One of the first to develop systematic principles of the doctrine of taxes was the English economist, the founder of classical political economy, William Petty. His most important work is “Treatise on Taxes and Fees”, published in 1662.

It makes an attempt to systematize all types of taxes and fees using the example of Ireland. Understanding that the size of the tax burden depends on the functions that the state undertakes, and, consequently, on the government expenditures necessary to carry them out, W. Petty analyzes the types of these expenditures, reveals the reasons that increase government expenditures and make them more burdensome for population.

So, the main items of government spending are:

• 1). Maintenance of rulers, chief and subordinates. This column can also include expenses for the administration of justice both in the affairs of private individuals, between the state, and society as a whole, as well as for correcting and punishing injustices and crimes that have already been committed, and for preventing them in the future.
• 2) Military expenses. They include expenses for the defense of the state on land and at sea, expenses for ensuring peace both within the country and outside it, as well as expenses for a worthy rebuff to insults from other states.
• 3) Expenditure on education: schools and universities in particular, since they teach more than reading, writing and arithmetic.
• 4) Expenses for the maintenance of clergy, which should not be made at the expense of the state. However, it is desirable to introduce funds into government spending to teach people the laws of God.
• 5) Expenses for water pipes, bridges, roads, navigable rivers, ports and other items necessary for the population.
• 6. Expenses for the maintenance of found and abandoned children, orphans, as well as all kinds of infirm people and, in addition, those who need to get a job.

William Petty saw the following reasons for increasing government spending.

• 1) W. Petty considered the general reason to be the reluctance of the population to pay government expenses, which stems from the belief that delay and resistance can get rid of them altogether, and from the suspicion that the taxation is too high, or that the collected amounts are embezzled or misused, or that they are unevenly collected and distributed. All this causes unnecessary expenses when collecting them and forces the sovereign to take harsh measures against his people.
• 2) Uncertainty and doubts regarding the right to tax.
• 3) Another reason that makes taxes more difficult is the compulsion to pay them in money at a certain time, and not in goods and in the most convenient seasons.
• 4) Lack of money and disorder in the coin business.
• 5) Small population, especially agricultural workers and artisans.
• 6) Ignorance of the number, wealth and trades of the inhabitants, which causes unnecessary costs of repeated collection and introduces anxiety with new additional taxes introduced to correct errors.
• 7) And, in particular: the reasons for the increase in military spending are the same as the reasons for the increase in war or the threat of war.

One of the reasons for government spending related to religion, in his opinion, is the unjustifiably large number of parishes. Reducing their number by half would save (assuming the average income of each parish to be only £100 per annum) £500,000

A reduction in spending on universities, which includes the few law schools, would mean a reduction in the number of people studying theology, law and medicine, and thereby a reduction in the use of these professions.

An important part of reducing government spending was considered by Petty to be a reduction in costs for positions related to administration and the court, that is, the abolition of everything superfluous, supernumerary and obsolete, as well as the reduction of wages to levels corresponding to the work, art and degree of trust required in each individual case. The resulting surplus must either be returned to the people who gave it to the king when the salary was only a fair remuneration for an official, or else the king, while still retaining it, was able to cover with it the appropriate amount of public expenses, and not spend it on satisfying meddlesome people. claims of individuals. It is desirable to reduce the numerous positions and salaries associated with government, court and church, as well as the number of clergy, lawyers, doctors, merchants and retailers, each receiving large salaries for performing insignificant work for society.

William Petty's arguments about controlling and limiting the number of students in individual faculties are interesting. So society does not need a huge number of specialists in any one field, but it is important that there are specialists in all fields and professions for the normal functioning of society.

It is worth noting that Petty identified items of government spending that need to be increased. The first of them is caring for the poor, which comes down to organizing shelters for the elderly, lame, blind and other cripples, hospitals for patients with chronic diseases, troubled patients, for orphans, found and abandoned children. “When all the helpless and infirm people are thus provided for, and the lazy and thieves are restrained and punished by the Minister of Justice, and certain permanent occupations are found for all other needy people, who, working according to the rules issued for them, will be able to demand a sufficient amount of food and clothes." “The work will be to make all highways so wide, strong and level that the expense and fatigue of travel and transport will thereby be greatly reduced; in deepening and clearing rivers and making them navigable; in planting useful trees in suitable places that provide timber and fruits; in the construction of bridges and dams; in the development of mines, quarries and coal mines; in iron smelting, etc.”

W. Petty's reasoning about how the reasons for taxpayer dissatisfaction can be mitigated is interesting. In these arguments one can see an attempt to formulate the principles of taxation. Thus, he wrote: “No matter how great the tax, if it falls on everyone proportionally, no one loses any wealth because of it. Moreover, since the money collected does not leave the country, the latter remains equally rich compared to other countries."

Thus, to alleviate taxpayer dissatisfaction, it is necessary that taxation be fair. “The thing that irritates people the most is being taxed higher than their neighbors.” Moreover, the taxation will be fair if, after paying the tax, “people will remain equally rich, whether their property is reduced by half or doubled, since everyone will retain their previous position, rank and title.”

The population believes that the sovereign demands more than he needs.

What irritates people the most is being taxed higher than their neighbors. To this I answer that these suspicions are in many cases incorrect, often it is an accident, which may turn out more favorably at the next taxation. If this is done deliberately, then it still cannot be assumed that this was the intention of the sovereign; rather, it is the result of the action of a temporary apportionment of taxes, who may in turn be punished at the next apportionment of the tax by the very person whom he has offended.

People become indignant at the thought that the collected money will be spent on entertainment, magnificent spectacles, triumphal arches, etc. To this I answer that such a waste means the return of this money to the industrial people engaged in the production of these things. Although these crafts seem useless and create only decorations, their workers immediately transfer the money received to people engaged in the most useful trades, namely: brewers, bakers, tailors, shoemakers, etc.

Ignorance of the size of the population, industries and wealth of the people is often the reason that the population suffers unnecessary worries, being subjected to double taxation and the inconvenience of two or many taxes where one could get by. Moreover, not knowing the wealth of the inhabitants, the sovereign remains in the dark about how much tax they can bear, and, not knowing the trades of the population, he cannot judge at what time of the year it is best for him to demand his share.

Ambiguities and doubts regarding the right to tax were the causes of large and reprehensible hostile actions on the part of the population and forced strictness on the part of the sovereign: an excellent example of this was the ship duty - no small cause of twenty years of disaster for the entire kingdom.

Lack of money is another reason for poor tax payment. For, considering that of the whole wealth of the country, that is, lands, houses, ships, goods, household furnishings, precious metals and money, coin constitutes scarcely a hundredth part, and that at present there are in England no more than 6 million. pounds sterling, which is 20 shillings per capita, one can easily understand how difficult it is for people of great wealth to pay a certain amount of money at once. If they fail to pay it, strict measures and fines follow, quite rightly imposed, although, undoubtedly, it would be easier for an individual to suffer damage together with everyone than for one.

If taxes are actually spent on our own domestic commodities, they do little harm to the population at large,—they only effect changes in the Wealth and Fortunes of individuals; in particular, they transfer them from landowners and lazy people to knowledgeable, active people. Further in his work, Petty gives the following example: if, for example, a nobleman leased his land for 100 pounds sterling a year for several years or several generations and would be subject to a tax going to the maintenance of the fleet in the amount of 20 pounds sterling a year, then the result of this will be that £20 of this nobleman will be annually distributed among sailors, ship carpenters and other trades pertaining to maritime affairs. But if a nobleman retains the land in his own hands, he, being taxed at the rate of one-fifth of his income, will increase in approximately the same proportion the rent received from his tenants, or will sell his cattle, grain, and wool at one-fifth more; all other persons dependent on him will do the same and thereby return to some extent what he paid.

W. Petty wrote the following about different methods of collecting taxes.

Let us suppose that the various kinds of public expenditure are reduced as much as possible, and that the inhabitants are fully satisfied and willing to pay their fair share of what is necessary for the government and protection of them, and for the maintenance of the dignity of their sovereign and country. It is now proper to show the various ways and means by which these taxes can be most easily, quickly and painlessly collected.

Suppose a certain number of people living in a certain area have been calculated to require £2 million a year to cover government expenditure. Or, approaching the matter even more wisely, they calculated that the twenty-fifth part of the income of all land and labor should be Exicisin, or that part which should be allocated and used to meet the needs of the state. This share probably corresponds quite closely to what we have in England.

Now the question is how to collect this share, calculated in one way or another. The first way is to allocate the land itself in kind, that is, to allocate from all 25 million acres available, as they say in England and Wales, so much land in specie (in kind) that the maximum rent from it reaches £2 million; this would amount to about 4 million acres, or about a sixth of the total land area. These 4 million acres should be turned into crown land. Or allocate a sixth of the rent from all lands as a tax. Of these two methods, the second is clearly the better, for it more accurately secures the income of the king, who in this case has to deal with a large number of defendants, unless the difficulties and expenses of collecting this universal tax greatly outweigh its other advantages.

This method would be good in a new state, provided it was adopted, as was the case in Ireland, before people ever took possession of land. And therefore, whoever after this buys lands in Ireland, the compensation rents with which they are burdened affect him as little as if the number of acres were correspondingly smaller; The same thing happens here as with people who know that when buying land they have to pay tithes. And, indeed, happy is that country in which, by original agreement, such an annuity is established as a reserve, from which public expenses can be covered without unforeseen and sudden additions, in which lies the true Ratio (reason) of the severity of all fees and penalties. For in such cases, as was said before, not only the owner of the land pays, but also everyone who eats even one egg or onion obtained from his land, or who uses the services of any artisan who feeds from the same land.

But if this measure were proposed to be carried out in England, that is, if each landowner were to withhold or cut off a certain share from the rent, then those landowners whose rents are fixed and determined for many years in advance would mainly bear the burden such taxation, and others would benefit from it.

Another method is an Excisium (deduction) from the rent of households, which is much more uncertain than the rent of land. For the house has a dual nature; It’s one thing when it is a way and means of producing expenses, and another thing when it is a tool or instrument for generating income. After all, a shop in London, which is smaller in size and costs less to build than a magnificent dining room located in the same house, will nevertheless have a greater value; the same applies to a basement or cellar compared to a luxuriously decorated room; after all, in one case we are dealing with expense, and in the other with profit. The imposition of a land tax on houses seems to come from the nature of the latter, while the imposition of an excise tax on them comes from the nature of the former.

The relevance of the research topic is determined as follows. Again and again we turn to the classics of economic science, to the works of W. Petit, A. Smith, D. Riccardo precisely because their ideas and conclusions do not undergo changes over time and remain an unshakable basis for making practical decisions, justifying economic policy, with the difficulty of the classical school political economy begins as a science. It was the classics who made, and quite successfully, an attempt to present all the diversity of the economic world as a single whole. The formation of the classical school began with William Petit, who is called the founder of statistics, a man who fragmentarily expressed many interesting thoughts and conclusions, opening the way to the creation of economic theory, economic science. W. Petty (1623–1687), an English economist, founder of the classical school of political economy, belongs to that galaxy of economists without whom it is impossible to imagine the existence and development of a free economy. Petty laid the foundations of the theory of labor value, the analysis of money circulation (forming, in particular, its dependence on the size of the commodity mass), economically substantiated land and money rent and developed the rudiments of differentiated rent.

The purpose of the work is to analyze the theoretical provisions of the economic views of W. Petty as the founder of classical English political economics, taking into account modern views.

Job Research Objectives:

– explore the role of William Petit as the founder of English classical political economy in the development of economic theory as a science;

– analysis of William Petit’s theoretical contribution to classical political economy.

The object of the study is the theoretical principles of the economic views of the English classical economist W. Petty.

The methodological basis is the use of historical-analytical research method.

The theoretical basis of the study is the work of such authors as Agapova I.I., Bartenev S.A., Zhid Sh., Clark K., Marks K., Markova A.N., Mil J.S., Petti V., Rist Sh ., Slutsky E.K., Straus E., Studensky P., Chuprov A.A.A., Schumpeter J., Hill K. Khudokormova A.G. and etc.

Let us cite the opinion of Bartenev S.A. : “Now Petty’s political views, his social and scientific activities, and connections with the greatest scientists of the era have become clearer. Many details of his life became known. Great people do not need to paint over their portraits, to cover up their vices and shortcomings. This fully applies to William Petty. In the history of human culture, he will remain not as a large Irish landowner and a clever (although not always successful) courtier, but as a brave thinker who opened new paths in the science of society" 1 .

Petty's historical role lies primarily in the fact that he pioneered the direction from which English classical political economy emerged. Modern bourgeois economists, while recognizing Petty as a great scientist and a bright personality, often deny him the role of a predecessor of Smith, Ricardo and Marx. Petty’s place in science is often limited only to the creation of the foundations of the statistical and economic method of research.”

Schumpeter argues that Petty does not have a labor theory of value (or the concept of value in general), there is no significant theory of wages, and therefore there can be no hint of an understanding of surplus value. He allegedly owes his reputation only to “Marx’s decree, by which Petty was declared the founder of economic science,” as well as to the enthusiasm of some bourgeois scientists who, as Schumpeter hints, did not, so to speak, guess whose mill they were grist to.

1.1. At the very origins of economic science

At the origins of economic science were outstanding thinkers who left an indelible mark on the culture of mankind. An honorable place among them is occupied by the English scientist William (William) Petty (1623-1687).

William Petty was only fully open to science by Marx. Only Marx, having illuminated the entire history of political economy in a new way with his materialist and class analysis, showed the true place that the brilliant Englishman occupies in it. Petty is the founder of bourgeois classical political economy, which moved on to the analysis of the internal laws of the capitalist mode of production, to the search for the law of its movement.

Marx was greatly attracted by this bright and unique personality. “Petty feels like the founder of a new science...”, “His brilliant courage...”, “All of Petty’s works are imbued with original humor...”, “Petty’s delusion itself is brilliant...”, “A real masterpiece in content and form” - these are assessments from different works Marx give an idea of ​​his attitude towards “the most brilliant and original economic researcher” 1 .

Petty's role in science is defined first
all that
that he was the founder of English classical political economy, the flowering of which is associated with the names of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who lived almost a century and a half after Petty. Classical political economy was bourgeois, openly defending the interests of its class. But in the era when the classics worked, the bourgeoisie still fought against the feudal lords and, to a certain extent, represented the interests of the entire people in this struggle. This allowed classical political economy, although it was limited by the bourgeois horizon, to explore the laws of the capitalist mode of production with great scientific depth and objectivity. The classics viewed the national economy as a complex system in which objective laws operate, and these laws can be cognized by man. English political economy was, along with German philosophy and French utopian socialism, one of the sources of Marxism.

William Petty pioneered the use of quantitative methods in economic research and should be considered one of the founders of statistical science and economic statistics. He owned the first experiments in the field of calculating national income and wealth. Petty's constant interest was population; he is also one of the founders of demographic science. Many of his works paved the way for the rapprochement of the social sciences with the natural sciences, in which he showed great interest.

The works of the English scientist remain important today. This explains the close attention paid to him by Marxist researchers. K. Marx and F. Engels highly valued Petty's services in the development of political economy and related social sciences. In many of K. Marx’s works one can find vivid and deep characteristics of Petty as a scientist and a person, indicating his constant interest in this “most brilliant and original economic researcher.”

In the 17th century England stood out among other countries for its relatively high level of development of capitalism. The bourgeois revolution of the mid-17th century gave a powerful impetus to economic and social development. These events largely determined Petty's views,
and him
activity. The revolution ended with a class compromise between the bourgeoisie and the nobility, providing the former with the conditions for further accumulation of wealth.

Economic and political conditions of the second half of the 17th century contributed to the development of science and
her
technical applications. A genuine scientific revolution was taking place in physics and mathematics, associated with the names of Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke and other major scientists. William Petty, in the words of K. Marx, “the father of political economy and in some way the inventor of statistics” 1 belonged to this circle of people.

Petty was a son of his time. Coming from a family of artisans and becoming a modest intellectual, he subsequently achieved wealth and a noble title, using not very clean methods for this. But the large Irish landowner and courtier of King Charles II retained his passion for scientific research, personal independence and civic courage. Petty's views reflected another important feature of classical political economy - political liberalism, the struggle for democracy.

Petty's economic works, of course, did not appear out of nowhere. They are closely related to the economic thought and politics of the previous time, when mercantilism was the dominant doctrine. Petty, while still remaining a mercantilist in many respects, at the same time paved new paths leading to the classical school. He is one of the founders of the labor theory of value. Considering the categories of rent, interest, and wages, he took the first steps towards understanding the nature of surplus value. Petty expressed remarkable thoughts in the theory of money. There is a lot of interesting information in his works on issues of economic policy of the state.

Acting as a bold innovator, with his “political arithmetic” he created the prototype of economic statistics and for the first time tried to analyze economic and social processes with numbers in his hands. He was one of the first to come close to understanding that the law of large numbers is applicable to demographic processes, that they are subject to certain patterns, and the larger the statistical population, the more strictly these patterns are observed. The significance of Petty’s “political arithmetic,” however, goes beyond these limits: it essentially represents the first historical form in which political economy is isolated as an independent science.

The reader will find an analysis of Petty's scientific achievements from the point of view of modern science below. The book ends with a consideration of Petty's influence on the subsequent development of science and a review of the literature about him, starting with his contemporaries and ending with the latest works that are being created both in the West and in socialist countries. Western scholars often distort and downplay the significance of Petty's ideas in political economy.

1.2. “Political Arithmetic” by W. Petty

William Petty is called the founder of statistics, a man who expressed many interesting thoughts and conclusions in fragments, opening the way to the creation of economic theory, economic science.

All of Petty's works are concise, divided into chapters and separate, numbered paragraphs. For example, in ch. 1 of "Political Arithmetic" it is proved that a small country with a small population, by virtue of its position, its trade and politics, can be equivalent in wealth and power to a country with a much larger population and territory, and that favorable conditions for navigation and water transport contribute to this in the most excellent and in a decisive manner. It is from his book “Political Arithmetic”, written in the 70s of the 17th century. And published posthumously in 1690. Explaining his approach, Petty wrote: “... instead of using only comparatives and superlatives and speculative arguments, I took the path of expressing my opinions in the language of numbers, weights and measures... using only arguments , coming from sensory experience, and considering only causes that have visible foundations in nature” 1.

The Treatise on Taxes and Fees provides comments on almost every paragraph. For example, “Enumeration and description of various items of government expenditure”, “Arguments against spoiling money”, “Inconveniences of collecting money by collecting duties”, “Method of calculating and comparing prices of goods on a natural basis” are given.

Petty is primarily attracted to calculations, numbers, and statistical comparisons. Speaking about the method of his analysis, he notes that he did not resort to “speculative arguments,” but “took the path of expressing his opinions in the language of numbers, weights and measures,” and considered “reasons that have a visible basis in nature” 2 .

Positions and conclusions expressed through numbers are sometimes not so precise, but in any case “can be used as guesses, showing the way to the knowledge that I strive for” 3, Petty wrote in his treatise. And the path to knowledge of “political anatomy” or “political arithmetic,” according to Petty, will determine the true situation of population, land, capital, and trade. He was not interested in the external manifestation, but in the essence of economic processes; he tried to “explain the mysterious nature” of taxes and their consequences, money rent, land rent, money, and the sources of wealth.

Petty calculates that the amount of money in England does not exceed three percent of the total wealth of the country. National wealth is mainly land and other property: houses, buildings, buildings, vehicles, livestock, household property, supplies. According to Petty's calculations, the national wealth of England at that time was about 250 million pounds sterling. “The accurate knowledge of sovereigns about the property of their subjects will not bring any harm to the latter” 1.

In his Treatise on Taxation, Petty concludes that “there is a certain measure or proportion of money necessary for the carrying on of the commerce of a country.” Excess or lack of money against this measure will harm it. A decrease in the metallic content of money cannot be a source of wealth.

200 years later, Karl Marx wrote about the Treatise: “In the work we are considering, Petty essentially determines the value of goods by the comparative amount of labor contained in them” 2 . In turn, “the definition of surplus value also depends on the definition of value.” These words of Marx express in the most concise form the essence of the scientific achievement of the English thinker. It is interesting to follow the course of his reasoning. With the keen instinct of a man of the new, bourgeois era, he immediately, in essence, raises the question of surplus value: “... we must try to explain the mysterious nature of both monetary rent, called interest, and rent from lands and houses.” In the 17th century land is the main object of application of human labor. Therefore, for William Petty, surplus value appears in the form of land rent, in which industrial profit is also hidden. He also withdraws interest from the rent. Trading profits are of little interest to Petty, which sharply distinguishes him from the crowd of mercantilist contemporaries. The expression about the mysterious nature of rent is also noteworthy. Petty feels that he is facing a big scientific problem, that the appearance of a phenomenon here differs from the essence.

Next comes the invariably quoted passage. Suppose that someone (this someone will later be the hero not only of arithmetic problem books, but also of economic treatises!) is engaged in the production of grain. Part of the produced
them
the product will again be used for seeds, part will be spent on satisfying one’s own needs (including through exchange), and “the remainder of the grain constitutes natural and true land rent” 1 . Here it is planned to divide the product and its value into three main parts: 1) the part representing compensation for the spent means of production, in this case seeds; 2) the part necessary to support the life of the worker and his family, and 3) the surplus, or net income. This last part corresponds to the concepts of surplus product and surplus value introduced by Marx.

It is curious that among the costs of means of production, Petty omits other costs besides seeds: manure, wear and tear of a horse, plow, sickle, etc. These costs are not offset by grain in kind (which is why Petty may not include them), but must be offset by value. Let's say in 10 years a plowman needs a new horse. From each year's harvest he must retain some portion of the value for the subsequent purchase of that horse.

Note also that here we are talking about production without hired labor. This can be partly explained by the fact that Petty strives to make his “model” as simple and visual as possible. But what is most certain is that simple commodity production (on one’s own land, with one’s own tools and without hiring workers) was of great importance in his times, prevailing over a capitalistically organized economy.

Next, Petty poses the question: “... how much English money can this bread or this rent be equal in value? I answer: the amount of money that someone else acquires in the same amount of time, after deducting his costs of production, if he devotes himself entirely to the production of money, that is, suppose that someone else goes to the country of silver, mining this metal there , cleans it, delivers it to the place of production of bread first, mints coins from this silver, etc. Let us further assume that this individual, during the time that he devotes to the production of silver, also acquires the means necessary for his food, clothing etc. Then the silver of one must be equal in value to the bread of another; if there are, for example, 20 ounces of the former, and 20 bushels of the latter, then an ounce of silver will represent the price of a bushel of bread."

It is obvious that equalizing the value of parts of grain and silver, which represent a surplus product, is equivalent to equalizing the entire gross product. After all, these last 20 bushels of grain are no different from the remaining, say, 30 bushels, which replace the seeds and constitute the subsistence of the farmer. The same applies to the 20 ounces of silver discussed above. Elsewhere Petty expresses the idea of ​​labor value in its purest form: “If any one can extract from the soil of Peru and bring to London one ounce of silver at the same time in which he is able to produce one bushel of corn, then the first represents the natural price of another..." 2.

So, Petty essentially formulates the law of value. He understands that this law operates in an extremely complex way, only as a general tendency. This is expressed in the following truly amazing phrases: “I maintain that this is precisely the basis for comparing and contrasting values. But I recognize that the superstructure that develops on this basis is very diverse and complex.”

Between exchange value, the value of which is determined by labor costs, and the real market price, there are many intermediate links that immensely complicate the pricing process. With extraordinary insight, Petty names some price-forming factors that modern economists and planners have to reckon with: the influence of substitute goods, new goods, fashions, imitation, and consumption traditions.

Petty takes the first steps towards analyzing the labor itself that creates value. After all, each specific type of labor creates only a specific benefit, use value: the labor of a farmer - grain, the labor of a weaver - linen, etc. But in any type of labor there is something common that makes all types of labor comparable, and these benefits - goods, exchange values: the expenditure of working time as such, the expenditure of the worker’s productive energy in general.

Petty was the first in the history of economic science to pave the way for the idea of ​​abstract labor, which formed the basis of Marx's theory of value.

It would be strange to look for some kind of coherent and complete economic theory from the founder and discoverer. Entangled in mercantilist ideas, he still cannot get rid of the illusion that labor in the extraction of precious metals is still some kind of special labor that most directly creates value. Petty cannot separate exchange value, which is most clearly embodied in these metals, from the very substance of value - the costs of universal human abstract labor. He does not have any clear concept that the value of value is determined by the costs of socially necessary labor, typical and average for a given level of economic development. Labor costs that exceed socially necessary costs are wasted and do not create value. From the point of view of the subsequent development of science, much of Petty’s work can be considered weak and downright erroneous. But is this the main thing? The main thing is that Petty stands firmly on his chosen position - the labor theory of value - and successfully applies it to many specific problems.

We have already seen how he understood the nature of surplus product. But there we were talking about a simple commodity producer who himself appropriates the surplus product he produces. Petty could not help but see that in his time a significant part of production was already carried out on capitalist principles, using hired labor. He had to come to the conclusion that the surplus product is produced not only and not so much for himself, but for the owners of land and capital. The fact that he came to this idea is evidenced by his considerations about wages. A worker's wages are determined and should be determined, in his opinion, only by the necessary minimum means of subsistence. He should receive no more than is necessary “to live, work and reproduce.” Petty understands at the same time that the value created by the labor of this worker is a completely different value, and, as a rule, much greater. This difference is the source of surplus value, which appears in the form of rent.

Although in an undeveloped form, Petty expressed the basic scientific position of classical political economy: in the price of a commodity, which is ultimately determined by labor costs, wages and surplus value (rent, profit, interest) are inversely related. An increase in wages at the same level of production can only occur at the expense of surplus value, and vice versa. From here it is one step to recognizing the fundamental opposition between the class interests of workers, on the one hand, and landowners and capitalists, on the other. This is the last conclusion that classical political economy, represented by Ricardo, will make. Petty comes closest to this view, perhaps, not in the Treatise, but in the famous “Political Arithmetic” written in the 70s, although even there this idea is only in embryo.

But in general, his passion for political arithmetic somehow prevented Petty from deepening his economic theory and understanding of the fundamental laws of the capitalist economy. Many of the brilliant conjectures of the Treatise remained undeveloped. Numbers now fascinated him; they seemed to be the key to everything. There is also a characteristic phrase in the Treatise: “The first thing that needs to be done is to count...” 1 It becomes Petty’s motto, some kind of spell: you need to count, and everything will become clear. The creators of statistics suffered from a somewhat naive belief in their power.

Of course, the content of Petty's main economic works is not limited to what has been said. It's much richer. The sum of his ideas is the worldview of the progressive bourgeoisie. Petty for the first time examines capitalist production itself and evaluates economic phenomena from the point of view of production. This is his decisive advantage over the mercantilists. Hence his critical attitude towards the unproductive sections of the population, of which he especially singles out priests, lawyers, and officials. He believes that it would be possible to significantly reduce the number of merchants and shopkeepers, who also “do not deliver any product.” This tradition of critical attitude towards unproductive groups of the population will become the flesh and blood of classical political economy.

Petty had a stormy, adventurous biography. He was an experienced doctor, land surveyor, cartographer; enriched himself by buying up and speculating in land plots; became a courtier and wrote scientific treatises.

In his works, he examined what factors are involved in the production of products and the creation of wealth. Petty identifies four factors. The first two - land and labor - are basic: “labor is the father of wealth, nature is its mother.” He believes that “the assessment of all objects should be reduced to two natural denominators: land and labor, i.e. we should say: the value of a ship or a frock coat is equal to the value of such and such an amount of land, such and such an amount of labor, because both - the ship and the frock coat - were produced by land and human labor.”
1 .

The other two factors involved in creating a product are not the main ones. These are the qualifications, skill of the worker and the means of his labor - tools, supplies and materials. They make work productive. But both of these factors cannot exist independently, i.e. without labor and land.

Thus, Petty considered two measures of value - labor and land. In practice, he proceeded from the fact that in any type of labor there is something in common that allows all types of labor to be compared with each other.

Petty expressed a number of theses that contain the starting points of the theory of value. Money has value. The amount of money that can be received for a product determines its value. They are determined not directly through labor costs, but indirectly through the costs of producing money (silver and gold) offered by given products. It is not all labor that creates value, but that which is spent on the production of silver. An ounce of silver represents the natural price of one bushel of corn. In one case, money is a measure of value; in another, it represents “the lubricating oil of the body of state.” Petty could not yet distinguish between use value and exchange value. 1

Of course, there is no reason to belittle the role of the author of Political Arithmetic, who substantiated the initial provisions of statistics and formulated a number of initial provisions of the classical school. And yet it should be borne in mind that he did not yet have a logically thought-out relationship between individual brilliant guesses, correct observations, and original conclusions. Sometimes theoretical considerations were literally interspersed with a collection of practical recommendations.

2. HISTORICAL ROLE OF W. PETTY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN ECONOMIC THOUGHT

Petty's historical role lies primarily in the fact that he pioneered the direction from which English classical political economy emerged. Modern bourgeois economists, while recognizing Petty as a great scientist and a bright personality, often deny him the role of a predecessor of Smith, Ricardo and Marx. Petty's place in science is often limited to creating the foundations of the statistical and economic method of research.

In the second half of the 19th century. interest in Petty's works and personality increased noticeably. The high assessment given to his ideas by K. Marx contributed to this to a certain extent.

Only Marx, having illuminated the entire history of political economy in a new way with his materialist and class analysis, showed the true place that the brilliant Englishman occupies in it. Petty is the founder of bourgeois classical political economy, which moved on to the analysis of the internal laws of the capitalist mode of production, to the search for the law of its movement. Marx was greatly attracted by this bright and unique personality. “Petty feels like the founder of a new science...”, “His brilliant courage...”, “All of Petty’s works are imbued with original humor...”, “Petty’s delusion itself is brilliant...”, “A real masterpiece in content and form” 1 - these are assessments from different Marx’s works give an idea of ​​his attitude towards “the most brilliant and original researcher.” Economic-Marxists and modern bourgeois authors approach Petty differently. For us, he is, first of all, the founder of a scientific movement, which became one of the sources of Marxism. Bourgeois economists, while recognizing Petty as a great scientist and a bright personality, often deny him the role of a predecessor of Smith, Ricardo and Marx. Petty's place in science is often limited to creating the foundations of the statistical and economic method of research.

In a whole series of works by bourgeois scientists, Petty is considered only as one of the representatives of mercantilism, perhaps one of the most talented and advanced, but nothing more. In extreme cases, in addition to the discovery of the statistical method, he is given credit for the interpretation of private economic problems and issues of economic policy: taxation, customs duties. It cannot be said that this point of view absolutely dominates in modern bourgeois science. Other views are also expressed. Petty's role in economics and his connections with Smith, Ricardo and Marx are placed in a more correct historical perspective. However, the leading position is that of Schumpeter.

An important role in the study of Petty's literary heritage was played by the two-volume publication of his economic works by C. G. Hull in 1899. In an extensive introduction to this volume, Hull provided a wide-ranging analysis of Petty's ideas and achievements. In particular, he was responsible for the solution to the “Petty-Grunt problem,” which was basically accepted by modern authors. At the same time, Hull, being under the influence of contemporary bourgeois political economy, which abandoned the principles of the classical school, indirectly opposed K. Marx, arguing that in the theory of value Petty did not stand out in any serious way from among his contemporary authors, but in the theory of distribution and income there is no need to talk about his serious contribution.

This position largely predetermined the attitude towards Petty’s ideas among scientists of the 20th century. His merits are usually recognized (often with reservations) as one of the founders of statistical and demographic science, as well as in the development of certain, including applied, issues of economic science, especially taxes. At the same time, Petty's ideas in the theory of political economy are denied originality or scientific value.

The most characteristic and authoritative in this sense is the position of I. Schumpeter (1883-1950) in his famous work on the history of economic thought (1954). He highly appreciated Petty's political arithmetic as a prototype of many areas of statistics, in particular those developed in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century. system of national accounts, and noted: “It was an inspiring idea, a promising program, which withered in the wooden hands of a Scottish professor (Adam Smith) and was practically lost to economists for 250 years” 1.

As for Petty’s reputation as an outstanding economic theorist, Schumpeter believed that it owed largely to “Marx’s decree, by which Petty was declared the founder of economic science,” as well as to the admiration of some German scientists, who, however, were guided by completely different principles, than Marx, and interpreted Petty’s contribution differently 2 . According to Schumpeter, in Petty's writings, “contrary to the Marxist position, there is no theory of wages and no exploitation-based theory of surplus value or rent...”. The famous example of the production of bread and silver supposedly has nothing to do with the theory of value. He denies originality to Petty's views on money and interest rates.

The monograph by the Swiss author S. Kunis, specially dedicated to Petty’s theory of value and price 3, deserves the attention of specialists. This work contains an extensive and conscientiously compiled bibliography of works on Petty in Western European languages ​​and an analysis of the views of previous researchers.

Petty occupies a place of honor in works devoted to early English economic thought. Let us note two books of this kind - E. A. Johnson (1937) and W. Letwin (1963). The first notes that Petty's thinking was predominantly influenced by three thinkers of the 17th century: Harvey, who discovered blood circulation, Hobbes and Bacon. Johnson is far from Marx's assessment of Petty's work (he doesn't even mention it), but he gives a balanced analysis of all the main elements of Petty's views - both economic theory and the statistical-demographic part.

Letwin's approach is closer to Schumpeter's interpretation of Petty's economic ideas. Letwin largely ignores his theory of value and income, emphasizing Petty's development of the tax problem as well as political arithmetic. And in this area, he notes that Petty was far from creating the mathematical foundations of the theory of statistics, that his belief in the omnipotence of statistics and the possibility of its direct use for political decisions was naive: it was “the childhood dream of social science” 1 . Nevertheless, Letvin calls the Treatise on Taxes and Fees an exemplary economic work of the 17th century. and notes its great importance in the development of science.

Authors, less constrained by the “official” economic dogma, boldly emphasize the depth and versatility of Petty’s ideas, their significance within his era and in the subsequent period. In what is considered a classic work, The Intellectual Sources of the English Revolution, the progressive historian C. Hill devotes considerable space to Petty. He emphasizes the importance of the revolutionary era for the formation of Petty's ideas, which were an important element in what was happening in the second half of the 17th century. scientific revolution in England. Hill rightly points to Petty’s merits in establishing the methodological principles of classical political economy, especially that in social life, as in nature, objective “natural” laws operate. He also writes: “Marx, that Bacon of sociology, had many reasons to call Petty the father of English political economy” 2.

A large biographical book belongs to E. Strauss and has the characteristic title “Sir William Petty, Portrait of a Genius” (1954). It pays tribute to the brightness and originality of Petty's personality and his contribution to science. Strause notes that Petty can be considered one of the first “futurists”, since he sought to base his vision of the future not on utopia, but on scientific facts, on the extrapolation of certain trends in social development. With good reason, Strause writes: “Petty's lasting reputation rests primarily on his role as a pioneer in economics and, above all, on his formulation of the labor theory of value and its creative application to solve economic problems. The intellectual processes through which he arrived at his results portray him as a thinker of great power and originality and as an outstanding exponent of the scientific revolution of the 17th century, his contribution being the application of quantitative methods to social and economic phenomena."

Strauss's observations regarding the socio-ethical aspects of Petty's views are interesting. He compares him for his sobriety, realism and lack of any sentimentality regarding the difficult living conditions of the working masses with Ricardo. By advocating for the relief of these conditions on the grounds of economic efficiency, he thereby reveals himself to be a true humanist. Petty was perhaps the first social thinker to propose a positive government program to combat unemployment and its consequences, which included public works and benefits for the unemployed. The depth of thought of the English scientist is also manifested in the fact that he quite clearly saw the social nature of crime.

An important contribution to the study of Petty's views and scientific heritage was made by the Japanese scientist Sh. Matsukawa. His main work on Petty exists, as far as we know, only in Japanese, but the main provisions of this work are presented in a number of articles by the author in English and German. Matsukawa recognized the validity of K. Marx’s approach to assessing Petty’s role in economics and systematically relied
to his specific statements.

Matsukawa rated Petty extremely highly and wrote, for example, that “he was the greatest scientist of the 17th century. in this field (in economics..), and Smith was a comparable peak of the 18th century." 1 . Paying special attention to Petty's labor theory of value, Matsukawa expressed the opinion that between him and Smith there were no scientists who would have made a contribution comparable to Petty's in the formation of this fundamental economic theory. At the same time, Matsukawa seeks to reveal the essence and causes of the contradictions in Petty’s labor theory of value, in particular his inherent duality in resolving the issue of the source of value, which for him is either human labor as such, or labor and land. Matsukawa contrasted this phenomenon with Marx's explanation and analysis of Smith's inconsistencies and inconsistencies in his theory of value. Matsukawa’s merit also lies in the fact that he continued to introduce new Petty texts into scientific circulation
from his extensive archive. In 1977, he published an important document dating back to approximately 1670, in which, in the form of a dialogue, Petty concisely formulates a number of his most important ideas, in particular the search for a “natural equation” between land and labor.

For historians and economists, the Petty archive remains an inexhaustible source of valuable materials of various kinds. From time to time, works based on such materials appear in print. They add to our knowledge of various aspects of Petty's scientific and practical activities.

Petty also attracts the attention of economists, mathematicians, statisticians, and demographers. One of the early scientists of this kind was the Russian mathematician and economist E. E. Slutsky, who in 1914 published his report related to the 250th anniversary of Petty’s first treatise, which took place in 1912 2 .

One of the leaders of the Russian school of statisticians A. A. Chuprov, considering the rapid development of statistics at the turn of the 19th and
XX centuries, wrote in 1909: “As at the first birth of the statistical method, in the times of Graunt and Petty, the impetus was given by natural science... then the creators of empirical social science, borrowing from naturalists the general foundations of the scientific worldview, independently based on new material from observations of social life create new forms of scientific thinking..." 1.

The English statistician and economist, author of major works on the problems of economic growth, K. Clarke writes: “...economic science took the right path thanks to Gregory King and Sir William Petty during the amazing flowering of scientific ideas in England at the end of the 17th century” 2 . Being one of the creators of the so-called theory of “three sectors of production” and formulating the main position of his concept, which to some extent correctly reflects certain technical and economic patterns of economic development, Clark writes: “... as the economic development of society moves forward, the number number of people employed in agriculture tends to decrease compared to employment in industry, which, in turn, decreases compared to the number of people employed in the service sector” 3. He calls this tendency “Petty’s law”, since the latter in “Political Arithmetic” is quite
clearly formulated
her. One can agree with Clarke that reading Petty's pages on comparative analysis of the economic growth of England, France and Holland is astonishing
and now.

The author of the modern American economist P. Studensky is the author of an extensive monograph “The Income of Nations”, translated into Russian. The author rightly begins his study with Petty, devoting several pages to a fairly detailed presentation of his calculations of the national income of England and the results he obtained 1 . Petty's name appears on many pages of this work. Thus, P. Studensky, as it were, connects the thread of the founder of national income statistics and national accounts, W. Petty, with later researchers and demonstrates elements of ideas that were expressed several centuries ago and are in the service of modern statistics. However, as the author of the introductory article Alb emphasizes. L. Weinstein and P. Studensky did not sufficiently highlight the fact that Petty still gives a calculation not of national income, but only of the annual expenditure of the country’s population without taking into account savings.

The role of W. Petty as the founder and ancestor of English political economy was explored.

Petty's major works include A Treatise on Taxes and Duties (1662); "A Word to the Wise" (1665); "Political Survey, or Anatomy of Ireland (1672)"; “Miscellaneous things about money” (1682); and “An Essay on Political Arithmetic” (1683).

Petty's first work, A Treatise on Taxes and Duties, was written in 1662. “I declare to the world that I do not consider myself capable of correcting it, and thinking that it will be better for the private tranquility of every person if he is left to the world to wander at his own pleasure. Therefore, everything that I wrote was done only to relieve and free myself, for my head was burdened with all these things due to the gossip that I daily have to listen to regarding the development of trade, due to the grumbling about taxes, etc. » - these are the words of William Petty in the preface to the Treatise on Taxes and Duties. As you can see from it, economic issues worried Petty, literally giving him no rest.

The content of the treatise is much broader than the title. What Petty does not discuss is questions about monopolies, the nature and value of money, interest rates and exchange rates, land rents and insurance. Export of money and goods, banks and pawnshops, beggars, the death penalty, wars, churches, universities, free ports, freedom of conscience and much more - everything worries and occupies the scientist. Petty tries to answer the question of what a country's wealth is, in which cases it comes down to gold and silver, and in which cases the products of labor are a more accurate expression of wealth, and whether money is always a good measure of the level of wealth. He explores and examines in detail how the same tax works if there is an excess of money in the country or a lack of it, why the same tax may or may not cause discontent among the population. Raising the issue of customs duties, he tries to identify their essence and find out what and how best to impose them.

Like most mercantilists, Petty opposes legal restrictions on interest rates and against raising wages of hired workers above the subsistence level.

Political arithmetic was the first work based on the statistical and economic method of research. Petty argued for the need to create a state statistical service and calculate national wealth and national income, calculated these indicators for England and thus laid the foundation for the modern system of national accounts. He even tries to statistically calculate the total amount of this country's wealth. Therefore, William Petty is rightfully considered the founder of a new scientific discipline - economic statistics, although he called this science not statistics (this name would appear only at the end of the 18th century), but political arithmetic. According to modern economists, Petty was the person who created the concept of national income, moreover, came up with a method for calculating it. Among other things, it was Petty who put forward the idea of ​​sample surveys - and thus, apparently, the idea of ​​sociological surveys of the population was born.

In his work “Miscellaneous About Money,” Petty argued that money is a special commodity that plays the role of a universal equivalent, and the amount of money necessary for circulation is determined by the size of commodity and payment turnover. He believed that full-fledged money, within certain limits, could be replaced by paper money. This small-scale work was of great importance and determined the direction of development of the theory of money and credit for the next two centuries. In the last years of his life, Petty dealt primarily with issues of population, its growth, distribution, employment, and, along with John Graunt, can be counted among the founders of demographic statistics.

The second chapter is devoted to the historical role of W. Petty in the development of modern economic thought. It should be noted that among historians of economic thought there is no consensus on the role of William Petty in the development of science. Some authors consider him as an outstanding representative of mercantilism, others see his main merit in creating the foundations of the statistical-economic method of research and economic statistics, others consider him the founder of a new direction in science, from which English classical political economy subsequently grew. However, almost everyone agrees that Petty was the first professional economist.

Judging by the works of W. Petty, the subject of study of economic science (political economy), in his opinion, is, first of all, the analysis of problems in the sphere of production. This, in particular, is obvious from the conviction of this scientist that the creation and increase of wealth supposedly occurs exclusively in the sphere of material production, and without any participation in this process of trade and commercial capital.

The methodological positions of W. Petty, although not without some elements of empiricism inherent in mercantilism (for example, in terms of his interpretation of the price of land) and government intervention in economic life (when he, for example, recommends reducing the number of merchants in the country), but basically he adhered to the principles of laissez faire, insisting, unlike the mercantilists, on the liberalization of money circulation and trade. At the same time, the economic liberalism inherent in his work led to such methodological simplifications as:

denial of the reverse influence of the sphere of circulation on the sphere of production;

adherence to the orthodox version of the quantity theory of money, which leads away from the recognition of the interdependence of the money and commodity markets;

costly (on a causal basis) characteristic of the nature of the origin of the cost (value) of goods and services;

interpretation of wages as the price of a worker’s labor, the size of which in conditions of free competition is always minimal, etc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agapova I.I. History of Economic Thought. –M.: ViM, 1997.


Anikin A.V. The Youth of Science: The Life and Ideas of Economic Thinkers Before Marx. –M.: Politizdat, 1985. Marx K., Engels F. Izbr. Op. M., 1971. Modern trends in the development of the world economy Main schools and directions of economic thought

William Petty (1623 - 1687) was an English economist, a representative of the classical school, whom Karl Marx called the father of political economy and, possibly, statistics. He is also considered to be the author of the labor theory of value. William Petty was born in the south of England in the city of Romsey. Almost all subjects at school were easy for him, even Latin. At the age of 14 he went to work as a cabin boy on a ship. Then he ended up in France and was able to go to college precisely because he knew Latin. In 1640 he came to London to continue his studies. At the age of 27 he received a doctorate in physics, and at the age of 38 he received a knighthood. William Petty is known as the author of many works - such as “A Treatise on Taxes and Duties” (1662), “Political Anatomy of Ireland” (1672), “Miscellaneous Concerning Money” (1682).

In one of his works you can read the famous formula: “Labor is the father and active principle of wealth, the Earth is its mother.” He believed that the sources of wealth were labor and land, and not just money, i.e. precious metals. On the other hand, in his opinion, almost everything can be called wealth: houses, ships, goods, home furnishings, lands, precious stones and money. But wealth is still created by labor and the results of labor. William Petty suggested that banning the export of money was a stupid and pointless exercise. He also believed that trade was not beneficial for the economy, so he proposed to “dissolve” some of the merchants. According to Petty, a worker’s salary is the price of his labor, which must be enough for the existence of himself and his family.

In one of his books, Petty was able to explain how to separate what the earth produced from what labor produced. Rent, in his opinion, is the excess of a product over the costs of its production. This gave impetus to a new theory of classical political economy.

Petty created “Political Arithmetic” 29 (70s of the 17th century), in which econometrics and statistics originate. William Petty also conducted research in the field of trade duties and tax duties. He believed that people caught stealing should be enslaved to work.

3. The teachings of Adam Smith

Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) was a Scottish economist who was called the father of economics due to his work entitled An Inquiry into the Nature of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

He is a representative of the English classical school of political economy. The main idea of ​​this direction is that wealth is created only through production in any area of ​​the economy, and not just in agriculture, as the physiocrats thought.

Adam Smith believed that the most important thing in society is the division of labor by industry, and in each industry - by operation. The division of labor makes it possible to speed up the pace of production by allowing everyone to do what they do best.

According to Smith, in order for as much manufacturing as possible to appear, the government must give enterprising people the opportunity to work. They probably have an economic mindset, since they managed to save money and can create production, thereby developing the economy of the country as a whole.

Adam Smith was sure that the liberal approach is the best (the state does not interfere in anything and gives complete freedom to entrepreneurs).

What modern people call supply and demand, Adam Smith called “the invisible hand of Providence.” Any modern person, like Adam Smith in his time, understands that the ultimate goal of an entrepreneur is to obtain maximum profit in the shortest possible time. Of course, the law of the market dictates to entrepreneurs their opinion on when and what products to produce (winter tires are not needed in summer), and at what price to sell.

Entrepreneurs have to lower prices to be more competitive. None of the entrepreneurs thinks about benefiting society, but healthy competition among them provides society with a richer choice of goods and services at lower prices. Thus, competition forces entrepreneurs to try to reduce production costs in order to allow themselves to reduce prices without reducing their profits. Such a search leads to the improvement of technology and the search for cheaper substitutes for raw materials.

The interests of the bourgeoisie were to freely hire workers, buy and sell land, enter the foreign market and use their money as they wanted, and not according to the dictates of the state. All this made Adam Smith's ideas very attractive to this class.

Adam Smith's writings are so varied that he became the forefather of two warring schools of thought in economics:

1) political economy of labor (division of society into classes with absolutely opposing interests; exploitative origin of profit under capitalism) (Karl Marx);

2) Economics (the principle of the “invisible hand”; economic liberalism; competition).

Classical economic theory - origins.

We have already said that mercantilism as an economic theory

was the dominant direction of economic thought for almost three centuries (from the beginning of the 16th to the first half of the 18th century).

But not the only one. At the same time, prerequisites arise

another powerful economic doctrine, which later received

name of classical political economy. Forefather

This direction is considered by W. Petty.

W. Petty (1623-1687), an Englishman, a man of diverse interests, who went from a cabin boy to a landlord and, as if by the way, expressed in his works devoted mainly

justification of economic policy (in particular, in the ≪ Treatise on

taxes and fees ≫, 1662), those economic ideas that later entered

as an integral part of classical political economy. At Petty's

we already see the basic premises of classical political economy:

The study is not of the circulation process, but of the production process itself;

A critical attitude towards the unproductive classes that do not produce any product, to which he included merchants;

Attribution to productive labor engaged in the sphere of material production.

W. Petty was the first to formulate the thesis fundamental to all classical political economy that the wealth of a nation

is created in all spheres of material production, and it is labor -

the basis of this wealth. His phrase is widely known: “Labor is the father and the active principle of wealth, and land is its mother” 1. Based on this

axioms, it is necessary to analyze all other economic views

Petty, in particular, the statement that it is precisely the rarity of the population -

the true source of the state's poverty. Disagreeing with mercantilists that the wealth of a nation is embodied in precious metals, Petty formulates his criterion of wealth, believing that the most

The richest period will be the period in which each participant in the division (ex.

the assumption that all the money available in the country is divided equally among the inhabitants. - I.A.) will be able to hire more

workers, i.e. involve more labor.

However, living in the era of the dominance of mercantilism ideas, Petty did not

can completely escape their influence, although here he remains an original thinker. Therefore, it seems interesting

comparative analysis of the views of Petty and mercantilists on the problems of foreign trade, protectionist policies and a number of others

Under the influence of mercantilists, Petty still emphasizes external

trade, which, in his opinion, to a greater extent than others

economic sectors, contributes to the growth of the wealth of the nation, sharing

the belief that the real meaning of wealth lies in attitude rather than in quantity, and therefore any country benefits

have more money (precious metals) in reserve than others have

At the same time, Petty proposed cutting a significant part of the purchase

tsov, leaving them just enough so that they are able to exchange the surplus goods of a given country for surplus goods

other countries, because, in his opinion, merchants ≪... do not deliver goods

no product, but only play the role of veins and arteries, distributing

dividing back and forth... agricultural and industrial products≫ 2. *

Of course, Petty saw the negative consequences of the influx of precious metals, reflected in rising prices. In his works, he repeatedly emphasized that there is a certain measure, or

the proportion of money necessary for carrying on the trade of a country where an excess or deficiency of it against this measure will cause harm. Surplus

as we have already said, causes prices to rise, but Petty immediately offers

antidote - excess money should be kept in the state

treasury, which, in his opinion, will not harm either the country or the king,

nor to private individuals. At the same time, lack of money has harmful

consequences. Firstly, this is the reason for poor payment on-

logs, secondly, leads to a reduction in the amount of work done. Petty gives the following proof: ≪ £100. having passed

through 300 hands in the form of their wages, give impetus to production

goods for 10 thousand f.st. These same hands would remain idle and

useless if there were no constant incentive to use them

Vania≫ 1.

Petty also shares the policy of protectionism aimed at protecting the national market by introducing customs duties, believing that the size of duties should be such that the prices of imported goods become somewhat more expensive than the same items produced within the country. Petty also supports the thesis that passion for

The luxury of the rich stimulates trade and production. In particular, he writes, considering the problems of taxation: ≪... people

become indignant at the thought that the money collected will be dissipated

spent on amusements, magnificent spectacles, triumphal arches...

but such a waste means returning this money to the fishing people,

engaged in the production of these things≫ 2.

The influence of mercantilist views on Petty seems significant, however, we consider Petty to be the founder of the classical movement. In addition to the fundamental thesis, characteristic of all representatives of classical political economy, about

that the wealth of the nation is created in all spheres of material production, Petty formulates the foundations of the labor theory of value,

Claiming that equality of goods means nothing more than equality

labor expended on their production. This idea is most clearly

expressed by Petty in the following phrase: ≪... if anyone can

be from Peruvian soil and deliver one ounce of silver to London

at the very time during which he is able to produce one

bushel of bread, then the first represents the natural price of the other." However, again, being to a certain extent in captivity>

mercantilist ideas, Petty adds that value is created not by all labor, but only by that spent on production

gold and silver, and the value of labor products in other branches of production is determined only as a result of their exchange for noble

Anticipating the physiocrats, Petty suggested What

surplus product is the part of the product that is mainly

is found after deducting costs and takes the form of rent. However

Unlike the physiocrats, he considered rent not a gift of land as such, “

a product of labor that has greater productivity per

lands of better quality. Petty introduces the concept differentially

rent, the reasons for the existence of which he sees in the different fertility and location of plots of land. Having analyzed rent and defined it as net income from land, Petty raises the question of the price of land,

which should be equal, in his opinion, to a certain amount of annual annuities. But how can we quantify this certainty?

According to Petty, the price of land is the sum of the annual

annuity for 21 years - the time of simultaneous life expectancy of three

generations.

Closely related to Petty’s theory of rent is the question of interest on loans. By the way, finally breaking with the medieval ones!

ideas about the predatory nature of interest, Petty justifies the charging of interest as compensation for the inconvenience that, by lending money, the lender creates for himself, since

he cannot demand them back until a certain time comes."

term, no matter how much he himself needs during this time. At

with a little effort one can see the beginnings of the theory of interest as

payment for abstinence, which was finally formed only in

XIX century ,

In determining the “natural” level of interest, Petty argues that it should be equal to the rent on the amount of land that

can be purchased with the money loaned, subject to complete public safety. But if this condition is in doubt, the natural interest is intertwined with something like an insurance premium, which

can increase the percentage to any size. There is also a hint of the doctrine of opportunity cost here.

A significant place in Petty's works is devoted to issues of taxation and finance. One of Petty's fundamental ideas, connecting him with the principles of classical political economy, is

the idea of ​​the natural order and the harmfulness of its violation by state power. The flaw of government, according to Petty, is that “too much of what should be

governed by nature, ancient customs and universal agreement,

came under the regulation of the law. It's no coincidence that Petty speaks out harshly

Against state regulation if it contradicts “the laws of nature.”

At the same time, it assigns important functions to the state to ensure full utilization of the labor force, as well as to increase

its quality. Petty proposes using public funds to provide homeless people and beggars with work building roads and building bridges

and dams, mining. And here it is not only humanity that speaks,

but also an economic calculation, because, according to Petty’s views, “... allowing someone to beg is a more expensive way

the quality of the workforce, the quality of human capital, is

the most important factor in increasing the wealth of a nation, Petty writes,

that “it is better to burn the product of the labor of one thousand people than to allow these people to do nothing and, as a result, lose

your ability to work≫2. By the way, the positive effect of ensuring full employment is discussed in the works of such a famous

an economist of the 20th century, like J. Keynes, albeit from a slightly different position.

In accordance with his views on the role of the state in the economy, Petty in his “Treatise on Taxes and Fees” thus regulates the targeted expenditures of the state:

Defense spending;

Management costs;

Church expenses;

Expenses for schools and universities;

Expenses for the maintenance of orphans and disabled people;

Expenses for roads, water pipes, bridges and other items necessary for the benefit of all.

As you can see, the structure of expenses resembles the expenditure part of the budget of modern states.

As for taxation, Petty is a proponent.

com predominantly indirect taxation. Agreeing with the generally accepted opinion in this era that the population should participate in covering government expenses in accordance with their interest in public peace, i.e. according to their

property, or wealth, Petty distinguishes two types of wealth -

actual and potential. Actual wealth, in his opinion,

means a high actual level of consumption, and potential -

opportunity to provide it. In the latter case, people are rich, but

those who make little use of their wealth are more likely to be managers-1

mi of their capital. / 1

Within the framework of these ideas, Petty’s arguments in favor of the excise tax boil down to the following:

firstly, justice requires that everyone pay according to what he consumes, and such a tax is not imposed by force

and it is easy to pay to one who is content with the objects of natural

necessity;

secondly, such a tax encourages frugality - the only one

new way to enrich the nation.

Here Petty casually expresses the idea of ​​​​an exceptional role!

frugality in increasing the wealth of the nation, which sounds like a leitmotif in A. Smith. ;

But all the economic ideas expressed by Petty are in the form of conjectures and do not represent a complete theory. May be,

namely fragmentation, dispersion of economic ideas"

W. Petty, according to numerous pamphlets written on the topic of the day,

was the reason that Petty's history of economic thought;

entered primarily as the inventor of statistics, which he called “political arithmetic”.

In his work “Political Arithmetic” (1676), Petty not only gave

analysis of a specific economic situation based on the widespread use of factual data, but also described methods for indirectly determining the value of certain indicators, in particular the sampling method, which was undoubtedly important given the paucity of statistical data of that time."

Using his method, Petty was the first to calculate the national income and national wealth of England. It is interesting to note that in national wealth Petty included not only material wealth, but also the monetary value of the population itself, in order

somehow assess the amount of human capital (its labor skills, dexterity, qualifications). Petty paid great attention to determining the economic value of the population, since he believed that it was the rare population that was the true source of poverty

countries2. In this we see a fundamental difference between Petty’s views and

mercantilists, who reduced the country's wealth to reserves of gold and

silver In Petty’s own calculations, the share of precious metals in England’s total wealth was less than 3%.

W. Petty performed calculations not only of national wealth

England, but also its national income. True, in contrast to modern ideas, Petty calculated national income only as

the amount of consumer spending of the population, neglecting the share of national income going to accumulation. But since the share of accumulation in the 17th century. in England was extremely low, there was an inaccuracy

did not distort the overall picture. Despite this significant (from modern point of view) lack of calculations, it can nevertheless be said with good reason that the modern system of national accounts grew out of these calculations by W. Petty.

The name of W. Petty is associated with the origin of classical political economy, and its real creators were A. Smith and D. Ricardo.

The founder of the French school of classical political economy is Pierre Boisguilbert(1646–1714). He was not a professional economist. The son of a Norman nobleman, a lawyer, Boisguilbert received a legal education and for many years was the general commander of the judicial district of Rouen. His high social position prompted him to understand the economic reasons for the low standard of living of the peasantry in the provinces of France at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. In the development of the countryside, he saw the key to the formation of a progressive bourgeois economy in France, which gives the right to consider him the predecessor of the physiocrats (see question 10).

In his works “Retail Trade in France” (1699), “Discourse on the Nature of Wealth” (1707) and others, Boisguillebert criticized mercantilism, considering it the main culprit for the disastrous economic situation of the country, especially the impoverished French peasantry. To improve the situation of the peasants, according to Boisguillebert, the government should patronize agriculture. In contrast to the mercantilists, he viewed wealth not in the form of money, but as the sum of useful things (use values) produced in agriculture. Money, Boisguillebert believed, should be in constant motion; its role is reduced to a medium of exchange. He saw money as the main evil and the cause of national disasters; believed that in order to eradicate the power of money it was necessary to reduce it to a simple instrument of circulation, and he was one of the first to consider it possible to replace metallic money with paper money. Boisguillebert is one of the founders of the theory of labor value. He distinguished between market price and “true value.” If market prices are random, then the “true value” is natural and determined by the labor spent on the production of goods. Boisguillebert determined its value by working time. Value is manifested, in his opinion, in the proportions between exchanged goods containing equal labor costs. “True value” is the basis of proportional exchange. Such exchange must be carried out on the basis of free competition.

Summarizing a brief overview of the economic views of P. Boisguillebert, it should be said that in his works he reflected the specifics of the country’s economic thought, which was determined by a sharp break with mercantilism, increased attention to agrarian problems, and a sympathetic attitude towards the peasantry in distress.

Summarize. The differences in the economic development of England and France at the time of the emergence of English and French classical political economy caused significant differences concepts of W. Petty and P. Boisguillebert.

1. W. Petty gradually abandoned mercantilist views, but did not see the need to fight them, and P. Boisguillebert always had a negative attitude towards mercantilism and considered the fight against it his most important task.

2. W. Petty saw the pursuit of money as the main stimulus for economic development, and P. Boisguillebert considered money to be the source of troubles for commodity producers.

3. W. Petty gave priority to industry, and P. Boisguillebert - to agriculture.

W. PETTY'S THEORY OF VALUE

W. PETTY is the founder of classical bourgeois political economy in England.

Main works: “Treatise on Taxes and Duties”, “Political Anatomy of Ireland”, “Political Arithmetic”, “Something about Money”.

Petty believes that national wealth is not only precious metals, but also products of material production.

The source of wealth is material production. Wealth is primarily created by labor, hence the questions arise: how is value determined? What is the basis of production cost? Answer: labor costs.

In his doctrine of natural price, Petty laid the foundations of the labor theory of value. Considers labor as a source of value, and determines the value of value by the expenditure of working time.

Petty determines by labor costs the amount of exchange value, which he identifies with price, i.e., the expression of value in monetary form.

In Petty's understanding, only labor expended in the production of monetary material, that is, in the extraction of precious metals, is labor that directly creates value. Consequently, goods themselves do not represent value, but only possess it, because they are equal to a certain amount of money.

THAT. The labor theory of value shows that not all labor creates value, but only that spent on the extraction of metals. The cost of goods is tied to the cost spent on mining.

W. PETTY'S THEORY OF LAND PRICE

The price of land plot depends on the amount of income (land rent).

The buyer of land is the person who acquires the right to receive an annual annuity. Therefore, the price of land must be equal to the annual rent multiplied by a certain number. But to do this you need to find this number. In solving this problem, Petty proceeded from the fact that the buyer of the land has in mind his own interests and the interests of his close descendants. Petty considered a typical case when representatives of three generations live together - a grandfather (50 years old), a son (28 years old) and a grandson (7 years old). THOSE. the number of annual annuities constituting the natural value of any piece of land is equal to the ordinary duration of the joint life of three such persons. In England this duration is considered to be twenty-one years. Consequently, the value of land is equal to approximately the same number of annual annuities.

In Petty's understanding, rent in kind is that part of the product that remains after wages and seeds have been deducted. Consequently, his rent coincides with the surplus product. He explained the emergence of differential rent by differences in the location of individual land plots. He also noted the second reason for the existence of differential rent - the different fertility of the land.

W. PETTY ABOUT LOAN INTEREST

Petty justifies the charging of interest as compensation for the inconvenience that, by lending money, the lender creates for himself, since he cannot demand it back before a certain period, no matter how much he himself needs it during this time.

W. Petty derived the percentage from the value of land rent. He wrote that the interest should be equal to “the rent from such and such a quantity of land that could be purchased with the same money lent.”

The owner of money, according to Petty, can buy land and thereby acquire the right to receive an annual annuity.

A little more about the economy today

Innovation and its role in the economy
New knowledge expands our understanding of the world around us, and this is its most important purpose. But along with this, science opens up new opportunities to meet the real practical needs of society. The fate of scientific results takes shape outside the threshold of the research laboratory...

Comprehensive economic analysis of the economic activities of Sigma LLC
Analysis of a company's financial condition plays an important role in the business valuation process. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the company's development trends in the past, assess its current situation, justify its development in the future, and determine the degree of its business and financial risks. Determining the financial condition of a company...