’s contribution to the British economy in 1817 must have been huge. These issues are generally not addressed in Ricardo’s work, which is strange.
High among Ricardo’s objectives in writing this book seems to have been to refute several of the assertions found in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Smith mentions many times the corruption generated by the monopolistic power of transnational corporations, specifically the East India Company, and indeed bases much of his argument in relation to exchange on practices that are opposed to the way such large companies work. Given that Ricardo spends much of his time refuting several of Smith assertions, it is singularly strange that he did not address Smith’s idea of in-built corruption and market distortion, especially since Ricardo was writing in this work a justification of free international trade.
There is a strong sense of the balance sheet about Ricardo’s ideas. Personally, I find his approach reeks of the accountant. Much is repetitive and, given the almost complete lack of data, frankly unconvincing. He repeatedly cites an utterly specific figure for earnings or production, and then imagines this changing by a specific amount. This specific amount is then repaid as an augmentation or deduction from some other, often unrelated figure, and always dealt with arithmetically. 100 up must entail 100 down. Bookkeeping might work that way, but I personally am convinced that economies do not. It’s a bit like the difference between climate and weather.
It is easy, as a contemporary reader, to pick holes in an historical text. With the benefit of hindsight, and the endeavours of many in the intervening years, holes in arguments have been exposed, and we are now all aware of them. We cannot approach the literature of our own age like this, because the holes have yet to be identified. So we must approach at least some of Ricardo’s ideas in their own terms, not our own.
He saw human society consisting of three classes of people. Two of these were crucial, one essential, but this essential nature was throughout taken for granted. These three classes were the proprietor of land, the owner of capital and the labourer. Monies associated with each were thus rent, profit, and wages. A weakness throughout the text is that these three interests seem to be dividing the cake of total earnings between them. Generally, Ricardo does not seem to assume that the cake can get larger, or indeed that an individual could play more than one economic role. For Ricardo, these classes seem rigid and do not intermingle.
Land, apparently, could be classified into three grades. He seems to assume that all agriculture will try to grow wheat and Ricardo identifies the lowest grade of land as that where there is no profit, only subsistence, and therefore no rent can be charged. Personally, I did not understand the position. It is true that Adam Smith’s analysis of political economy was largely based on historical prices for wheat. But it seems to me that ever since the invention of agriculture, feudal landowners have been renting out whatever land they might have and taking income from it, whether in the form of cash or produce. It may not have been in the interest of the landowner to have a tenant starve, but then it was not in his interest to see him prosper.
Furthermore, Ricardo also seems to ignore the reality that crops and climates differ. He does acknowledge that the Portuguese farm may be better suited to the growing of grapes, but there is scant recognition that a British farmer might exploit a higher value crop. “On the common principles of supply and demand, no rent could be paid for such land, for the reason stated, why nothing is given for the use of air and water, and for any other of the gifts of nature which exist in boundless quantity. With a given quantity of materials, and with the assistance of the pressure of the atmosphere, and the elasticity of steam, engines may perform work, and abridge human labour to a very great extent; but no charge is made for the use of these natural aids, because they are inexhaustible, and at every man’s disposal. in the same manner, the brewer, the distiller, the dyer, makes incessant use of the air and water for the production of the commodities; but as the supply is boundless, it bears no price. And if all land had the same properties, if it were boundless in quantity, and uniform in quality, no charge could be made for its use, unless where it possessed peculiar advantages of situation. it is only then because land is different qualities with respect to its productive powers, and because in the progress of population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the use of it. When, in the progress of society, land of the second- degree of fertility is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on that of the first quality, and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality of these two portions of land.” So, having acknowledged the variability of land and its uses, Ricardo then reverts to the label “second quality” without bothering to define the term. And, it might be pointed out, he had not fully understood Malthus, to whom he refers regularly, because the implication in Malthus is that there are no boundless quantities of anything.
Though himself a Whig, he seems to embody much of modern Tory thinking. “By gradually contracting the sphere of the poor laws; by impressing on the poor, the value of independence, by teaching them that they must look not to systematic or casual charity, but to their own exertions for support, that prudence and forethought are never unnecessary nor unprofitable virtues, we shall by degrees approach a sounder and more healthful state.” And this from a man who made a fortune as a banker trading government debt, sufficient to buy a stately home.
And despite his apparent contempt for the labouring classes, he seems to accept the labour theory of value, at least when it is convenient. Like many others at the time, precious metals were the source of all wealth and value. But Ricardo does acknowledge here and there that the stock of goods also represents value.
On The Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation by David Ricardo, as stated earlier, forms the basis of classical economics, alongside Smith and Marx. Having now read all three in the original, my advice would be to leave this one out. A summary will do.
The United Kingdom had just emerged from a long and devastating war in Europe, which had then been redesigned thanks to the Treaty of Vienna. It was also a period during which the manufacturing base of the country had been undergoing revolutionary change, and indeed was continuing to do so. It was an era when the British state and its investors were earning remarkable sums from sugar in the Caribbean and from drugs in Asia. Indeed, the East India Company’s contribution to the British economy in 1817 must have been huge. These issues are generally not addressed in Ricardo’s work, which is strange.
High among Ricardo’s objectives in writing this book seems to have been to refute several of the assertions found in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Smith mentions many times the corruption generated by the monopolistic power of transnational corporations, specifically the East India Company, and indeed bases much of his argument in relation to exchange on practices that are opposed to the way such large companies work. Given that Ricardo spends much of his time refuting several of Smith assertions, it is singularly strange that he did not address Smith’s idea of in-built corruption and market distortion, especially since Ricardo was writing in this work a justification of free international trade.
There is a strong sense of the balance sheet about Ricardo’s ideas. Personally, I find his approach reeks of the accountant. Much is repetitive and, given the almost complete lack of data, frankly unconvincing. He repeatedly cites an utterly specific figure for earnings or production, and then imagines this changing by a specific amount. This specific amount is then repaid as an augmentation or deduction from some other, often unrelated figure, and always dealt with arithmetically. 100 up must entail 100 down. Bookkeeping might work that way, but I personally am convinced that economies do not. It’s a bit like the difference between climate and weather.
It is easy, as a contemporary reader, to pick holes in an historical text. With the benefit of hindsight, and the endeavours of many in the intervening years, holes in arguments have been exposed, and we are now all aware of them. We cannot approach the literature of our own age like this, because the holes have yet to be identified. So we must approach at least some of Ricardo’s ideas in their own terms, not our own.
He saw human society consisting of three classes of people. Two of these were crucial, one essential, but this essential nature was throughout taken for granted. These three classes were the proprietor of land, the owner of capital and the labourer. Monies associated with each were thus rent, profit, and wages. A weakness throughout the text is that these three interests seem to be dividing the cake of total earnings between them. Generally, Ricardo does not seem to assume that the cake can get larger, or indeed that an individual could play more than one economic role. For Ricardo, these classes seem rigid and do not intermingle.
Land, apparently, could be classified into three grades. He seems to assume that all agriculture will try to grow wheat and Ricardo identifies the lowest grade of land as that where there is no profit, only subsistence, and therefore no rent can be charged. Personally, I did not understand the position. It is true that Adam Smith’s analysis of political economy was largely based on historical prices for wheat. But it seems to me that ever since the invention of agriculture, feudal landowners have been renting out whatever land they might have and taking income from it, whether in the form of cash or produce. It may not have been in the interest of the landowner to have a tenant starve, but then it was not in his interest to see him prosper.
Furthermore, Ricardo also seems to ignore the reality that crops and climates differ. He does acknowledge that the Portuguese farm may be better suited to the growing of grapes, but there is scant recognition that a British farmer might exploit a higher value crop. “On the common principles of supply and demand, no rent could be paid for such land, for the reason stated, why nothing is given for the use of air and water, and for any other of the gifts of nature which exist in boundless quantity. With a given quantity of materials, and with the assistance of the pressure of the atmosphere, and the elasticity of steam, engines may perform work, and abridge human labour to a very great extent; but no charge is made for the use of these natural aids, because they are inexhaustible, and at every man’s disposal. in the same manner, the brewer, the distiller, the dyer, makes incessant use of the air and water for the production of the commodities; but as the supply is boundless, it bears no price. And if all land had the same properties, if it were boundless in quantity, and uniform in quality, no charge could be made for its use, unless where it possessed peculiar advantages of situation. it is only then because land is different qualities with respect to its productive powers, and because in the progress of population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the use of it. When, in the progress of society, land of the second- degree of fertility is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on that of the first quality, and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality of these two portions of land.” So, having acknowledged the variability of land and its uses, Ricardo then reverts to the label “second quality” without bothering to define the term. And, it might be pointed out, he had not fully understood Malthus, to whom he refers regularly, because the implication in Malthus is that there are no boundless quantities of anything.
Though himself a Whig, he seems to embody much of modern Tory thinking. “By gradually contracting the sphere of the poor laws; by impressing on the poor, the value of independence, by teaching them that they must look not to systematic or casual charity, but to their own exertions for support, that prudence and forethought are never unnecessary nor unprofitable virtues, we shall by degrees approach a sounder and more healthful state.” And this from a man who made a fortune as a banker trading government debt, sufficient to buy a stately home.
And despite his apparent contempt for the labouring classes, he seems to accept the labour theory of value, at least when it is convenient. Like many others at the time, precious metals were the source of all wealth and value. But Ricardo does acknowledge here and there that the stock of goods also represents value.
On The Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation by David Ricardo, as stated earlier, forms the basis of classical economics, alongside Smith and Marx. Having now read all three in the original, my advice would be to leave this one out. A summary will do.
May 4, 2022
ENGLISH
In this book, David Ricardo tackles the economic issues of his time in an undertaking almost as vast as that of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. In fact, Ricardo dedicates a great deal of his work to commenting, discussing and refuting excerpts from the aforementioned work. He does so also with respect to Jean-Baptiste Say and, to a lesser extent, to Thomas Malthus.
David Ricardo adopts — as does Smith, though with some differences — the labor theory of value, consisting of the view that the price of a product is determined by the cost of production and, ultimately, by the amount of labor employed. Ricardo disregards and expressly refutes what would be the value-utility theory. In one passage, he is clear: “Say recognizes that production costs are the foundation of price, and even so, in several passages of his book, he maintains that price is regulated by the relationship between supply and demand. The true and definitive determinant of the relative value of two commodities is their cost of production and not the respective quantities that can be produced or the competition between buyers”.
David Ricardo, while recognizing that machines can reduce the demand for work of people, understands that machinery should be encouraged, because otherwise capital tends to go abroad, and it is better that it stays in the country, which will generate more production and price reduction of products for the workers.
David Ricardo became well known for his well-elaborated theory of comparative advantages in the international trade, which is still defended by liberal economists. Countries must engage in international trade freely, so as to export the products of economic activities which they are specialized in and import those in which they do not have specialization. Everyone wins in this scenario: manufacturing countries can purchase better quality agricultural products while introducing competition to their domestic agricultural producers, and the same is true for agricultural countries with respect to imported manufactured products. This point was important to Ricardo, as he was critical of the protectionism of the Corn Laws. Ricardo criticized landowners who not only earned rents from those who leased land, but also acted to prohibit or hinder imports, which made wheat more expensive and, consequently, much of the other products of the economy, which, in turn, pressed salaries to increase.
The theory of comparative advantages over time became a true biblical commandment of economists with a liberal bias, to the point of becoming a recommendation of international policy institutions, such as the IMF, for developing countries in the 1980s. The argument, however, is criticized by economists with a more developmental bias, especially those who saw the radical application of the theory as reinforcing the economic dependence of developing countries from developed ones. This is because, by specializing and focusing their activities on exporting commodities, such as agricultural and mining products, poor countries spent their time and resources investing in low added value activities, with less enriching potential, and lost the opportunity to industrialize, an activity with greater added value and enriching potential (though also with higher risk). There is even a contradiction in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations on this point, as I pointed out here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Smith maintains that the richest nations are those which have the most manufactures, as these allow for a greater division of labor. However, when it comes to the trade between Great Britain and the US-colony, he argued that the US should not take over British-owned manufactures and focus on agriculture to get rich.
Other countries that throughout History have not exclusively adhered to the mantra of comparative advantages were the Asian Tigers (notably South Korea) and China. They disobeyed to a great extent the recommendations and bet on industrialization, at least for a long initial protectionist period, with evident positive results. After strengthening their industries, they started opening up their economies and then enjoyed the benefits of the external trade. There are, however, examples of countries that failed in this bet, such as Brazil, which had bursts of industrialization attempts, some of them relatively successful (with the creation of state-owned steel and oil companies) and others that failed (the attempt to build a software industry in the 1970s). In the 1990s, with the implementation of a successful economic stabilization plan with a strong liberal bias in Brazil, a phrase by the then Minister of Finance paraphrasing Gary Becker became famous: “the best industrial policy is to have no industrial policy”. The fact is that Brazil was successful in controlling inflation at the time, but stopped investing in industries - which reflects the high degree of deindustrialization in the country today. However, the IMF recently came around and recognized that the rigid neoliberal playbook of the 1980s proved to be wrong and increased inequality (“Neoliberalism: Oversold? https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...).
David Ricardo, however, is not to blame for what has come to be called the Dependency Theory. He just masterfully developed a theory that points out the evident positive aspects of international trade exchanges, but he does not preach, at least in this book, that countries should not try to diversify their export agenda, especially in relation to manufacturing activities (unlike Adam Smith in the Great Britain-US example above). As with everything in economics — and in life — things must be balanced: an economy that is too closed to imports leads to monopolistic, inefficient industries and businesses, and harm to the population. An economy that does not bet on learning and technological innovation, being relegated to activities of low added value, tends to remain in poverty.
David Ricardo has a writing style very similar to that of Adam Smith. He rationalizes the economy as a complex system at work, delving into each topic in great detail and using powerful arguments, though he is a little less concrete than Smith was in The Wealth of Nations.
PORTUGUÊS
Neste livro, David Ricardo aborda os temas econômicos de sua época em uma empreitada quase tão vasta quanto a de Adam Smith em A Riqueza das Nações. Aliás, Ricardo dedica boa parte de sua obra a comentar, discutir e refutar trechos da referida obra. Ele o faz também com relação a Jean-Baptiste Say e, em em menor grau, com relação a Thomas Malthus.
David Ricardo adota - assim como Smith, embora com algumas diferenças - a teoria do valor-trabalho, consistente na visão de que o preço dos produtos é determinado pelo custo de produção e, em última análise, pela quantidade de trabalho empregada, desprezando e refutando expressamente o que seria a teoria do valor-utilidade. Em um trecho, inclusive, ele é claro: “Say reconhece que são os custos de produção o fundamento do preço, e mesmo assim, em várias passagens de seu livro, ele sustenta que o preço é regulado pela relação entre a oferta e a demanda. O verdadeiro e definitivo determinante do valor relativo de duas mercadorias é o seu custo de produção e não as respectivas quantidades que possam ser produzidas ou a concorrência entre os compradores”.
David Ricardo, embora reconheça que as máquinas podem diminuir a demanda de trabalho das pessoas, entende que a maquinaria deve ser incentivada, pois caso contrário, o capital tende a ir para o exterior, sendo melhor que ele fique no país, o que gerará mais produção e redução de preços de produtos para o trabalhador.
David Ricardo ficou muito conhecido por sua bem elaborada teoria das vantagens comparativas do comércio internacional, até hoje defendida pelos economistas de viés liberal. Países devem engajar-se no comércio internacional livremente, de modo a exportar os produtos das atividades econômicas em que são especializados e importar aqueles em que não possuem especialização. Nesse panorama todos ganham: países manufatureiros podem adquirir produtos agrícolas de melhor qualidade enquanto introduzem concorrência para seus produtores agrícolas internos, e o equivalente acontece com os países agrícolas em relação a produtos manufaturados importados. Esse ponto era importante para Ricardo, que criticava o protecionismo das Corn Laws. Ricardo criticava os proprietários de terras que não só ganhavam rendas daqueles que as arrendavam, como atuavam para proibir ou dificultar as importações, o que deixava o trigo mais caro e, por consequência, boa parte dos outros produtos da economia, o que, por sua vez, pressionava os salários a aumentar.
A teoria das vantagens comparativas ao longo do tempo virou um verdadeiro mandamento bíblico dos economistas de viés liberal, a ponto de se tornar recomendação de instituições de Policy internacionais, como o FMI, para países em desenvolvimento na década de 1980. O argumento, no entanto, é criticado pelos economistas de viés mais desenvolvimentista, em especial aqueles que viam na aplicação radical da teoria o reforço da dependência econômica dos países em desenvolvimento para com países desenvolvidos. Isto porque, ao se especializarem e focarem suas atividades na exportação de commodities, como produtos agrícolas e mineração, os países pobres gastavam seu tempo e recursos investindo em atividades de baixo valor agregado, com menor potencial enriquecedor, e perdiam oportunidade de se industrializar, atividade essa com maior valor agregado e potencial enriquecedor (embora com maior risco). Há inclusive contradição em A Riqueza das Nações de Adam Smith nesse ponto, como apontei aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Smith sustenta que as nações mais ricas são aquelas que possuem mais manufaturas, pois estas permitem maior divisão do trabalho. Porém, quando trata do comércio entre Grã Bretanha e EUA-colônia, ele defende que os EUA não deveriam se apoderar das manufaturas de propriedade de ingleses e se focar na agricultura para enriquecer.
Outros países que ao longo da história não se fixaram exclusivamente no mantra das vantagens comparativas foram os Tigres Asiáticos (notadamente Coreia do Sul) e a China. Estes desobedeceram em grande parte as recomendações e apostaram na industrialização, pelo menos durante um longo período inicial protecionista, com resultados positivos evidentes. Após fortalecerem suas indústrias, eles começaram a abrir suas economias e então aproveitaram os benefícios do comércio internacional. Há, no entanto, exemplos de países que fracassaram nessa aposta, como o Brasil, que teve surtos de tentativas de industrialização, algumas relativamente bem sucedidas (com a criação de estatais do aço e do petróleo) e outras fracassadas (a tentativa de criar uma indústria de software na década de 1970). Na década de 1990, com a aplicação de plano bem sucedido de estabilização econômica com forte viés liberal no Brasil, uma frase do então Ministro da Fazenda parafraseando Gary Becker ficou famosa: “a melhor política industrial é não ter política industrial”. O fato é que o Brasil foi bem sucedido em controlar a inflação na época, mas deixou de investir na indústria - o que reflete o alto grau de desindustrialização do país hoje. Porém, recentemente, o próprio FMI voltou atrás e reconheceu que a cartilha neoliberal rígida da década de 1980 se mostrou equivocada e aumentou a desigualdade. (“Neoliberalism: Oversold? https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...).
David Ricardo, no entanto, não deve ser culpado pelo que veio depois a ser chamado de Teoria da Dependência. Ele apenas desenvolveu, de forma magistral, uma teoria que aponta os aspectos positivos evidentes das trocas de comércio internacional, mas não prega, ao menos neste livro, que países não devam tentar diversificar sua pauta de exportações, ainda mais com relação a atividades manufatureiras (ao contrário de Adam Smith, no exemplo dos EUA acima). Como tudo em Economia — e na vida —, deve-se ter ponderação: uma economia muito fechada a importações leva a indústrias e negócios monopolistas, ineficientes, e prejuízo à população. Uma economia que não aposta em aprendizado e inovação tecnológica, ficando relegada apenas a atividades de baixo valor agregado, tende a permanecer na pobreza.
David Ricardo tem um estilo de escrita bastante parecido com o de Adam Smith. Ele raciocina a economia como um sistema complexo em funcionamento, investigando cada tema com bastante detalhamento e argumentação poderosa, embora seja um pouco menos concreto do que foi Smith em A Riqueza das Nações.
In this book, David Ricardo tackles the economic issues of his time in an undertaking almost as vast as that of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. In fact, Ricardo dedicates a great deal of his work to commenting, discussing and refuting excerpts from the aforementioned work. He does so also with respect to Jean-Baptiste Say and, to a lesser extent, to Thomas Malthus.
David Ricardo adopts — as does Smith, though with some differences — the labor theory of value, consisting of the view that the price of a product is determined by the cost of production and, ultimately, by the amount of labor employed. Ricardo disregards and expressly refutes what would be the value-utility theory. In one passage, he is clear: “Say recognizes that production costs are the foundation of price, and even so, in several passages of his book, he maintains that price is regulated by the relationship between supply and demand. The true and definitive determinant of the relative value of two commodities is their cost of production and not the respective quantities that can be produced or the competition between buyers”.
David Ricardo, while recognizing that machines can reduce the demand for work of people, understands that machinery should be encouraged, because otherwise capital tends to go abroad, and it is better that it stays in the country, which will generate more production and price reduction of products for the workers.
David Ricardo became well known for his well-elaborated theory of comparative advantages in the international trade, which is still defended by liberal economists. Countries must engage in international trade freely, so as to export the products of economic activities which they are specialized in and import those in which they do not have specialization. Everyone wins in this scenario: manufacturing countries can purchase better quality agricultural products while introducing competition to their domestic agricultural producers, and the same is true for agricultural countries with respect to imported manufactured products. This point was important to Ricardo, as he was critical of the protectionism of the Corn Laws. Ricardo criticized landowners who not only earned rents from those who leased land, but also acted to prohibit or hinder imports, which made wheat more expensive and, consequently, much of the other products of the economy, which, in turn, pressed salaries to increase.
The theory of comparative advantages over time became a true biblical commandment of economists with a liberal bias, to the point of becoming a recommendation of international policy institutions, such as the IMF, for developing countries in the 1980s. The argument, however, is criticized by economists with a more developmental bias, especially those who saw the radical application of the theory as reinforcing the economic dependence of developing countries from developed ones. This is because, by specializing and focusing their activities on exporting commodities, such as agricultural and mining products, poor countries spent their time and resources investing in low added value activities, with less enriching potential, and lost the opportunity to industrialize, an activity with greater added value and enriching potential (though also with higher risk). There is even a contradiction in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations on this point, as I pointed out here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Smith maintains that the richest nations are those which have the most manufactures, as these allow for a greater division of labor. However, when it comes to the trade between Great Britain and the US-colony, he argued that the US should not take over British-owned manufactures and focus on agriculture to get rich.
Other countries that throughout History have not exclusively adhered to the mantra of comparative advantages were the Asian Tigers (notably South Korea) and China. They disobeyed to a great extent the recommendations and bet on industrialization, at least for a long initial protectionist period, with evident positive results. After strengthening their industries, they started opening up their economies and then enjoyed the benefits of the external trade. There are, however, examples of countries that failed in this bet, such as Brazil, which had bursts of industrialization attempts, some of them relatively successful (with the creation of state-owned steel and oil companies) and others that failed (the attempt to build a software industry in the 1970s). In the 1990s, with the implementation of a successful economic stabilization plan with a strong liberal bias in Brazil, a phrase by the then Minister of Finance paraphrasing Gary Becker became famous: “the best industrial policy is to have no industrial policy”. The fact is that Brazil was successful in controlling inflation at the time, but stopped investing in industries - which reflects the high degree of deindustrialization in the country today. However, the IMF recently came around and recognized that the rigid neoliberal playbook of the 1980s proved to be wrong and increased inequality (“Neoliberalism: Oversold? https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...).
David Ricardo, however, is not to blame for what has come to be called the Dependency Theory. He just masterfully developed a theory that points out the evident positive aspects of international trade exchanges, but he does not preach, at least in this book, that countries should not try to diversify their export agenda, especially in relation to manufacturing activities (unlike Adam Smith in the Great Britain-US example above). As with everything in economics — and in life — things must be balanced: an economy that is too closed to imports leads to monopolistic, inefficient industries and businesses, and harm to the population. An economy that does not bet on learning and technological innovation, being relegated to activities of low added value, tends to remain in poverty.
David Ricardo has a writing style very similar to that of Adam Smith. He rationalizes the economy as a complex system at work, delving into each topic in great detail and using powerful arguments, though he is a little less concrete than Smith was in The Wealth of Nations.
PORTUGUÊS
Neste livro, David Ricardo aborda os temas econômicos de sua época em uma empreitada quase tão vasta quanto a de Adam Smith em A Riqueza das Nações. Aliás, Ricardo dedica boa parte de sua obra a comentar, discutir e refutar trechos da referida obra. Ele o faz também com relação a Jean-Baptiste Say e, em em menor grau, com relação a Thomas Malthus.
David Ricardo adota - assim como Smith, embora com algumas diferenças - a teoria do valor-trabalho, consistente na visão de que o preço dos produtos é determinado pelo custo de produção e, em última análise, pela quantidade de trabalho empregada, desprezando e refutando expressamente o que seria a teoria do valor-utilidade. Em um trecho, inclusive, ele é claro: “Say reconhece que são os custos de produção o fundamento do preço, e mesmo assim, em várias passagens de seu livro, ele sustenta que o preço é regulado pela relação entre a oferta e a demanda. O verdadeiro e definitivo determinante do valor relativo de duas mercadorias é o seu custo de produção e não as respectivas quantidades que possam ser produzidas ou a concorrência entre os compradores”.
David Ricardo, embora reconheça que as máquinas podem diminuir a demanda de trabalho das pessoas, entende que a maquinaria deve ser incentivada, pois caso contrário, o capital tende a ir para o exterior, sendo melhor que ele fique no país, o que gerará mais produção e redução de preços de produtos para o trabalhador.
David Ricardo ficou muito conhecido por sua bem elaborada teoria das vantagens comparativas do comércio internacional, até hoje defendida pelos economistas de viés liberal. Países devem engajar-se no comércio internacional livremente, de modo a exportar os produtos das atividades econômicas em que são especializados e importar aqueles em que não possuem especialização. Nesse panorama todos ganham: países manufatureiros podem adquirir produtos agrícolas de melhor qualidade enquanto introduzem concorrência para seus produtores agrícolas internos, e o equivalente acontece com os países agrícolas em relação a produtos manufaturados importados. Esse ponto era importante para Ricardo, que criticava o protecionismo das Corn Laws. Ricardo criticava os proprietários de terras que não só ganhavam rendas daqueles que as arrendavam, como atuavam para proibir ou dificultar as importações, o que deixava o trigo mais caro e, por consequência, boa parte dos outros produtos da economia, o que, por sua vez, pressionava os salários a aumentar.
A teoria das vantagens comparativas ao longo do tempo virou um verdadeiro mandamento bíblico dos economistas de viés liberal, a ponto de se tornar recomendação de instituições de Policy internacionais, como o FMI, para países em desenvolvimento na década de 1980. O argumento, no entanto, é criticado pelos economistas de viés mais desenvolvimentista, em especial aqueles que viam na aplicação radical da teoria o reforço da dependência econômica dos países em desenvolvimento para com países desenvolvidos. Isto porque, ao se especializarem e focarem suas atividades na exportação de commodities, como produtos agrícolas e mineração, os países pobres gastavam seu tempo e recursos investindo em atividades de baixo valor agregado, com menor potencial enriquecedor, e perdiam oportunidade de se industrializar, atividade essa com maior valor agregado e potencial enriquecedor (embora com maior risco). Há inclusive contradição em A Riqueza das Nações de Adam Smith nesse ponto, como apontei aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Smith sustenta que as nações mais ricas são aquelas que possuem mais manufaturas, pois estas permitem maior divisão do trabalho. Porém, quando trata do comércio entre Grã Bretanha e EUA-colônia, ele defende que os EUA não deveriam se apoderar das manufaturas de propriedade de ingleses e se focar na agricultura para enriquecer.
Outros países que ao longo da história não se fixaram exclusivamente no mantra das vantagens comparativas foram os Tigres Asiáticos (notadamente Coreia do Sul) e a China. Estes desobedeceram em grande parte as recomendações e apostaram na industrialização, pelo menos durante um longo período inicial protecionista, com resultados positivos evidentes. Após fortalecerem suas indústrias, eles começaram a abrir suas economias e então aproveitaram os benefícios do comércio internacional. Há, no entanto, exemplos de países que fracassaram nessa aposta, como o Brasil, que teve surtos de tentativas de industrialização, algumas relativamente bem sucedidas (com a criação de estatais do aço e do petróleo) e outras fracassadas (a tentativa de criar uma indústria de software na década de 1970). Na década de 1990, com a aplicação de plano bem sucedido de estabilização econômica com forte viés liberal no Brasil, uma frase do então Ministro da Fazenda parafraseando Gary Becker ficou famosa: “a melhor política industrial é não ter política industrial”. O fato é que o Brasil foi bem sucedido em controlar a inflação na época, mas deixou de investir na indústria - o que reflete o alto grau de desindustrialização do país hoje. Porém, recentemente, o próprio FMI voltou atrás e reconheceu que a cartilha neoliberal rígida da década de 1980 se mostrou equivocada e aumentou a desigualdade. (“Neoliberalism: Oversold? https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...).
David Ricardo, no entanto, não deve ser culpado pelo que veio depois a ser chamado de Teoria da Dependência. Ele apenas desenvolveu, de forma magistral, uma teoria que aponta os aspectos positivos evidentes das trocas de comércio internacional, mas não prega, ao menos neste livro, que países não devam tentar diversificar sua pauta de exportações, ainda mais com relação a atividades manufatureiras (ao contrário de Adam Smith, no exemplo dos EUA acima). Como tudo em Economia — e na vida —, deve-se ter ponderação: uma economia muito fechada a importações leva a indústrias e negócios monopolistas, ineficientes, e prejuízo à população. Uma economia que não aposta em aprendizado e inovação tecnológica, ficando relegada apenas a atividades de baixo valor agregado, tende a permanecer na pobreza.
David Ricardo tem um estilo de escrita bastante parecido com o de Adam Smith. Ele raciocina a economia como um sistema complexo em funcionamento, investigando cada tema com bastante detalhamento e argumentação poderosa, embora seja um pouco menos concreto do que foi Smith em A Riqueza das Nações.
Read
February 3, 2024Reading this book was too much of a chore for me to rate it properly. There were parts where Ricardo could’ve been more concise and his writing isn’t very smooth or easy to get through. He makes effective, well structured arguments however and I very much respected his work. Having begun now reading Marx’s Capital, I appreciate that Ricardo is more concise than he could be and that his theory is actually founded in easily rationalized sense.
Read
November 9, 2010The introduction to this book reads "The reader of that day probably found it hard, remote, unimaginitive; its style repellent, its treatment unsystematic, its method abstract and passionless."
I concur.
I concur.
Read
August 7, 2022The man I look up to the most throughout history. His earlier education was near non-existent, yet the rigour of his critique allowed him to invent the foundations of global trade today.
June 11, 2024
Most of the 19th century writers of classical political economy, including Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, and Mill to the socialists like Marx, have two characteristic features:
1. Complete dissociation from the metaphysical and ethical doctrines of the Scholastics.
2. An insistent belief in an inherent and objective value of a good, mainly in the labour theory of value.
Ricardo's book is a prime example of such a system. He builds upon Smith's magnum opus, and gives his ideas on value, wages, profit, taxes and machinery. Many of his so-called 'principles', are neither universally and necessarily valid, nor provide a satisfactory explainatory system of varying socio-economic phenomenon.
His opposition to corn laws and poor laws of rural england clearly reflect his bias for the capitalist class, although he has tried to present them in an ethical and rational manner. At one point, he argues against the poor houses and essentially for the poor to starve, simply because providing them with food and other necessities would increase their population (mathusian argument), and thus the demand and price of the necessities. This, in turn, would increase the natural wages of agricultual labor (according to labor theory of value) and reduces profits for the capitalists. Therefore, according to him, the purpose of serving the poor will be self-defeating. In this sense, he is justifying an economic system which supports aggregation of capital and re-enforces class inequalities, rather than a system which works to diminish them.
Overall, Ricardo can be credited for foreshadowing some important concepts such as diminishing marginal returns, theory of markets etc., but this work, in itself, falls short of being called an objective and scientific principles of econonics.
1. Complete dissociation from the metaphysical and ethical doctrines of the Scholastics.
2. An insistent belief in an inherent and objective value of a good, mainly in the labour theory of value.
Ricardo's book is a prime example of such a system. He builds upon Smith's magnum opus, and gives his ideas on value, wages, profit, taxes and machinery. Many of his so-called 'principles', are neither universally and necessarily valid, nor provide a satisfactory explainatory system of varying socio-economic phenomenon.
His opposition to corn laws and poor laws of rural england clearly reflect his bias for the capitalist class, although he has tried to present them in an ethical and rational manner. At one point, he argues against the poor houses and essentially for the poor to starve, simply because providing them with food and other necessities would increase their population (mathusian argument), and thus the demand and price of the necessities. This, in turn, would increase the natural wages of agricultual labor (according to labor theory of value) and reduces profits for the capitalists. Therefore, according to him, the purpose of serving the poor will be self-defeating. In this sense, he is justifying an economic system which supports aggregation of capital and re-enforces class inequalities, rather than a system which works to diminish them.
Overall, Ricardo can be credited for foreshadowing some important concepts such as diminishing marginal returns, theory of markets etc., but this work, in itself, falls short of being called an objective and scientific principles of econonics.
May 30, 2025
I know he was an early campaigner against slavery back before it was popular. For this reason alone, I've been meaning to read him for too long. I must admit he's not as easy a read as Adam Smith. Smith wrote to the lowly commoner like me. Smith's pin analogy was simple, and just as relevant today as it was back in 1776. He was then explaining how these new factories (the industrial revolution is just beginning) and specialization of labor were about to make everything cheaper, faster, and better. To Smith the world was beginning to change for the better and everyone was about to get vastly wealthier. A generation later Richardo in this book argues that maybe machines would make the capitalists and the landlords a little better off. Maybe workers might be able to buy household items more cheaply. But workers won't be that much better off. (Chapter 31 On Machinery.) I'm thinking Smith was often more right than Richardo. Also, the first 1/2 of this book is dealing with 18th century British tax policies. I'm a lover of history and economics but these chapters were a bit dry for even me. That being said, interesting to read how such minds saw the world back in the early 1800s.
August 26, 2019
If you ever want to know why freshman econ got so terrible, this is the book. Airy generalities and abstract pontifications replace any real analysis or measurement. Providing an alternate explanation for a phenomenon is considered equivalent to disproving the original, no actual comparison needed.
What is the most frustrating about Ricardo is his reliance on "proof by syllogism," which is where, to prove something, he concocts an SAT-like arithmetic puzzle about the difference between Fixed vs. Circulating capital, e.g. which is totally divorced from reality.
Will amend this review to contain proof of the above at a later time.
What is the most frustrating about Ricardo is his reliance on "proof by syllogism," which is where, to prove something, he concocts an SAT-like arithmetic puzzle about the difference between Fixed vs. Circulating capital, e.g. which is totally divorced from reality.
Will amend this review to contain proof of the above at a later time.
March 5, 2020
For something that came like 40 years after Wealth Of Nations, this is a terribly written work. Not only is it almost incomprehensible in its language, but the basic claims are nonsensical (you'd think an Actual Banker would know better).
Read a summary or something, and don't bother with the original text.
Read a summary or something, and don't bother with the original text.
February 19, 2022
Reads like a second part of Adam Smith's main work - it references him a lot and uses the same kind of style (making lots of assumptions backed up by trivial examples without much proof). The chapter about specialization of nations in the beginning of the book is the most interesting and famous one, after that it's mostly rambling about how taxes are evil.
August 23, 2017
It is rather for fans of history of economic thought than a book which would describe economics. The value theory based on work is long disproved by marginal revolution and modern economics. But still, Ricardo together with Smith is great supporter of free trade and should be honored as such.
October 19, 2017
A challenge but worth it
Origins of economics are fascinating to me and this meets the criteria. Hard to get through but you will take away some general rules to help understand what rotates commerce
Origins of economics are fascinating to me and this meets the criteria. Hard to get through but you will take away some general rules to help understand what rotates commerce
July 4, 2025
Intriguing and fascinating, reading early classical economists but characteristically, the book contradicts its own author’s opinions as Ricardo shifted considerably on the issue of things like automation and innovation in relation to market dynamics and employment.
January 13, 2019
Economic Classic
Looking at rent theory and trade, Ricardo led the way for modern economics following Smith. A classic book that should be read by every economist.
Looking at rent theory and trade, Ricardo led the way for modern economics following Smith. A classic book that should be read by every economist.
Read
December 3, 2019I don't have the authority to judge this book, but damn I had a hard time reading it
May 17, 2020
"El valor de los bienes producidos viene dado por el trabajo incorporado"
Caro os costó el error...
Caro os costó el error...
unfinished
January 6, 2022I read like half of this for a class I withdrew from in first year. Will likely never finish.
May 25, 2022
I will be reading this again...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews