Different mind-set. Don’t think “value,” think “income.” Income generated by production is called profit; income generated by land or other natural resources is rent. I don’t know who started the trend, but by the 19th century, this thinking was built into virtually all discussions of capital.

Smith’s p. 155 re rent as a “special portion” of value:

Again, different mind-set. Read Smith’s next 2 sentences after the one you’ve quoted. Wages and profit *must* be covered; what’s left after that is what can go toward rent. Turned around, rent goes toward cost, not toward value. See also 2 paragraphs higher up, beginning with “Such parts only of the produce…”

Smith’s p. 156 re land purchasing labor:

Interesting. My downloaded text (from the Library of Economics andLiberty) reads “It can always purchase,” with the preceding sentence referring specifically to food, not land. My text goes on to say that the quantity of labor is *not* always equal to what could be maintained under the most efficient management.

Smith’s p. 165 re excess “naturally” going to landlord

Smith is referring to the natural economic process, which he admits is sometimes out of synch with actual practice. Reread his very first paragraph of Chapter 11.

On page 165 he speaks of cases where the quantity that can be produced is smaller than the demand, and that this will drive up the price; and then he adds, “the greater part of this excess naturally goes to the rent of the landlord.” Here I’m confused: why? It would seem that negotiation among farmer, landlord, and any labors, would determine where the excess goes. What am I missing?

—————–

I think that he’s saying that the landlord is inherently in a stronger bargaining position. This makes sense if you assume that there is a limited amount of usable land relative to the number of available farmers and laborers as the landlord can always rent to someone else. I don’t think that this holds up when labor is in short supply.