«Mill is inconsistent, but admirably so, in defining produce (Sec 1)

Ruskin's representation of Mill's thinking

Mill actually uses “productive” in the context of capitalist investment and means only that productive labor contributes to further production. Mill does not truly mean that unproductive goods, such as silver plate, and the unproductive labor that yields unproductive good are without value. Ruskin, therefore, does not represent Mill accurately here. Ruskin's real interest, to which he moves quickly, is to make distinctions about the ultimate usefulness to society of what is produced. So, while a capitalist may not distinguish between ploughshares and bayonets, Ruskin certainly does. (see Fain, pages 135 and following.)

Sec 1 #2

Ruskin footnote 1—How he will cite Mill's Principles of Political Economy

Ruskin states that will be quoting from the first edition of Mill's Principles of Political Economy, published in two volumes by John W. Parker in 1848, and he will be citing passages by book number, chapter number, and section number, numbers such as these: I. iv. 1.

Book I. chap. iv. s. 1. To save space, my future references to Mr Mill's work will be by numerals only, as in this instance, I. iv. I. Ed. in 2 vols. 8vo. Parker, 1848.

“food is thus set free for productive purposes,”

This is one of many instances of Ruskin's use of satire (somewhat in the manner of Jonathan Swift

). If, as Ruskin imagines, the business owner dismisses some of his servants, the consequence, in their view, is not that their food is being set free for productive purposes.

Ruskin footnote 2—Ruskin modifies and again refutes Mill's argument

If Mr Mill had wished to show the difference in result between consumption and sale, he should have represented the hardware merchant as consuming his own goods instead of selling them; similarly, the silver merchant as consuming his own goods instead of welling them. Had he done this, he would have made his position clearer, though less tenable; and perhaps this was the position he really intended to take, tacitly involving his theory, elsewhere stated, and shown in the sequel of this paper to be false, that demand for commodities is not demand for labour. But by the most diligent scrutiny of the paragraph now under examination, I cannot determine whether it is a fallacy pure and simple, or the half of one fallacy supported by the whole of a greater one; so that I treat it here on the kinder assumption that it is one fallacy only.

Ruskin footnote 3—the cost of a bomb

In Ruskin's era, long before military aircraft, “bomb” means an explosive cannon shell, as in “bombard.”

I take Mr Helps' estimate in his essay on War.

Ruskin footnote 4—the value of silver vases and other kinds of produce

Also when the wrought silver vases of Spain were dashed to fragments by our custom-house officers, because bullion might be imported free of duty, but not brains, was the axe that broke them productive? —the artist who wrought them unproductive? Or again. If the woodman's axe is productive, is the executioner's? as also, if the hemp of a cable be productive, does not the productiveness of hemp in a halter depend on its moral more than on its material application?

Sec 1 #5

Ruskin footnote 5—the meaning of filigree

Filigree: that is to say, generally, ornament dependent on complexity, not on art.

«What then is "Value"? (Sec 2)

Overview

Ruskin is clearing the way for his definition of value by attacking the definitions offered by political economists, here Mill and Ricardo. Underlying Ruskin's complex argument against Mill is the idea that the concepts of value and wealth in orthodox political economy lack a moral dimension. Ruskin will insist on much broader and humanistic definitions of value and wealth.

Sec 2 #1

“Demos in the shape of Christopher Sly”

Ruskin is saying that political economists regard value as what is valued by average people (“demos”), which Ruskin here represents as the drunken peddler in Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew. Ruskin agrees that usefulness depends on what people value but, in contrast to orthodox political economy, he sees political economy as part of a larger societal endeavor that must create people who are sufficiently healthy and educated and who have sufficient leisure time enough to value and use the best things, the things that make for a noble, happy life. In brief, Ruskin's economics are deeply imbued with both a moral imperative and judgements about what makes for good and bad living. This position is fully expressed in Section 4. For valuable commentary, see Fain, p. 78.

Ruskin footnote 6—“the agreeableness of a thing” and the canceled essays

Ruskin is showing that economists focus too narrowly on wealth and don't consider how money is put to use. In addition, Ruskin names the three never-published essays that he needed to combine into this one because Cornhill Magazine terminated his series of essays.

These statements sound crude in their brevity; but will be found of the utmost importance when they are developed. Thus, in the above instance, economists have never perceived that disposition to buy is a wholly moral element in demand: that is to say, when you give a man half-a-crown, it depends on his disposition whether he is rich or poor with it—whether he will buy disease, ruin, and hatred, or buy health, advancement, and domestic love. And thus the agreeableness or exchange value of every offered commodity depends on production, not merely of the commodity, but of buyers of it; therefore on the education of buyers, and on all the moral elements by which their disposition to buy this, or that, is formed. I will illustrate and expand into final consequences every one of these definitions in its place: at present they can only be given with extremest brevity; for in order to put the subject at once in a connected form before the reader, I have thrown into one, the opening definitions of four chapters; namely, of that on Value (“Ad Valorem”); on Price (“Thirty Pieces”); on Production (“Demeter”); and on Economy (“The Law of the House”).

Sec 2 #2

“Therefore, moral conditions have nothing to do with human capacities and dispositions”

Ruskin's strategy is to show that the various components of Mill's thinking lead to this impossible statement and are therefore contradictory.

«David Ricardo’s political economy offers no way to understand value (Sec 3)

Note on this section

Ruskin's objection to Ricardo is that Ricardo's idea of value is narrow (quantity of labor) and is only loosely connected to utility. To Ruskin value is equivalent to utility, and both value and utility are measures of the betterment of human life. Also, value doesn't vary with demand. It is “independent of opinion and quantity.” See Fain, p. 46, and Yarker's edition of Unto This Last, p. 159.

Sec 3 #3

Ruskin footnote 7—Ruskin modifies and again refutes Ricardo's argument

Perhaps it may be said, in farther support of Mr Ricardo, that he meant, “when the utility is constant or given, the price varies as the quantity of labour.” If he meant this, he should have said it; but, had he meant it, he could have hardly missed the necessary result, that utility would be one measure of price (which he expressly denies it to be); and that, to prove saleableness, he had to prove a given quantity of utility, as well as a given quantity of labour: to wit, in his own instance, that the deer and fish would each feed the same number of men, for the same number of days, with equal pleasure to their palates. The fact is, he did not know what he meant himself. The general idea which he had derived from commercial experience, without being able to analyze it, was, that when the demand is constant, the price varies as the quantity of labour required for production; or, —using the formula I gave in last paper—when y is constant, x y varies as x. But demand never is, nor can be, ultimately constant, if x varies distinctly; for, as price rises, consumers fall away; and as soon as there is a monopoly (and all scarcity is a form of monopoly; so that every commodity is affected occasionally by some colour of monopoly), y becomes the most influential condition of the price. Thus the price of a painting depends less on its merits than on the interest taken in it by the public; the price of singing less on the labour of the singer than the number of persons who desire to hear him; and the price of gold less on the scarcity which affects it in common with cerium or iridium, than on the sunlight colour and unalterable purity by which it attracts the admiration and answers the trust of mankind.

It must be kept in mind, however, that I use the word “demand” in a somewhat different sense from economists usually. They mean by it “the quantity of a thing sold.” I mean by it “the force of the buyer's capable intention to buy.” In good English, a person's “demand” signifies, not what he gets, but what he asks for.

Economists also do not notice that objects are not valued by absolute bulk or weight, but by such bulk and weight as is necessary to bring them into use. They say, for instance, that water bears no price in the market. It is true that a cupful does not, but a lake does; just as a handful of dust does not, but an acre does. And were it possible to make even the possession of the cupful or handful permanent, (i.e. to find a place for them,) the earth and sea would be bought up for handfuls and cupfuls.

«Value is what enhances human life. It is inherent to each thing. (Sec 4)

Sec 4 #1

“valorem” . . . “valor”

Ruskin's little joke is that businessmen know “valorem” (the accusative form of the noun “valor”) as term pertaining to taxes. Therefore, they should know “valor” (the nominative form).

Sec 4 #2

“The value of a thing . . . is independent of opinion”

The value of a thing is independent of opinion. However, people need to develop the human capacity to be able to appreciate and make good use things of inherent value.

Sec 4 #3

“I will cause those that love me . . . ” (Proverbs 8:21)

“Madonna della Salute”

Santa Maria della Salute (Saint Mary of Health) is a church in Venice.

«What is wealth? (Sec 5)

Sec 5 #2

“Having”

With this whimsical, humorous, satiric discussion of the “possession” of valuables by dead people, Ruskin is opening up his very serious and central argument that wealth is not about possession but about the active and productive use of one's wealth.

Ruskin footnote 8—George Herbert on gold

Compare George Herbert, The Church Porch, Stanza 28. 

Ruskin's quotation from this seventeenth century religious poet is as follows:

Wealth is the conjurer's devil,
Whom when he thinks he hath, the devil hath him.
Gold thou mayst safely touch; but if it stick
Unto thy hands, it woundeth to the quick.

Sec 5 #3

Gladiator's death, on a “habet” . . . “quo plurimum posset.”

With these difficult allusions Ruskin emphasizes that wealth, truly understood, is not about possession but rather noble action. The main reference is to Livy's History of Rome, Book 7, Chapter 6.

Sec 5 #7

“wealth” and “illth”

This is Ruskin's striking and well-known distinction between true wealth and ”illth.” Illth may look like wealth, but it makes the world worse, not better.

«Understanding wealth and character (Sec 6)

Sec 6 #1

“More go to ruin fortunes, than to raise.”

Ruskin is quoting from Pope's Moral Essays, Epistle, III. Pope's idea is that very generous people often lose their fortunes.

Sec 6 #3–#4

“Persons who become rich / Persons who remain poor”

Ruskin is always willing to make sweeping generalizations such as these. His descriptors of those who become rich are a mixture of positive and negative traits but collectively provide a consistent picture of the kind of individual Ruskin has in mind. His descriptors of those who remain poor are much more diverse and contractory. Ruskin's point is that the best and worse of people remain poor.

Sec 6 #4

Ruskin's footnote 9—the entirely wise

Ruskin quotes line 582 and also lines 558-59 from Plutus by the Ancient Greek comedic playwright Aristophanes to make the point that poor people may indeed be wise. The theme of the play is the unfair distribution of wealth.

“ὁ Ζεύς δήπου πἑνεται.” -- Arist. Plut. 582. It would but weaken the grand words to lean on the preceding ones: —“ ὅτι του̑ Πλούτου παρέχω βελτίονας ἄνδραϛ, καὶ τήν γνώμης, καὶ τήν ἱδέαν.”

«The nature of Price, the value of exchange expressed by currency (Sec 7)

Price and Exchange

Sections 7 and 8 comprise a part of “Ad Valorem” that is devoted to Price and Exchange. (Keep in mind that the division into section has been done by the QuikScanner.) One of the essays Ruskin planned for Cornhill Magazine was about price and was titled “Thirty Pieces.” Ruskin's economic argument is that there can be no true profit and no creation of value, in exchange, only acquisition and advantage. True profit comes only from labor. This argument is wrong, but Ruskin's underlying motive is to establish that exchange (commerce) must be fair, not exploitive.

Again, while Ruskin's economics theory is wrong, we often recognize the difference between someone who becomes rich creating a genuinely useful product or innovation (e.g., Apple Computer's Steve Jobs) vs. someone whose riches comes from simply manipulating financial markets or by creating and selling products that are more nearly harmful than beneficial.

Sec 7 #4

“minuses . . . retire into back streets”

Ruskin, at his best, is a powerful writer indeed, and this passage is a savage and bitingly funny condemnation of predatory commerce and our acceptance of this situation. Notice that the red ink of debt implies blood and that the illegible ledgers of Political Economy signify starvation and death. A similar idea is expressed in Essay 2 (“The Veins of Wealth”), Section 1, #2. The losers of our economic system are hidden from view in the “dark streets.”

«Just and unjust exchange  (Sec 8)

Sec 8 #1–#3

The Science of Exchange

Ruskin's idea is that exchange as it is generally conceived is predatory and unjust. A transaction will be unjust either because one party has no choice (incapacity) or lacks information about the market value of what he is buying or selling—as in the case of the savage who sells a diamond for a needle and, indeed, a defective needle. Ruskin's further point is that the science of exchange differs from all other sciences in that it built upon ignorance and requires ignorance.

Sec 8 #3

“As a nail between stone joints”

This is another (supposed) quotation from the Old Testament's King Solomon, with whom Ruskin opens his third essay. The remainder of the paragraph (including footnote 10) consists of concatonated Biblical references

“As a nail between stone joints so doth sin stick fast between buying and selling.” Ecclesiasticus 27: 2 (Aporcrypha).

Ruskin footnote 10—Zecheriah. 5. 11.

He replied, “To the country of Babylonia to build a house for it. When the house is ready, the basket will be set there in its place.”

Sec 8 #5

“David in his counting the price of the water” (2 Samuel 23:15-16)

This is a complex Biblical allusion.

“Price . . . is the quantity of labor”

Ruskin in pointing out that in a negotiation between buyer and seller the buyer has a certain desire for the item and a certain means (currency) to purchase it, while the seller has a certain desire to keep the item but a certain need for currency. For Ruskin these desires and needs are all measured as a quantity of labor, as Ruskin set forth in Essay III, Sec 3 #2.

Sec 8 #6

“bargain of the Poor of the Flock”

Ruskin combines verses 4, 5, 11, and 12 from Zechariah 11. The general idea is to provide a religious perspective on the injustice of pricing and commerce.

«Labor (Sec 9)

Sec 9 #1

Ruskin footnote 11—origins of the term “Labour”

Labour which is entirely good of its kind, that is to say, effective, or efficient, the Greeks called "weighable," or ἄξιοϛ, translated usually "worthy," and because thus substantial and true, they called its price τιμή, the "honourable estimate" of it (honorarium): this word being founded on their conception of true labour as a divine thing, to be honoured with the kind of honour given to the gods; whereas the price of false labour, or of that which led away from life, was to be, not honour, but vengeance; for which they reserved another word, attributing the exaction of such price to a peculiar goddess, called Tisiphone, the "requiter (or quittance-taker) of death"; a person versed in the highest branches of arithmetic, and punctual in her habits; with whom accounts current have been opened also in modern days.

Sec 9 #1–#2

“labour is invariable”

Labor of good quality is in itself absolutely good. But Ruskin will later say that such labor can still be put to constructive or destructive uses.

Sec 9 #3

“upas tree”

These trees are poisonous.

“cheapness of labour”

When a great deal of labor is needed to achieve a certain result, finding cheap labor is the only way to make the work profitable. Thus, Ruskin says, the term “cheap labor” is used for results that require a reat deal of labor.

«Production, as the culmination of labor (Sec 10)

Sec 10 #1

“The last word which we have to define is ‘Production.’”

Although Ruskin announces he is now going to discuss production, his ideas on production emerge following his continued discussion of labor. Recall also that Ruskin opened this essay by challenging Mill's definition of “Produce” (production).

“labor may be . . . either constructive . . . or destructive”

Labor can be destructive in the conditions of the labor that produces something It can be destructive in distribution and consumption.

Ruskin footnote 12—nugatory (neither good nor bad) labor

Many of Ruskin's footnotes are lengthy digressions, but they frequently include interesting commentary, such as the anecodote Ruskin offers here about lack of cooperation.

The most accurately nugatory labour is, perhaps, that of which not enough is given to answer a purpose effectually, and which, therefore, has all to be done over again. Also, labour which fails of effect through non-co-operation. The curé of a little village near Bellinzona, to whom I had expressed wonder that the peasants allowed the Ticino to flood their fields, told me that they would not join to build an effectual embankment high up the valley, because everybody said “that would help his neighbours as much as himself.” So every proprietor built a bit of low embankment about his own field; and the Ticino, as soon as it had a mind, swept away and swallowed all up together.

Sec 10 #1

Ruskin footnote 13—Ruskin praises child-rearing

Observe, I say, rearing," not "begetting." The praise is in the seventh season, not in σπορητός, nor in φυταλία, but in ὀπώρα. It is strange that men always praise enthusiastically any person who, by a momentary exertion, saves a life; but praise very hesitatingly a person who, by exertion and self-denial prolonged through years, creates one. We give the crown "ob civem servatum"; -- why not "ob civem natum?" Born, I mean, to the full, in soul as well as body. England has oak enough, I think, for both chaplets. 

Sec 10 #3

Ruskin footnote 14—Mill on productive consumption

When Mr Mill speaks of productive consumption, he only means consumption which results in increase of capital, or material wealth. See I. iii. 4, and I. iii. 5.

«Capital (Sec 11)

Sec 11

Overview of Section 11

Capital is not one of the economic terms that Ruskin, at the beginning of this essay, said he was going to define. The structure of Unto This Last is not straightforward.

Ruskin explains that capital is good only when it furthers consumption and the right kind of consumption. Political economy must teach truly useful consumption. This is pateralistic in the sense that Ruskin assumes what people should want to buy. This part of “Ad Valorem” is an early statement about the need for consumption rather than excessive savings. As explained by Fain (Chapter IV), there is a line of influence from Ruskin to the radical economist John A. Hobson to John Maynard Keynes.

Sec 11 #2

“It never saw, nor conceived, such a thing as a tulip”

This is satiric commentary on the narrow and life-denying focus of political economy.

“glass bulbs . . . Prince Rupert's drops . . . gunpowder”

In a series of allusions, Ruskin moves quickly from tulip bulbs to Prince Ruperts drops, which were special glass bulbs that, as a form of amusement, would make tiny explostions and then disintegrate into glass power, and finally to war fought with gunpowder.

 “it is merely an advance from Tisiphone, on mortgage—not a profit by any means”

Tisiphone is one of the Furies in Greek mythology. Her specialty is revenge. Ruskin satirically depicts Tisiphone as a businesswoman loaning money to businessmen—but destined to demand a terrible repayment.

“Ixion . . . Demas . . . Geryon”

A series of references that show the barrenness and evil of capital (the money held by investors) put to bad use. Ixion is an especially evil mythological figure. Demas represents destructive greed in John Bunyon's allegorical narrative The Pilgram's Progress. In Dante's Inferno, Geryon is the Monster of Fraud.

Ruskin footnote 15—“l'aer a se raccolse”

So also in the vision of the women bearing the ephah, before quoted, “the wind was in their wings,” not wings “of a stork,” as in our version; but “milvi,” of a kite, in the Vulgate, or perhaps more accurately still in the Septuagint, “hoopoe,” a bird connected typically with the power of riches by many traditions, of which that of its petition for a crest of gold is perhaps the most interesting. The “Birds” of Aristophanes, in which its part is principal, are full of them; note especially the “fortification of the air with baked bricks, like Babylon,” I. 550; and, again, compare the Plutus of Dante, who (to show the influence of riches in destroying the reason) is the only one of the powers of the Inferno who cannot speak intelligibly and also the cowardliest; he is not merely quelled or restrained, but literally “collapses” at a word; the sudden and helpless operation of mercantile panic being all told in the brief metaphor, “as the sails, swollen with the wind, fall, when the mast breaks.” 

Sec 11 #4–#6

Ruskin's argument with Mill

Ruskin's quarrel with Mill is for specialists and is explained in Yarker and Wilmer. Ruskin makes his core position very clear at the beginning and end of his detailed argument: What matters is consumption. What matters is that the nation produce ample amounts of the kinds of goods that people really need and that will help them live good lives.

Sec 11 #5

Ruskin footnote 16—Raw material

The value of raw material, which has, indeed, to be deducted from the price of the labour, is not contemplated in the passages referred to, Mr. Mill having fallen into the mistake solely by pursuing the collateral results of the payment of wages to middlemen. He says" The consumer does not, with his own funds, pay the weaver for his day's work. "Pardon me; the consumer of the velvet pays the weaver with his own funds as much as he pays the gardener. He pays, probably, an intermediate ship-owner, velvet merchant, and shopman; pays carriage money, shop rent, damage money, time money, and care money; all these are above and beside the velvet price, (just as the wages of a head gardener would be above the grass price). but the velvet is as much produced by the consumer's capital, though he does not pay for it till six months after production, as the grass is produced by his capital, though he does not pay the man who mowed and rolled it on Monday, till Saturday afternoon. I do not know if Mr. Mill's conclusion, -- "the capital cannot be dispensed with, the purchasers can " (p. 98), has yet been reduced to practice in the City on any large scale.

Sec 11 #6

Ruskin footnote 17—Mill's hardware theory

Which, observe, is the precise opposite of the one under examination. The hardware theory required us to discharge our gardeners and engage manufacturers; the velvet theory requires us to discharge our manufacturers and engage gardeners.

Ruskin footnote 18—Unjust wars

It is one very awful form of the operation of wealth in Europe that it is entirely capitalists' wealth which supports unjust wars. Just wars do not need so much money to support them; for most of the men who wage such, wage them gratis; but for an unjust war, men's bodies and souls have both to be bought; and the best tools of war for them besides; which makes such war costly to the maximum; not to speak of the cost of base fear, and angry suspicion, between nations which have not grace nor honesty enough in all their multitudes to buy an hour's peace of mind with: as, at present, France and England, purchasing of each other ten millions sterling worth of consternation annually, (a remarkably light crop, half thorns and half aspen leaves, —sown, reaped, and granaried by the “science” of the modern political economist, teaching covetousness instead of truth.) And all unjust war being supportable, if not by pillage of the enemy, only by loans from capitalists, these loans are repaid by subsequent taxation of the people, who appear to have no will in the matter, the capitalists' will being the primary root of the war; but its real root is the covetousness of the whole nation, rendering it incapable of faith, frankness, or justice, and bringing about, therefore, in due time, his own separate loss and punishment to each person.

Sec 11 #7

“THERE IS NO WEALTH BUT LIFE”

This is the most important and most famous sentence in Unto This Last and Ruskin's best-known statement of social criticism. Ruskin goes on state what is true success for a nation and what is a truly successful human life.

Ruskin practiced what he preached. He spent the large fortune he inherited and the considerable income he derived from his writing and speaking on all kinds of philanthropic projects.

Ruskin footnote 19—Self-interest

“In all reasoning about prices, the proviso must be understood, ‘supposing all parties to take care of their own interest.’” —Mill, III. i. 5.

«The consideration of population growth (Sec 12)

Sec 12 #2

“people down to the same point of misery”

People down means to have more children and increase the population.

“speculations of political economists on the population question”

Robert Malthus (1766-1834) in An Essay on the Principle of Population, introduced the ideas that overpopulation must always cause eventual economic hardship and that greater numbers of children will prevent the poor from improving their condition.

Sec 12 #4

Ruskin footnote 20—Ruskin on socialism

James v. 4. Observe, in these statements I am not talking up, nor countenancing one whit, the common socialist idea of division of property; division of property is its destruction; and with it the destruction of all hope, all industry, and all justice: it is simply chaos a chaos towards which the believers in modern political economy are fast tending, and from which I am striving to save them. The rich man does not keep back meat from the poor by retaining his riches; but by basely using them. Riches are a form of strength; and a strong man does not injure others by keeping his strength, but by using it injuriously. The socialist, seeing a strong man oppress a weak one, cries out.— “Break the strong man's arms.” but I say, “Teach him to use them to better purpose.” The fortitude and intelligence which acquire riches are intended, by the Giver of both, not to scatter, nor to give away, but to employ those riches in the service of mankind; in other words, in the redemption of the erring and aid of the weak—that is to say, there is first to be the work to gain money; then the Sabbath of use for it—the Sabbath, whose law is, not to lose life, but to save. It is continually the fault or the folly of the poor that they are poor, as it is usually a child's fault if it falls into a pond, and a cripple's weakness that slips at a crossing; nevertheless, most passers—by would pull the child out, or help up the cripple. Put it at the worst, that all the poor of the world are but disobedient children, or careless cripples, and that all rich people are wise and strong, and you will see at once that neither is the socialist right in desiring to make everybody poor, powerless, and foolish as he is himself, nor the rich man right in leaving the children in the mire.

Sec 12 #4–#5

Ruskin's dramatic shifts in stance and style

Notice how Ruskin can shift from arguing economic theory in an analytical manner to speaking as an angry Biblical prophet. Ruskin's other voices include both the bitter satirist and the sly, even playful satirist. Also, passionate vision of people living well--on which he closes.

«Economists propose false remedies for over-population (Sec 13)

Sec 13 #2

Ricardo's “natural rate of wages”

Ricardo writes: “Labour, like all other things which are purchased and sold, and which may be increased or diminished in quantity, has its natural and its market price. The natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution.”

Ruskin is unfair to Ricardo. Ricardo is being conceptual and analytical and is not endorsing subsistence wages, and he allows that actual wages may at times be higher than the natural level and that the minimal acceptable living standard varies over time and from nation to nation. He certainly does not endorse that we “arrange their maintenance so as to kill them early.” But there is a callousness in Ricardo's phrasing that invites, I think, both callous attitudes toward workers on the part employers and, consequently, satiric attack by Ruskin. Ruskin's satire recalls Swift's Modest Proposal.

Now natural rate of wages is changed by possbility of transfer payments. If an employer pays minimim wage, the worker may need transfer payment to survive. Walmart.

13 #3–#4

Ruskin shows how Ricardo's formulation breaks down when applied to forms of work that are not directly productive.

Ruskin footnote 21—“The quantity of life”

The quantity of life is the same in both cases; but it is differently allotted.

«How we should live on the land (Sec 14)

Sec 14 #1

“Men can neither drink steam, nor eat stone”

Ruskin's first argument is that the world will always require fertile fields and woodlands, even if England chooses to destroy its own natural environment through industrialization. Ruskin fully grasps the modern idea that we will “live diminished lives” from a degraded natural environment.

Sec 14 #2–#3

“fear the too wide spread of . . . mechanical agriculture”

Ruskin's second argument is that even if England can feed itself through mechanical agriculture, a “wise population” will demand natural beauty: “the wild flower by the wayside.” In these passages Ruskin's writing shows us his magnificant eloquence without angry polemics or satire.

Sec 14 #4

Contentment with simple living

Ruskin has begun a shift from planet-level concerns about the environment and sustainability to a focus on individuals and families living lives of simplicity, hard work, and contentedness. Presumably this part of “Ad Valorem” incorporates material from Ruskin's planned essay “The Law of the House.”

«Let our consumption of goods be equitable and our lives be a force for good (Sec 15)

Sec 15 #3

Ruskin footnote 22—middlemen

The proper offices of middle-men, namely, overseers (or authoritative workmen), conveyancers (merchants, sailors, retail dealers, &c.), and order-takers (persons employed to receive directions from the consumer), must, of course, be examined before I can enter farther into the question of just payment of the first producer. But I have not spoken of them in these introductory papers, because the evils attendant on the abuse of such intermediate functions result not from any alleged principle of modern political economy, but from private carelessness or iniquity.

Sec 15 #4–#5p

“not be a luxurious one”

A modern-day formulation of this idea is “Live simply so that others may simply live.”

Sec 15 #6

“where the Wicked cease . . . .”

Job 3.17: “Where the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.”