only too willingly receives proffered assistance of Mr. George, and accepts his assertions as indisputable evidence, and his sophistical deductions as irrefragable proof, and submissively reëchoes Mr. George's cry, "It is manifest the hypothesis is true!

To substitute logic for sophistry; well-known facts for supposititious statements; just conclusions for erroneous inferences, is my task. Whether the manner in which I

perform it will deserve censure, or merit approval, I leave to the reader to determine.

ALLURING ABSURDITIES.

FALLACIES OF HENRY GEORGE.

THE PROBLEM.

In the opening chapter of "Progress and Poverty," its author propounds this query:

"Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living?"

In prosecuting his inquiry as to the cause of the seeming anomalous result set forth in the foregoing dogma, he reviews the current doctrines of political economists, and asserts that they are nearly unanimous in assenting to the statement contained in his proposition, and that they account for it by stating that wages are fixed by the

66

ratio between the number of laborers and the amount of capital devoted to the employment of labor, and constantly tend to the lowest amount on which laborers will consent to live and reproduce, because the increase in the number of laborers tends, naturally, to follow and overtake any increase in capital." Mr. George endeavors to prove the falsity of the "current theory," as designated by him, and states, axiomatically, "If wages depend upon

NOTE.-The figures on the lower margins throughout this work refer, if not otherwise stated, to the pages of Progress and Poverty," Appletons' bound edition.

I

*

the ratio between the amount of labor seeking employment and the amount of capital devoted to its employment, the relative scarcity or abundance of one factor must mean the relative abundance or scarcity of the other. ** Now, as the capital used in paying wages must largely consist of the capital constantly seeking investment, the current rate of interest must be the measure of its relative abundance or scarcity. So, if it be true that wages depend upon the ratio between the amount of labor seeking employment and the capital devoted to its employment, then high wages (the mark of the relative scarcity of labor) must be accompanied by low interest (the mark of the relative abundance of capital), and reversely, low wages must be accompanied by high interest." Then Mr. George asserts the contrary is true, and asks the question, "Is it not a notorious fact that where labor flows for higher wages, capital also flows for higher interest?" His statement that the "current doctrine," relative to wages, is as he defines it, merits no comment from me, and would not have been alluded to, were it not that he so incorporated it in his reasoning, that, to comprehend him, it became necessary to set forth fully, and in his own language, that no injustice be done him, the theory he was combating. Having done so, I may now properly point out his erroneous assertions. Thus, capital need not be relatively abundant, but profits must be large per capita, or according to the number employed, where wages are high. Therefore, it is not true that high wages must be accompanied by low interest. It is not a notorious fact that where labor flows for higher wages, capital flows for higher interest. The very reverse is often true. Wages are higher, and interest lower, absolutely, in New York City than they are, respectively, in any other place in the Union; nay, than in any country

in Europe.* So, too, in England, wages are higher and interest lower than they are, respectively, on the Continent. These are neither abstruse nor abstract statements, but simple, well-known facts, that may be verified by any one who so desires. And while Mr. George labors learnedly to disprove all the theories bearing on wages advanced by political economists during the past two hundred years, he befogs himself, and, together with his thoughtless readers, wanders in a labyrinth, until, lost in the realms of absurdity, he formulates the following:

"That wages, instead of being drawn from capital, are in reality drawn from the product of the labor for which they are paid."

He proceeds to demolish all theories antagonistic to his own, and here is how he begins: "Yet in the very treatises in which the limitation of industry by capital is laid down without reservation and made the basis for the most important reasonings and elaborate theories, we are told that capital is stored up or accumulated labor-'that part of wealth which is saved to assist future production.' If we substitute for the word 'capital' this definition of the word, the proposition carries its own refutation, for that labor cannot be employed until the results of labor are saved, becomes too absurd for discussion." He then proceeds to prove, in his own sophistical way, that society of to-day is but the elaboration of society before the Flood. He cites the steam grist-mill as an illustration, and states, "Every man engaged in it-the engineer, the fireman, bookkeeper, etc.-is really devoting his labor to the same purpose that the pre-historic savage did when he used his mortar, the preparation of grain for human food." * New York City 3% bonds sell at a premium of 21%. They are all held by residents of the city and near-by places.

+23. So called interest on bonds callas'

interest. aut is a

Tax.