Important sources: Important sources

Important sources:

• Important sources:

• On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817)
• Wikipedia
• EconLib

Important topics:

• Important topics:

• Income Distribution
• Theory of Value
• Law of Comparative Advantage
• Ricardian Equivalence
• Deductive Analysis

There are

• There are

• three factors of production
• land,
• labor, and
• capital goods (such as shovels)
• three classes of people:
• landlords,
• workers, and
• capitalists.

• Ricardo focused on income distribution among the three classes

Landlords earn rent,

• Landlords earn rent,

• workers earn wages, and

• capitalists earn profits.

• Ricardo wanted to show how the total output of a society is distributed among wages, rent, and profits.

Following Turgot and others, Ricardo assumed that the increase in output from each additional worker decreases as the number of workers increases.

• Following Turgot and others, Ricardo assumed that the increase in output from each additional worker decreases as the number of workers increases.

• This is the assumption of diminishing returns

Ricardo used the Iron Law of Wages

• Ricardo used the Iron Law of Wages

• This idea argued that the wage would in the long run equal the subsistence wage, which is the bare minimum necessary for survival.
• This assumption was also made by Cantillon, Smith and Malthus
• I will assume the subsistence wage per worker is 25 pounds of corn per week.

Rent as Residual: Ricardo assumed that each landlord hires labor and capital—at the prevailing market-wide prices of these two resources—and keeps as rent whatever output is left.

• Rent as Residual: Ricardo assumed that each landlord hires labor and capital—at the prevailing market-wide prices of these two resources—and keeps as rent whatever output is left.

• Recall that Adam Smith too thought of rent as a residual

Suppose there is only one worker and one shovel in the economy.

• Suppose there is only one worker and one shovel in the economy.

• The worker’s wage is 25 pounds of corn per week, the subsistence wage.

• What is the profit earned by the shovel’s owner?

• The profit earned by each shovel is 65
• Why?
• The landlord of Plot A will offer to pay 65 pounds of corn to the owner of the shovel
• Had he offered to pay, say, 64, the landlord of Plot B would be able to lure the worker and the shovel away from Plot A by offering to pay 25 for the worker and 64.5 for the shovel

The profit earned by each shovel is 65

• The profit earned by each shovel is 65

• Note that at this profit rate, one shovel-and-worker combo is demanded and supplied

• The owner of Plot A will employ the worker and the shovel.

• All other plots of land will remain uncultivated.

• Total output = 100.

• After paying wages = 25 and profit = 65, the residual rent = 10.

The best available land that is not earning rent for its owner is defined as zero-rent land.

• The best available land that is not earning rent for its owner is defined as zero-rent land.

• In the one-worker case (Case 1), Plot B is the zero-rent land.
• Note that in Case 1, output of one worker and one shovel in zero-rent land = 90
• Note also that the rent earned by the owner of Plot A is the extra output of that land compared to zero-rent land = 100 – 90 = 10

Profits per shovel = output producible on zero-rent land by one worker and one shovel minus the worker’s subsistence wage.

• Profits per shovel = output producible on zero-rent land by one worker and one shovel minus the worker’s subsistence wage.

• In Case 1, profits per shovel = 90 – 25 = 65

Profits are the main source of capital accumulation.

• Profits are the main source of capital accumulation.

• If the current rate of profit is higher than the minimum rate of profit that is acceptable to capitalists, more capital will be accumulated.

Total wage income = subsistence wage per worker  number of workers

• Total wage income = subsistence wage per worker  number of workers

• Total profit income = profit per shovel  number of shovels

• Total rent income = residual = total output – total wage income – total profit income

When the rent earned by a landlord is due solely to superior fertility of the land, that rent is called rent on the extensive margin.

• When the rent earned by a landlord is due solely to superior fertility of the land, that rent is called rent on the extensive margin.

• More precisely, this rent is the output that could be produced with one worker on this landlord’s land minus what one worker could produce on zero-rent land.

• In the one-worker case (Case 1), zero-rent land is Plot B. Therefore, extensive-margin rent on Plot A = 100 – 90 = 10. Therefore, in this case, all of rent is extensive margin rent.

• In this way, Ricardo ended up with the same theory of rent that James Anderson had earlier proposed.

Suppose now that there are 3 workers and 3 shovels.

• Suppose now that there are 3 workers and 3 shovels.

• Wage is 25 per worker, as before.

• Profit per shovel is 55

• This will ensure that the landlords will demand exactly 3 workers and 3 shovels, as is required for equilibrium.
• Plot A will employ 2 workers and 2 shovels and Plot B will employ 1 worker and 1 shovel.
• Plot C will be uncultivated, zero-rent land.

The owner of Plot B will produce 90 and, after paying 25 as wage and 55 as profit, will collect a residual rent of 10.

• The owner of Plot B will produce 90 and, after paying 25 as wage and 55 as profit, will collect a residual rent of 10.

• This is also Plot B’s rent on extensive margin.

The owner of Plot A will produce 190 and, after paying 50 as wage and 110 as profit, will collect a residual rent of 30.

• The owner of Plot A will produce 190 and, after paying 50 as wage and 110 as profit, will collect a residual rent of 30.

• Of this, only 20 is rent on extensive margin.
• The remaining rent, 10, is called rent on the intensive margin.

Rent earned from the intensive use of land is called rent on the intensive margin.

• Rent earned from the intensive use of land is called rent on the intensive margin.

• Using this concept, Ricardo is able to explain why rent would be paid even when all land is of the same quality, as long as the amount of available land is not infinite.

• This follows from the application of Turgot’s idea of diminishing returns to shovel-equipped labor on a fixed amount of land.

Suppose now that there are 6 workers and 6 shovels.

• Suppose now that there are 6 workers and 6 shovels.

• Wage is 25 per worker as before.

• Profit per shovel would have to be 45

• This will ensure that the landlords will demand exactly 6 workers and 6 shovels, as is required for equilibrium.

• Plot A will employ 3 workers and shovels,

• Plot B will employ 2 workers and 2 shovels, and

• Plot C will employ 1 worker and shovel.

• Plot D will be zero-rent land.

As shown in this example, Ricardo was able to work out how a society’s total output is distributed to the different classes.

• As shown in this example, Ricardo was able to work out how a society’s total output is distributed to the different classes.

An important conclusion is that as an economy develops, only landlords benefit.

• An important conclusion is that as an economy develops, only landlords benefit.

• As population increases, less and less fertile land is gradually brought into cultivation. This enables landlords to collect more rent on both the extensive and intensive margins.

• The workers do not gain; they continue to receive the subsistence wage.

• As the zero-rent land gets worse and worse, the output producible on it with one worker and one shovel decreases. But wages remain unchanged. Therefore, less is left as profit for the owner of the shovel.

The falling rate of profit leads to a slowdown in capital accumulation.

• The falling rate of profit leads to a slowdown in capital accumulation.

• Ultimately growth stops altogether; a steady state is reached.

• Ricardo assumed that only the profit income of the capitalists is used for the accumulation of new capital goods.
• The landlords are parasites who blow their rent earnings on consumer goods.
• Adam Smith had a similar view of landlords

The inevitability of the steady state is why Ricardo came to the conclusion that it was a waste of time to worry about long-run economic growth.

• The inevitability of the steady state is why Ricardo came to the conclusion that it was a waste of time to worry about long-run economic growth.

• More important was the issue of how the steady state output is distributed among the different classes.

• Ricardo’s belief that total output will ultimately stop growing convinced him that the main issue in economics was not to figure out how economies grow richer but to figure out how the limited output in the economy’s stationary state is distributed or shared among the various sectors of the economy.

“Political Economy, you think, is an enquiry into the nature and causes of wealth -- I think it should rather be called an enquiry into the laws which determine the division of produce of industry amongst the classes that concur in its formation. No law can be laid down respecting quantity, but a tolerably correct one can be laid down respecting proportions. Every day I am more satisfied that the former enquiry is vain and delusive, and the latter the only true object of the science.”

• “Political Economy, you think, is an enquiry into the nature and causes of wealth -- I think it should rather be called an enquiry into the laws which determine the division of produce of industry amongst the classes that concur in its formation. No law can be laid down respecting quantity, but a tolerably correct one can be laid down respecting proportions. Every day I am more satisfied that the former enquiry is vain and delusive, and the latter the only true object of the science.”

• David Ricardo, “Letter to T. R. Malthus, October 9, 1820”, in Collected Works, Vol. VIII: p.278-9.

The theory of value used by Ricardo was the same as Adam Smith’s theory of value in the sense that they both held that price is equal to per unit cost.

• The theory of value used by Ricardo was the same as Adam Smith’s theory of value in the sense that they both held that price is equal to per unit cost.

• However, Ricardo was able to explain why the Labor Theory of Value (LTV) was not fully satisfactory.

For simple economic activities such as hunting and fishing, the Labor Theory of Value was fine according to Ricardo

• For simple economic activities such as hunting and fishing, the Labor Theory of Value was fine according to Ricardo

• Smith had the same view

• This is an illustration of the classical idea that in the long run demand has no influence on (relative) prices.

But now consider a case where production takes time.

• But now consider a case where production takes time.

• Consider a ton of wheat and a ton of rice available for sale today.

• Suppose both require five hours of labor to produce.

• However, suppose wheat takes two years to mature after cultivation whereas rice is produced instantaneously.

• In this case, the rice purchased today was made today whereas the wheat purchased today was made two years ago.

• So whereas the rice farmer would simply have to pay for five hours of labor upon the sale of the rice, the wheat farmer would have to pay for five hours of labor plus two years’ interest to the workers whom he has kept waiting for two years.

• As a result, the wheat would cost more than the rice even though both wheat and rice require the same amount of labor to produce.

• This is another way of saying that for complex cases the Labor Theory of Value is not valid.

Ricardo was also aware that even if wheat and rice took the same amount of time to be produced, the LTV would still be in trouble if the fertility of land varied from one place to another.

• Ricardo was also aware that even if wheat and rice took the same amount of time to be produced, the LTV would still be in trouble if the fertility of land varied from one place to another.

• When fertility varied from one plot of land to another, the amount of labor needed to produce a ton of wheat (or rice) would not be fixed but would instead depend on the fertility of the land being used.

• As a result the LTV could not be readily applied.

Suppose a ton of rice grown on less fertile Type B land requires 4 hours of labor whereas a ton of rice grown on more fertile Type A land requires 2 hours of labor.

• Suppose a ton of rice grown on less fertile Type B land requires 4 hours of labor whereas a ton of rice grown on more fertile Type A land requires 2 hours of labor.

• Would we then say that the price of the first ton of rice would be twice the price of the second ton of rice?

• Clearly such an application of the Labor Theory of Value would make no sense because the price of a ton of rice must necessarily be the same irrespective of what type of land it was produced on.

To restore the applicability of the LTV, Ricardo assumed that there would always be some zero-rent land—land that farmers could use without paying any rent.

• To restore the applicability of the LTV, Ricardo assumed that there would always be some zero-rent land—land that farmers could use without paying any rent.

• How come?
• Suppose we have land of different types, from the most fertile land to desert-type land on which nothing can grow.
• Then there would always be some types of land that would remain unused.
• Clearly, such land would not earn its owner any rent.
• Now consider the worst type of land that is currently in use. What would be the rent on this type of land?
• Since land that is even the slightest bit less fertile would earn no rent, the rent on this land must also be zero or very close to zero.
• Therefore, it is a good enough approximation to say that the least fertile land under cultivation must earn zero rent for its owner.
• Continued on next slide

The cost—and, therefore, the price—of a ton of rice on such zero-rent land would be only the wages for the labor needed to make a ton of rice on zero-rent land.

• The cost—and, therefore, the price—of a ton of rice on such zero-rent land would be only the wages for the labor needed to make a ton of rice on zero-rent land.

• Therefore, one could say if a ton of wheat grown on zero-rent land required twice as much labor as a ton of rice grown on zero-rent land, then the price of a ton of wheat would be twice the price of a ton of rice.

Thus the LTV could be applied even when the fertility of land varies from plot to plot provided it is understood that what mattered was the labor needed for production of a good on zero-rent land.

• Thus the LTV could be applied even when the fertility of land varies from plot to plot provided it is understood that what mattered was the labor needed for production of a good on zero-rent land.

What if agriculture requires workers and shovels?

• What if agriculture requires workers and shovels?

• No problem. Simply calculate the labor needed to make shovels, measure the labor needed to make a ton of rice on zero-rent land as the sum of farm labor plus the labor needed to make the shovels and then apply the LTV as before.

• Of course, I am using ‘shovels’ as a stand-in for all capital goods.

Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage improved upon the earlier Law of Absolute Advantage. How?

• Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage improved upon the earlier Law of Absolute Advantage. How?

• If A (Advancedland) is more productive than B (Backwardland) in every productive activity, would both countries benefit from trade?

• The law of absolute advantage has no answer to this question.

• Ricardo's law of comparative advantage showed that the answer is yes.

Ricardo's disagreement with Thomas Malthus on the import tariffs embedded in the Corn Laws—Ricardo was against the tariffs, of course—was rooted in his theory of trade.

• Ricardo's disagreement with Thomas Malthus on the import tariffs embedded in the Corn Laws—Ricardo was against the tariffs, of course—was rooted in his theory of trade.

This idea says that, under certain conditions, it does not matter whether a government pays for its expenditures through taxes or through debt.

• This idea says that, under certain conditions, it does not matter whether a government pays for its expenditures through taxes or through debt.

• This idea of Ricardo on public finance has, under the name of Ricardian Equivalence, become an important player even in contemporary debates on how governments should pay for their expenditures.

Suppose the government spends one dollar this year and charges Ms. Citizen a tax of one dollar to pay for the spending.

• Suppose the government spends one dollar this year and charges Ms. Citizen a tax of one dollar to pay for the spending.

• The dollar leaves Ms. Citizen’s purse, never to return.

• Saving decreases.

The government pays for its expenditures by borrowing one dollar.

• The government pays for its expenditures by borrowing one dollar.

• Ms. Citizen breathes a sigh of relief at not having to pay taxes.

• But she quickly realizes that next year the government will have to pay the borrowed money back with interest.

• As the interest rate is 10%, the government will need $1.10 next year.

• As it can’t keep incurring new debts to repay old debts, there will come a time when the government will have to raise taxes to repay its debts.

• Let’s say the government will be forced to raise taxes by $1.10 to repay the debt it incurred this year.

• Ms. Citizen sees the tax coming. She puts one dollar in her bank account today. That way she will have $1.10 in her account a year later, and that will be just enough to pay next year’s anticipated tax.

• Ms. Citizen’s initial relief at having escaped the tax this year is, therefore, replaced with the realization that even in this case a dollar has left her purse, never to return.

• Saving decreases.

Equivalence: Tax-financed government spending therefore has the same effect on Ms. Citizen as debt-financed government spending.

• Equivalence: Tax-financed government spending therefore has the same effect on Ms. Citizen as debt-financed government spending.

• Therefore, both the government and Ms. Citizen behave the same in the two regimes and the economic outcome is identical.

Ricardo’s analytical style was deductive.

• Ricardo’s analytical style was deductive.

• In deductive analysis, one first imagines a model economy (as it is usually much simpler to think about than an actual economy) and then figures out how that model economy would behave under alternative economic policies.

• If the model economy is essentially similar to actual economies, policies that are effective in the model economy will also be effective in actual economies.

• Ricardo’s analytical style is very modern in the sense that it is similar to the way an economic theorist today may think through a problem.