and William 289 planks and no plane. And if William keeps on borrowing of James on the same terms, is it not evident that the income of the one will progressively decline, and that of the other will progressively increase, until the time will come when, as a result of the original lending of a plane, James will obtain the whole result of William's labor—that is to say, William will become virtually his slave?" * No, it is not evident. They might continue the agreement through all time, and William's income would remain absolutely the same each year, if the terms were not departed from. Mr. George says: "It will be observed that it is not affirmed that James could make the plane and William could not, for that would be to make the plank the reward of superior skill." His theory is, that while planes cannot breed, yet what may be purchased by them or their exchange value can-sheep, hogs, and cattle. And as he also holds that the doing of one thing is the doing of all things, to the extent of the thing produced in exchange, therefore, while James was making a plane for William, he was, in effect, raising hogs; and as these do breed and reproduce, he is entitled to their increase, which in this case is a plank ! His theory, as I have previously stated, has the merit of novelty at least to recommend it. But would it not be a simpler theory to say that William with a plane could produce 290 planks, and without it not one? That, in making a plane, a quantity of labor was consumed, and, hence, the plane bears the same ratio to its producer that the time consumed in making it does to the whole period of time during which he is capable of performing similar work? And, therefore, the compensation to its owner for its use should be in proportion to the wages paid to its producer, for producing it. SPURIOUS CAPITAL. Under this heading Mr. George deals with monopolies. In the list of monopolies he includes patents, but omits to include copyrights. But of all the grinding, crushing, destructive monopolies, he asserts a railroad corporatior. is easily the first. Indeed, to find anything to which, and with which, it may be compared, he was compelled to seek it in India. He says the trunk lines of railroads unite to raise rates, just as robbers unite to plunder in concert. Things which are equal to the same are equal to one another. If, then, railroad companies unite to raise rates, and workingmen unite to raise rates of wages, and it is "like robbers uniting to plunder" in the case of the former, so must it be in the case of the latter. This is a necessary deduction from his premises. It is absurd in each case. Neither uniting to raise rates, nor uniting to raise wages, would necessarily be robbery. That it may be, and often is, especially in the case of the former, is indisputable. THE LAW OF INTEREST. Mr. George bases his law of interest on two things: First-That it is not capital which employs labor, but labor which employs capital. Second-That capital is not a fixed quantity, but can always be increased or decreased.' As to the first, it is too ambiguous, and as to the second, too plain, to require any comment. Everything changes. He says: "Labor and capital are but different forms of the same thing-human exertion." † Then, of course, human exertion is labor and capital. But he has already stated that "capital is not one thing, it is anything to that value within the circle of exchange. Therefore, human exertion must be anything within the circle of exchange—and more too. But he also says that "human powers whether natural or acquired can never properly be classed as capital." Therefore, labor, mental as well as physical, is not capital! Let "the reader note and bear in mind" Mr. George's definitions, and he will quickly discover that juggling with terms, and not political economy, was essayed by the author of "Progress and Poverty." THE LAW OF WAGES. Mr. George begins a disquisition on wages by asserting, There is, of course, no such thing as a common rate of wages, in the sense that there is at any given time and place a common rate of interest." What is interest? He defines it to be "that part of the produce [profits] which constitutes the return for the use of capital." § Now, as profits vary in different kinds of business, in any given place and time, equally as much as do wages, it is evident that interest must vary accordingly. The truth is, he, to the confusion of the reader, uses the term "interest," not in the economic, but in the ordinary sense. His theory of wages, based on the cultivation of the poorest land in use, rests on a fiction; and his dictum, “that just as a free body tends to take the shortest route to the earth's centre, so do men seek the easiest mode to the gratification of their desires," contains more errors and greater subtleties than seems to be possible to crowd into so short a sentence. Why does a "free" body tend to take the shortest route to the earth's centre ? Is it owing to any power or force exerted by the "free body? Is it * 161. t 34. +184. $145: not for the very reason that it is not a free body? It is under physical restraint, and therefore is not a free agent.* But is this true of a man in gratifying his desires? He is a free sentient being, but he is also a fallible agent. He may dig in the bowels of the earth, or tread the lofty peaks of majestic mountains, in quest of gold; he may, in solitude, till the soil; or on the undulating bosom of the mighty deep, under lowering skies, in the driving storm, midst lightning's blinding flash and thunder's rolling peal, seek wealth. Surroundings and education and volition of the individual, and not any immutable law, determine what mode he shall adopt in the pursuit of the gratification of his desires. "Some find their bliss in action, some in ease; Yet Mr. George, with apparently unconscious ignorance, bases the law of wages on his dictum, just quoted, saying: "Here, then, we have the law of wages, as a deduction from a principle most obvious and most universal. That wages depend upon the margin of cultivation-that they will be greater or less as the produce which labor can obtain from the highest natural opportunities open to it is greater or less, flows from the principle that men will seek to satisfy their wants with the least exertion.” † As I have demonstrated, this is not true (nor can it be true, until man become omniscient); his law of wages falls, and his dicta, his deductions from, and his theories based and resting upon, that law," are buried in its ruins. As it is not my purpose, in this work, to enter into a dissertation on the ownership in land, I now close my * What Mr. George means by a free body is, obviously, an unimpeded body. † 187. formal inquiry into Mr. George's theory of wages, as its refutation leaves nothing, in this behalf, to be sought or accomplished. A REVIEW OF THE WAGES PROBLEM. Were I to state that I have solved the problem of wages, after the statements made by me in the Introductory, I should be stultifying myself. Indeed, the mere statement would be arrogance and presumption on my part. The problem is so intricate, so involved, that the more we study it, the more difficult its solution appears. If any one wish to become absolutely ignorant of it, let him read the works and accept the theories of those who have devoted much time, aided by great learning, to its solution. Some of these were actuated by a desire to ascertain the underlying principles, in the cause of science; others were anxious to sustain hypotheses; while not a few were eager to pose as the champions of the oppressed. With truth and indignation might we exclaim: O Labor! how many shams masquerade in thy name! With a fatuous consistency, the results obtained from these widely divergent aims and consequent methods are unsatisfactory, differing only in degree; and each inquirer left the problem, in one respect, as he found it-unsolved. If any one of the countless theories be selected, and a community adopt it, governing themselves in their intercommunal relations by it, would the results be satisfactory to the individuals of that community? Would substantial justice be meted to all? Would no one suffer by reason and because of that theory? To answer the first two queries affirmatively and the last negatively, would be to affirm that what is imperfect may create that which is perfect. Thus would the created be superior to the creator. Man |