Generalized ion and Economic Standards 13 



which belonor to him as an industrial being:. Both sets of 

 enquirers are seeking for the social traits of to-da}'. 



This paper is directed against a sort of economic criticism that 

 almost amounts to backsliding, to lack of economic faith, which 

 denies the argumentative validity of economic uniformities. 

 Especially in the central problem of value, there is no absolute 

 standard because no standard can be found that is not changed by 

 time. Curiously enough, it is also true that no standard can be 

 found that does not involve the assumption that time stands 

 still; the element of time must be eliminated in order that the 

 standard may assume an abstract reality. In mathematics, 

 this is the method of differentials. The error of the negative 

 or particularist school under discussion is twofold: mathemati- 

 cally, it denies the applicability of the method of differentials, 

 which allows us to vary the elements of demand, on the sup- 

 position that the element of time is stationar}'; relatively, it 

 draws an incorrect inference from the observed variation in 

 economic uniformities between different epochs. This variation 

 does not at all lead to the inference that there are no economic 

 uniformities; it rather confirms their actuality by laying stress 

 on their diversity. Since epochs are relative to each other, 

 and a uniformity called " value " is relative to each epoch, then 

 the standards of value of different epochs must be relative to 

 each other. This conclusion is the utmost that can be desired 

 in order to establish a positive standard of value. Establish 

 the standard for any epoch, and then establish the social varia- 

 tion for any other epoch, and you obtain at once the standard 

 for the new epoch. Thus the doctrine of the relativity of value, 

 instead of destroying itself, by proving the absence of positive 

 value, really proves the universal existence of such value. 



Destructive criticism asks us to believe that there can be no 

 value at any time that is more general than the separate ratios 

 of separate exchange transactions, and that values at different 

 times can at the utmost mean no more than is expressed by a 



175 



