FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112  
113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   >>   >|  
ery clearly indicates that the author maintained the objective theory, because if the just price were simply determined by what people were willing to give, this question could not have arisen. [Footnote 1: _Irish Theological Quarterly_, vol. x. p. 165.] Nor is the fact that the just price admitted of a certain elasticity an argument in favour of its being subjective. Father Kelleher fully admits that the common estimation was the general criterion of just price, and, of course, the common estimation could not, of its very nature, be rigid and immutable. Commodities should, indeed, exchange according to their objective value, but, even so, commodities could not carry their value stamped on their faces. Even if we assume that the standard of exchange was the cost of production, there would still remain room for a certain amount of difference of opinion as to what exactly their value would be in particular instances. Suppose that the commodity offered for sale was a suit of clothes, in estimating its value on the basis of the cost of production, opinions might differ as to the precise amount of time required for making it, or as to the cost of the cloth out of which it was made. Unless recourse was to be had to an almost interminable process of calculations, nobody could say authoritatively what precisely the value was, and in practice the determination of value had perforce to be left to the ordinary human estimate of what it was, which of its very nature was bound to admit a certain margin of fluctuation. Thus we can easily understand how, even with an objective standard of value, the just price might be admitted to vary within the limits of the maximum as it might be expected to be estimated by sellers and the minimum as it would appear just to buyers. The sort of estimation of which St. Thomas speaks is therefore nothing else than a judgment, which, being human, is liable to be slightly in excess or defect of the objective value about which it is formed.'[1] As Father Kelleher puts it on a later page, 'There is a sense certainly in which, with a solitary exception in the case of wages, it may be said with perfect truth that the common estimation determines the just price. That is, the common estimation is the proximate practical criterion.'[2] [Footnote 1: _Irish Theological Quarterly_, vol. x. p. 166.] [Footnote 2: P. 173.] Father Kelleher uses in support of his contention a very ingenious argument drawn f
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112  
113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

estimation

 

objective

 

common

 
Father
 

Kelleher

 
Footnote
 

production

 

exchange

 

criterion

 
standard

amount

 

nature

 

Quarterly

 

Theological

 

admitted

 

argument

 

maximum

 
expected
 
limits
 
estimated

practice

 

buyers

 
minimum
 

sellers

 

precisely

 

support

 

understand

 
perforce
 

determination

 

estimate


ordinary

 

ingenious

 

easily

 

fluctuation

 

margin

 

contention

 

authoritatively

 
formed
 

exception

 
solitary

perfect

 

determines

 

defect

 

speaks

 

Thomas

 

practical

 

slightly

 

excess

 

liable

 

judgment