141 
their nominal price only.” Again, speaking of labour, he 
says, “ Its real price may be said to consist in the quantities 
of the necessaries and conveniences of life which are given 
for it ; its nominal price in the quantity of money.” Speak- 
ing of tanofible commodities, he observes, “ As a measure of 
quantity such as the natural foot, fathom, or handful, which 
is continually varying in its own quantity, can never be an 
accurate measure of the quantity of other things; so a com- 
modity which is itself continually varying in its own value, 
can never be an accurate measure of the value of other 
commodities.” And, once more, “ Labour, therefore, it 
appears evidently, is the only universal as well as the only 
accurate measure of value, or the only standard by which 
we can compare the values of different commodities at all 
times and at alJ places.” Writers who ought to have known 
better, have been guilty of injustice to the memory of our 
great economist, in confusing labour cost of production with 
labour value in exchange when reading the chapter of the 
Wealth of Nations in question. It is with the latter that 
Adam Smith deals in this chapter, as is quite evident when 
he says further that the value of anything, ‘‘ to those who 
possess it and who want to exchange it for some new 
production, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour 
which it can enable them to purchase or command.” In 
speaking of “ labour value ” in this paper I of course use the 
term in the same sense. 
In order to clear the ground, let it be said, that though 
labour varies in quality, yet all labour may, for the pur- 
poses of the argument, be reduced to a common term by 
regarding such variations of quality as variations of 
quantity. 
The only real standard of value, then, is labour. But 
labour in itself is not a tangible commodity which can be 
passed from hand to hand ; we cannot use it as currency or 
