We are currently experiencing an outpouring of concern both popular and professional regarding technological unemployment. I shall be discussing an apparent about-turn on the subject by David Ricardo (1772-1823), who at different times, even in different chapters of the same book, and, indeed, even at different places in the same chapter, seemed to be on both sides of the argument as to whether technological unemployment should be a matter for concern. In a chapter entitled "On Machinery," added to the third edition of his Principles of Political Economy (1821), which comprises volume 1 of his Collected Works (1951-73), Ricardo announced that he had become concerned about the possibility, even likelihood, of technical change detrimental to labour's interests. However, in the very same "On Machinery" chapter, Ricardo also outlined qualifications to show that there was little need for concern. Ricardo's opposing messages are reflected in contrasting reactions to the chapter "On Machinery." Some readers—including Thomas Robert Malthus and J. R. McCulloch—understood it as supporting working-class opposition to machinery. Others—including John Stuart Mill and Sir John Hicks—find therein the answer to such opposition.

中文翻译：

---

里卡多机械回顾展

目前，我们正越来越受到大众和专业人士对技术失业的关注。我将讨论大卫·里卡多（1772-1823）在这个问题上的一个明显转变，他在不同的时间，甚至在同一本书的不同章节中，甚至在同一章的不同地方，似乎都似乎关于技术失业是否应该引起人们关注的问题，双方争论不休。在《政治经济学原理》（1821）的第三版中，《机械论》一章中包括他的著作集（1951-73）的第一卷，里卡多宣布他已经开始担心这种可能性，甚至技术变革有可能损害劳工利益。但是，在同一章“机械”中，里卡多还概述了资格证明，以表明几乎不需要担心。里卡多的反对意见反映在对“机械”一章的不同反响中。包括托马斯·罗伯特·马尔萨斯（Thomas Robert Malthus）和JR麦卡洛克（JR McCulloch）在内的一些读者将其理解为支持工人阶级对机械的反对。其他人，包括约翰·斯图尔特·米尔和约翰·希克斯爵士，在其中找到了反对派的答案。