ABSTRACT
All this was less than satisfactory. McCulloch switched uneasily between capital as demand for labour and demand for commodities as demand for labour; and he adduced no satisfactory reason why all the effects to which he appealed should cumulatively suffice to re-employ all the displaced labour; nor did he indicate how long this would take. Basically the problem arose because although his growth model was in dynamic terms he was sufficiently affected by his debate with Ricardo to reason largely in static terms on this particular issue. He would have done better to follow the example set by Ellis but he did not, and in the end he had to appeal to the empirical evidence collected by John Welsford Cowell that, as a matter of fact, the introduction of machinery did benefit the working classes.2 He believed that the only people who lost by the introduction of new machinery were the owners of old ones; and in dealing with Malthus* contention that specicivity of fixed capital reduced the demand for labour (which like Ricardo ^ he had no difficulty in dismissing as nonsense4) he argued that the progress of society could not be held up for the benefit of a few owners of old machines.5
