The thought that needs emphasis in this connection is that, while production and consumption are separable in thought and distinguishable in practice, they are not opposed in their ultimate purpose. The highest fruits of production are in the lessons of sacrifice and discipline, and in its opportunities for experience and self-expression. The best result of the consumption of wealth is not the gratification of appetite, but the strengthening of the spiritual forces within men. The world is to rise to a higher social stage not by banishing labor and by multiplying sensual enjoyments of the commoner sort. Wealth, even in an economic view, is not the end of life, but merely the means to its realization.
4. Enjoyment is increased by a proper variety and harmony of goods. As the old kinds of goods increase in amount and fall in value, there must be a substitution of new goods. An element added to the dress or to the diet heightens greatly the total gratification. The result is a unit. Think of a dinner without butter, or a cranberry-pie without sugar, or a dress-suit without a linen collar. Certain combinations are essential to the requirements of developed taste and present a problem of complementary goods. Combinations of complementary goods enhance the enjoyment; inharmonious combinations decrease it. That certain things "go together" is a fact that rests often in the nature of things. Complementary colors please the eye; well-seasoned dishes please the palate.
Again, the harmony of goods is affected by the special nature of the occupation. A farmer with his out-of-door life can use tobacco with far less danger than the sedentary worker. A piano player cannot be a base-ball player: the one requires soft and supple hands, the other hard and callous ones. The young man must give up the piano or the game, or play both badly. The harmony may rest on a still more complex social adjustment. The loss to the man whose life is in the main on a higher plane is greater if he descends occasionally to a lower. A ditch-digger, looking at the question short-sightedly, may deem "a good drunk" a very desirable form of enjoyment. But a brain-worker, whose joy as well as efficiency depends on the clearness of his intellectual processes, must see that in his case the perils and the costs are much greater.
Wise consumption depends not alone on physical pleasures, but on the spiritual unity of the uses made of goods. Happiness and character are akin in the qualities of simplicity and unity. Happiness, so far as it depends on wealth, is a harmony of gratifications. Character is a harmony of actions, a group of complementary deeds. There can be no harmony, without a central, simple, guiding principle. The wise and moral use of goods and the economic use of them are therefore for the individual essentially the same. Life is a unity. The results of the choice of goods are reflected in the health, intelligence, happiness, morality, and progress of society. It is vain for the economist to ignore the ultimate relations between economic choice and morality; it is folly for the moralist to ignore the economic bases of right and wrong in human conduct.
CHAPTER 42
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOCIAL INCOME
§ I. THE NATURE OF PERSONAL DISTRIBUTION
1. Personal distribution, in economics, is the reasoned explanation of the ways in which income is divided among the members of the community. Before noting more exactly the ways in which distribution can and does take place, it may be well to review briefly some definitions that have been given in other connections. Distribution is bound up in practice with production, but it can be thought of as a more or less distinct problem. Functional distribution is the attribution of value to agents or classes of producers, to land, machinery, and labor considered impersonally as groups of productive agents. Personal distribution is the actual apportioning of income to living persons. This theme now to be dealt with is the more important practically, for the abstract discussion of rent and interest is of use only as it helps to an understanding of this vital human problem. It is well to recall also the distinction between wealth income, money income, and psychic income. The first is the objective aspect, the last is the subjective aspect, of income; the second, money income, may be an expression, in money form, of either of the others, but commonly of the former. The money expression of psychic income can be only approximately attained.
2. The individual's income is determined by a number of forces, only part of which are primarily economic. Many persons derive income directly neither from property nor from labor. They neither toil nor clip coupons, but they flourish in the favor of others—parent, husband, wife, friends, patrons. So long as the good-will continues these persons may be as well off as if they drew a salary or owned a bank. If a person in control of goods shares them with another, it is a matter that economists must recognize, but cannot well reduce to rules of value. It is not the task of economists to explain why the impulses of generosity arise, but only how they affect distribution. The economic problem of distribution really ends where owner or worker secures his income. Giving a part of it to some one else is essentially a form of consumption, and only secondarily a mode of distribution; it is the way chosen to spend the wealth income.
The psychic income of individuals, therefore, is often made up of many elements. Some parts are due to services performed by the person himself. When one combs his own hair he is adding to his income. Benjamin Franklin said it was better to teach a boy to shave himself than to give him a thousand dollars. Other goods are the uses and fruits of legally controlled wealth: chance finds, as gifts of value or lost and abandoned goods; goods assigned to one by authority; wealth inherited; illegal gains by robbery; goods secured on credit; gifts either of things or of services. The uses of this university are a gift forming a part, first, of the student's income, and, finally, of the social income. Such gifts can be traced back to large-hearted, public-spirited men like Ezra Cornell, but they must be looked upon as coming from some one. This list, incomplete as it is, suggests that the real income of most individuals has manifold sources. Let us undertake to examine and analyze the various methods in actual use in the distribution of income to the persons making up society.
§ II. METHODS OF PERSONAL DISTRIBUTION
1. Distribution is sometimes compulsory, by force or fraud. This crude and primitive mode of distribution, the negation of personal liberty, never has been quite eliminated. In every country an unhappily large number of men from time to time break over into crime, from violence and highway robbery down to sneak-thieving, pocket-picking, and bunco games. Not more than ten per cent. of this criminal element is at any one time in prison. This method of personal distribution, not hinted at in most theories of distribution, determines a large part of the income of tens of thousands of men in this country and concerns the distribution of millions of dollars. These enemies of society appropriate whatever they can, and the law stops them if it is able.
Slavery is distribution by legalized force, but the force is not legalized by the consent of the victims. The evolution of the harsher slavery may be traced through various forms of milder serfdom. There is found an element of this in the freest existing societies; men unwilling are forced to do things. A patent example is the convict on a chain-gang, a slave to society as a penalty for his violation of its commands. But some radical reformers to-day claim that present society is wholly based on legalized force, and that the workingman is essentially a slave. Their ideal cannot be realized without dissolving social bonds and destroying civilization; yet the presence, even in our society, of this forced, unwilling submission on the part of some of its members cannot be ignored.
A similar example of forcible taking is seen in case of war. Savage tribes plunder and take captive their weaker neighbors. Conquering modern nations usually exact tribute from defeated enemies. Germany got a billion dollars from France, Japan a quarter of a billion from China. The terms of peace at the close of our great Civil War were the most liberal ever granted by conqueror to vanquished; and yet the federal pensions granted to Northern soldiers are a form of tribute, being paid by taxes falling alike upon the North and the South. In all these cases the distribution by force is unwillingly suffered. In none of them is it reducible to economic rules or capable of a strict economic explanation.
2. Distribution may be charitable, that is, determined by considerations of benevolence and affection. Charitable is here used in its original sense, as synonymous with love or affection. First to be mentioned is the love of parents, the root and type of all the forms of charity. The lack of economic equivalence in the relation of parent and child is complete in early years. The helpless infant gives nothing economic to the parent, the parent gives all to the child. Gradually, however, the balance is regained; as the years go on, not only does the child repay in affection but in many cases he repays in material ways. In the factory districts and on the farm the child in early years begins to reëstablish the balance, becomes a worker, and contributes as much as the cost of his support, and finally more. A student of modern English town life has traced the curve of poverty traversed by the average child of the poor, as the family moves, now below, again above, the level of minimum income required for physical efficiency. In the middle or propertied classes the children do not for many years take the burden from the parents, and it is doubtful whether in most cases the economic balance is ever reëstablished. It is not to the parents, but to the succeeding generation, that the debt is vicariously paid.
Friendship widens the range of generosity and multiplies the mass of gifts. Broad sentiments of humanity lead to gifts outside the range of personal affection and personal interest, to the beggar on the street, to institutions devoted to charity. In New York state about twenty million dollars a year is given to charity, and in the country at large many times as much. In the year 1901 over one hundred million dollars was given to education in the United States by private donors; and that high mark will no doubt soon be passed. Gifts in cases of great disasters, as the Irish and Indian famines, the Chicago fire, the Galveston flood, the eruption of Mount Pelée, bespeak a widening generosity. Religion impels to the building of churches, to the support of priests, missions, and manifold religious undertakings. Charity in this connection is the expression of a sentiment that varies from the broadest and most general humanitarian sentiment to the most intense and ardent personal affection.
3. Distribution may be by an authority willingly acknowledged. The two preceding forms of distribution, force and love, shade off into this form. In them the ones from whom goods are taken or to whom they are given have no power to change the conditions; here is to be considered the case where the person bows willingly to the superior power and takes what that power accords him. There are few despotisms in which the government is not based on the wishes and average capacities of the governed. If the citizens as a body really desired and were deserving of better government, in most cases they could get it. Much is heard, for example, of despotism in Russia, and of the abject condition of the people; but travelers testify that while many in the educated student classes are filled with the greatest discontent, and the intelligent subject peoples, such as the Finns, detest their rulers, such sentiments are far from general throughout the empire. The power of the Czar could not exist for a single moment if the mass of the people did not look to him as the great father whom they venerate and love. If this is true, the despotism in Russia, though abhorrent to our ideals of freedom, is fitted to the aspirations of the mass of the people. So far as government determines income, the authority distributing income there, as elsewhere, is one willingly acknowledged.
In patriarchal tribes, in communal societies, in monastic and other religious orders distribution is by an accepted authority. Each person works at what he is commanded to do, and some one in authority (the patriarch, head of the community, the father of the monastic order) portions out the work and the reward. In the family this rule largely prevails, and even after the children have come to years of discretion they not infrequently accept, from habit or affection, the will of the parents, and give up their entire wages to receive back a portion. The method of charitable distribution while the child is young gradually changes to authoritative distribution after the child becomes a worker. The untrained and indocile youth, however, is made the subject of compulsory distribution.
The collection and distribution of taxes is by public authority. No attempt is made to give back an exact equivalent to the tax-payer. The money is taken and spent by authority for the public good. This method is exemplified in the work of certain commissions appointed by law to fix rates or settle disputes, as boards of conciliation and arbitration and railway commissions. The courts sometimes find themselves obliged to enter this field, although they do so most unwillingly. They try to confine their efforts to interpreting the contracts men have voluntarily entered into, and they avoid, so far as possible, the making of contracts or the fixing of rates.
In many cases, little thought of as economic distribution, the authoritative method is followed. Literary and oratorical contests are passed upon by a set of judges whose opinion of merit determines the award. It is a poor method, often resulting in injustice (as every defeated candidate will admit); but it is the only way practicable for deciding such contests. Yet there are literary and oratorical contests decided very differently. If a man advertises himself as an orator and charges fifty cents admission to his lecture, everyone who goes to hear the man votes that he is an orator; everyone having money but staying away votes that he is not of such value. The one is judgment by the authoritative, the other by the competitive, method. The essence of the method of distributing by authority is that one individual (or group of individuals) judges of the deserts or duties of others, decides what others must get or must pay, not what he himself is willing to pay. Authoritative distribution is necessary in many cases, but it is fraught with dangers. It is the essence of socialism that it would make this plan universal.
4. Distribution of psychic income may be in part by the collective use of social wealth. By collective use in the full sense is meant the continuing enjoyment at the same time by all caring to partake and without limit as to amount.
Now it is evident that, because of difficulties that arise, not all things are capable of this kind of enjoyment. Free water for private use from public waterworks is wasted; free meals and clothing to school-children are open to still greater abuses. Men cannot thus collectively enjoy rare wines or good confectionery; they cannot partake without limit of a limited supply. But libraries and schools may practically be managed in this way. They require both certain qualifications and certain sacrifices on the part of the user. Collective enjoyment is most completely possible where the use of a permanent form of wealth, such as a park, can be made free to the public. All individuals may enjoy equal privileges, though general rules may limit the kind of use; for example: no one may be permitted to pull flowers or to walk on the grass, but all who make use of the park enjoy equal privileges. Henry van Dyke in one of his essays puts into the mouth of his boy the question, "Father, who owns the mountains?" and the answer is, He who can enjoy them. Every man without covetousness, as he stands on this hilltop, owns the mountains, the lake, and this beautiful valley.
In some ways the amount of public enjoyment is decreasing, as by the growing density of population, by the loss of open spaces and commons for playgrounds, by the destruction or fencing in of natural scenery; but in other ways it is growing and must grow rapidly. The spirit of civic improvement spreads. The streets are better paved than formerly; there are more public buildings, art galleries, and noble monuments. Every cross-road in the land will some day have its fountain and its statue. The coöperation of the whole community gives to collective use many of the advantages of large production, and the maximum of enjoyment.
5. Distribution may be by status or set rules and customs. Distribution by status fixes the shares of men independently of their effort and without their control. It is guided neither by their personal merit nor by the economic value of their services, but by the merits and acts of men not living. This method has prevailed and still prevails to a great extent, though in our society this is hardly realized. Feudal society was built on status. Men were born to certain privileges and positions; they inherited property which could neither be bought nor sold; they followed trades which could rarely be entered by any outside of favored families. Caste in India and in other Oriental countries regulates by status a large part of the life. In western countries to-day inheritance of property is the main legal form of status and it shades off into other forms of distribution. While in some cases inheritance may be looked upon as a gift to the heir, in other cases, elsewhere noted, it is partly earned by the heir who has helped to produce it. By public opinion and by prejudices, status is still maintained even where the law has formally abolished it, as is seen in modern race problems.
6. Distribution is usually competitive in accordance with the value of the product. This is the dominant form of distribution in modern society. It is the essentially economic form, as contrasted with the legal and personal forms just described, because it is impersonal and reducible to a rule of value. Distribution under competition is made not with reference to abstract ethical principles or to personal affection, but to the value of the product so far as it is honestly controlled. Monopoly, it may be noted, never has ceased to rest under the ban of Anglo-Saxon law, hence to exemplify compulsory, as opposed to competitive, distribution. A striking feature of the competitive method is its decentralization. Each helps to value the economic services of each. If one pays more for the services of the singer than for those of the cook, it is not because he would rather listen to the singing than to eat, but because by apportioning his income he can get the singing and the eating too. In the existing circumstances, the singer's services seem to him worth paying for, and he backs his opinion with his money. So each is measuring the services of all others, and all are valuing each. It is the democracy of valuation, while the method of authority is an oligarchy or monarchy.
7. The best distribution in practice must be sought in union and harmony of these various methods. Various social reforms propose simply the extreme application of one kind to the exclusion of the others. There are two opposing views of competition: one, that it is the ideal to be sought; the other, that it is inherently bad, and therefore should be abolished. Extreme individualists, believing that everything would be settled for the best by free competition, wish to make it universal. They ignore the many cases where it does not, should not, and cannot exist.
Socialists, ill content with the share secured by the less skilled laborer, say that the competitive plan is unsound at the core. They say that distribution should be not in proportion to value, but in proportion either to needs or to deserts (they are not agreed which), judged by a vague ethical standard. But this involves the principle of authority in its extremest form. It intrusts to some men the function of passing upon the economic merits or desires of all others. Yet that alone is not a conclusive argument against all use of authoritative distribution. In many practical cases the intrusting of power and authority to men to judge of the value of others cannot be avoided. Whatever is indispensable, whatever is the best possible, is, humanly speaking, just. Assessors, judges, jurors, must be employed. Interstate commerce commissioners determine whether rates are reasonable, boards of arbitration settle disputes, the strike commission adjudicates difficulties in the coal regions. Doubtless these methods will be increasingly used.
There is no other kind of distribution than those enumerated. The strongest contrast is between the competitive and the authoritative principles; the others are minor and modifying. None of them alone is sufficient; each has its merits and each has its defects; they must supplement each other. Actually they are employed in modern society side by side; each seems essential and best in some special application. But it does not follow that exactly the proper use is now made of each. No two generations have followed the same rule, and the proportions in which use has been made of them has constantly shifted. It must be recognized that the principle of diminishing utility applies to each method of distribution as it does to the productive processes. Each may be best under certain conditions and circumstances, but, extended in application, each reveals its weaknesses. In any productive process the best method depends upon the proper proportion and combination of elements. Progress toward the best possible distribution is to be sought in the wise adjustment of the various methods to human nature and to human needs.
CHAPTER 43
SURVEY OF THE THEORY OF VALUE
§ I. REVIEW OF THE PLAN FOLLOWED
1. The beginning and end of economic study is man. Before leaving the more theoretical and abstracter part of the theory of value, it may be well, at the cost of some repetition, to restate and review the relations of the various parts of the argument. Intent on details of the theory of value the student is in danger of losing its broader perspective.
The proposition with which this section opens was accepted as our axiomatic starting-point. It was not so in the older political economy; men too often were looked upon rather as a means to an end, namely, the creation of wealth. This proposition refers to all classes, not to a small group of men. The aim of economic study is democratic, being the welfare of all men. Economics does not purpose, however, to explain man's action with reference to all things. It asks and attempts to answer the question: "Why does man attach value to certain things and actions; why does he measure them in certain ratios as expressed in terms of each other; and why do these ratios change with changing conditions?" This purpose has determined the order of our study. Beginning with an analysis of the nature of wants, and of the mental process of valuing consumption goods, the circle of inquiry widened to the problem of valuing things whose relation to wants is more remote and indirect (though not less important).
The problem of future uses, the major part of the theory of value, leads back to the question of the use man makes of things—a field claimed by the moralist, but one that cannot be neglected by the economist. Economics is not the whole science of social relations. It is a restricted part of the field. But it comes into relation with great practical questions that touch all sides of life. Thus economics broadens and unites with the general stream of sociology. In the pursuit of our study one comes back to the starting-point and cause of value—human wants and the use made of wealth to gratify them. The circle is completed. We have surveyed, rapidly and imperfectly it is true, the whole range of economic inquiry.
2. The central point in economic study is the simplest problem of exchange value. The first look at the economic world reveals so many things that have relation to wants, and relations so complex, that the mind is confused. The object of science is to simplify; it seeks unity in the midst of chaos. Relations exist between wants and things that certainly never can gratify them directly. Where is the simplest aspect of the problem to be found? Evidently in the exchange of consumption goods, for these are in closest touch with wants. Out of the complex of direct and indirect goods, those few which are at the moment gratifying wants must be somewhat abstractly, but logically, set apart and studied. In the simplest problem, the exchange of the most typical consumption goods, is the key to the larger problem of value. If one could follow it step by step into its complexer relations, he might hope to understand everything in economics.
3. The problems of rent and of time-value are successive steps in the explanation of the exchange value of indirect agents. The term rent has been so variously defined that no caution to the student as to its use can be deemed superfluous. Until recently economists sought to confine the term to the income from natural resources (or land). Rent, in their conception, was the income from one group of goods, physically distinguishable from another group of goods, called capital, which were supposed to yield interest. That is, rent and interest was each supposed to bear much the same relation to a particular set of durable agents; the difference between them was primarily in the agent that yielded them (though there were other complicating thoughts) rather than in the aspect of value they represented.
Rent as defined in this volume has the much broader meaning of the usufruct of any material agent as contrasted with the use-bearer. Usufruct is a conception most intimately related to that of consumption goods, but is logically one step further removed from want. Time-value, as here considered, is a broader conception than that of contract interest, for it has to do with the all-pervading element of time in its influence on value. Some rents are logically, and in practical business as well, not measured over periods of time, but at the moment of their accrual. The measurement of time differences is mainly required in setting a valuation upon a more or less permanent use-bearer. This process, which is capitalization, has only recently been recognized to be the discounting of all the future uses to their present worth. While in its essence this is merely a problem in exchange value, it is the highest, subtlest, and most difficult of such problems. Its understanding presupposes rent, just as rent presupposes the analysis of wants and marginal utility. It is the outer zone of the value problem, carrying the thought of value years away (all but an eternity away) from present enjoyment.
While both rent and time value are widened so that each applies in some manner to all durable agents, it is a grave error to conclude hastily that the intention is to make synonymous the old terms rent and interest. Rent and time-discount remain essentially different stages in the value problem. Actual concrete net economic incomes as they arise are always rents. Interest never accrues in a concrete form except under the interest contract for a money loan (a contract income, not an economic income), and this evidently is a species of contract rent. Time-value is a phase of value connected logically with investment, or the calculation of future earning power; rents are both actual and expectative, or future, but as realized incomes they always express present earning power. Together, rent and capitalization embrace the whole problem of valuing durable material agents.
4. Wages and profits are of the same genus, the value of human services of different grades. The attempt has been made in the foregoing treatment to show the unity between the problems of wages and profits, and to point out the difference between the conditions that surround them. Through the common characteristic, social utility, the employer's service can be compared with the most ordinary or the most artistic labor. Profits and wages, therefore, are simply different aspects of the same question. A common power, or principle, is found in all objects of value, a power to gratify human wants. In the variety of human services and in material goods must be sought this unity.
The different kinds of services range from direct to most indirect goods. The commonest labor may serve welfare at the moment or may be embodied in a form to be used years later. In that light, wages seems a more complex problem than either rent or capitalization. But the moment the service embodies itself in a material good with future uses the general theory of capitalization applies to it.
§ II. RELATION OF VALUE THEORIES TO SOCIAL REFORMS
1. The earlier theories of political economy implied a dismal view of the future of the masses. The theory of value one holds is sure to affect his view of economic progress and of social reform. The theories from the middle of the eighteenth to the middle of the nineteenth centuries, however varied they were in other respects, nearly all gave a gloomy view of the condition of the laboring-men. The physiocratic school in France, the so-called "orthodox" economists in England (that is, the writers from about 1800 to 1850 that were in sympathy with the landholding or commercial classes), and the socialistic or laboring-class theorists, all inclined to this view. It was while this view prevailed that Carlyle characterized political economy by the term still sometimes heard—"the dismal science." The thinkers of that time started their study of value at wages, and assumed that population would always increase so fast as to force labor to a bare subsistence. The other shares (or the other classes of society) were supposed then to absorb all the surplus income. Economics to-day is not especially lugubrious, and its more cheerful note is due as well to its changed theory of value as to the evidence of advancing welfare among the masses.
2. The socialistic theory of value, akin to the other, holds that capitalists absorb all the benefits of progress. The socialists (of the radical school) claim that their theory is merely the logical conclusion to be drawn from the old "orthodox" theory, stated in its extremest form. Usually, however, the orthodox theorists softened and modified greatly the statement of their harsher views. The socialists have not been willing to recognize any ameliorating conditions. They say: economic theory shows that under a competitive condition of society the laboring-man must be forever ground down in helpless misery; therefore the only hope of the laboring masses is to do away with competitive society and to substitute for it central, governmental control of all industry. They did not and do not attempt to distinguish carefully the part of production, due to brains and effort, from the part due to ownership of capital. The socialist theory is a plan for political agitation rather than a scientific theory of value. It was originated or elaborated by men such as Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Ferdinand Lasalle, as labor leaders and political agitators, who found a ready weapon in the bungling economic analysis of the time. The claim of a scientific basis for socialism has continued to be proudly made by their followers, but it has a tottering support in their defective theory of value.
3. The single-tax theory of value is that ground-rent automatically absorbs all benefits of progress. This is the most notable example of a plan of social reform growing out of an abstract theory of value. While the socialists first had their plan of social reform (or revolution), in whose support Marx's fanciful theory of value was invented, Henry George appears first to have got hold of a theory of value that suggested his plan of social reform. Studying the political economy of Ricardo and Mill, he accepted their ideas regarding the hopeless outlook of the laboring classes, and their conception of the theory of ground-rent with its false implication that landowners get all the surplus in society. George thus came to believe that, with private ownership in land, competition steadily robbed all but landlords, even the non-landholding capitalist, of any share in the benefits of progress. This theory of value is thought to explain all the poverty in the world. It calls, in the single-taxer's opinion, for a radical measure of reform, namely, the taking of all rent of land for public purposes as a common instead of an individual income. If the theory of value on which it is based were sound, the doctrine would have irresistible reasons in its favor; if it is false, most of the argument falls to the ground, though there may still be substantial reasons of a different nature for the exceptional treatment of ground-rents for purposes of taxation.
4. Recent theories of value assign to labor a more hopeful position. A most optimistic theory of wages is "the residual claimant theory," presented by Francis A. Walker. His view was that the various shares of production, such as land-rent, the income from machinery, etc., and the enterpriser's profits, were fixed by forces independent of wages, and any increase in the product must therefore fall to the laborer as the residual claimant. This conclusion has the one merit of explaining somehow the rise in wages in the past century, but the fallacy of its method is too evident to call for exposure. Not to enter into the details of the method, it is enough to note that it involves the circular reasoning that land-rent is a surplus over cost of production, and is fixed regardless of wages, whereas the cost of production itself is made up of money wages.
Another American economist, John B. Clark, is led by his theory of profits to a most hopeful conclusion as to the future of wages. Profits he considers to be essentially the reward for improvements in productive processes, which gradually accrue to the general benefit. As profits thus disappear, the average wage-earner is correspondingly uplifted, a conclusion quite as hopeful as that of Walker. In discussing profits above, dissent from the narrow conception of their source has been expressed.
Some facts lend support to every one of these theories of social progress, but other facts refuse to be harmonized. The temptation to get a simple, dogmatic explanation of value should be resisted. When the interrelation of the factors is recognized there is little likelihood of concluding that some one of them will absorb all the benefits of progress. One is not driven to the extreme either of optimism or of pessimism. While the theory of value is not in itself a theory of society, it greatly influences social conclusions. Clear economic analysis is a condition to sound thinking on practical questions.
§ III. INTERRELATION OF ECONOMIC AGENTS
1. The industrial process is a unity and the different agents bear an organic relation to each other. The problem of value is not one of physical division; it is one of logical analysis, and this is not possible in isolation or without the competition of men. Production as now carried on is a social process; the determination of market price is a social process. The different agents are complementary goods, each necessary to the best use of the various other agents. The value of seed is not to be found apart from the use of the ground; or the value of the leather apart from the shoemaker or the thread he uses. When these things are brought together in society their value is found by the comparison and measurement of marginal utilities. Economic forces, like other classes of forces, act and react upon each other. Two bodies attract each other in space; two chemicals uniting are both transformed into a substance differing from either. The economic result of materials and men coöperating is something differing from either factor, yet dependent on both.
2. The divisions of the older political economy are aspects of the general problem of value. The divisions conventional in the text-books on political economy, namely, "production, exchange, distribution, and consumption," have not been observed in the plan of this work. It has not seemed possible to accept the view that each of these phases of the vital economic process could be discussed completely apart from the others. Consumption must be studied at the beginning, as the basis of exchange value, and again at the end, when the circle of thought has returned to the use man makes of wealth; and it pervades the whole subject of value, for back of every price is the potential utility of the good. Exchange is coextensive with the whole process of associated industry; for wherever there is a price, there is exchange. Subjective value outside a market forms a small, though not negligible, part of the problem for the student of to-day. Production is implied in every exchange, as exchange is in all social production. They are, indeed, but different phases of the larger phenomenon, the economic process. Nor is distribution, considered in its impersonal or economic form, any other than the logical valuing of the shares of the factors in economic production. Impersonal distribution is coextensive with economic production. Whatever a good, logically considered, contributes to value in production, that is its share of the product. Personal distribution, it is true, brings in other great influences which have been partly considered, but which will be treated more fully in the division to follow, on the influence of the state in the distribution of income.
3. The law of diminishing returns is the broadest principle of value. The one character common to all goods is that their importance varies with their quantity in any given connection. This is true of direct goods whose power to gratify wants falls as the supply grows; it is true of indirect goods, whose technical importance diminishes as the quantity increases, and which when taken at any given cost can be applied, after a point, only with diminishing advantage. The gradual extension of the marginal principle from land used in agriculture to every conceivable economic agent is the most important development of the last century of economic theory.
It being true that things are measured by the utility of the unit used last, logically considered, the least change in the combination alters the value of all the factors. Practical economic problems, therefore, are dynamic, not static. The view that the shares of the different factors are fixed by quite separate laws has not been accepted here. The law of rent is the same as the law of wages in its essential point and principle. It is a general law of value applied to a particular kind of want-gratifier. The law of substitution likewise is a general law, for within limits some substitution of factors is always possible along the margin. That being true, every movement of price creates its own resistance; substitutes will be found for materials, demand will decline, and a new equilibrium of price will be attained.
4. The factors and agents of production mutually furnish the field of employment for each other. Each factor is dependent for its technical efficiency on the presence of the other factors. If labor is plentiful and machines are scarce, machines bear a high rent. In accordance with the law of diminishing returns, the last unit of labor in that case contributes little to the product, and labor gets low wages, while more is attributed to the machine. Each machine thus may be considered to offer a field for the employment of labor. If population increases and land remains fixed, the need for food raises the rental value of land. But if population increases slowly, and capital and science progress, the field for the employment of labor is enlarged; and if new lands are opened up or new resources are discovered beneath the surface of the land, the field for labor is still more enlarged and a greater share is attributed to labor. This changing character of the problem must be recognized; no share is foreordained in size.
The pursuit of the analysis of value along the lines of marginal utility thus leads to conclusions far less mechanical, and, to the superficial student, less simple than were the doctrines prevailing in the older economics. But the conclusions are, let us hope, more exact and more applicable to the real world, enabling the student to arrive at juster views of the present interests and of the future welfare of society.
DIVISION B—RELATION OF THE STATE TO INDUSTRY
CHAPTER 44
FREE COMPETITION AND STATE ACTION
§ I. COMPETITION AND CUSTOM
1. Economic freedom exists when men's goods or their own services may be exchanged as they choose, without hindrance. Competition is but another expression for economic freedom. Where men are free to exchange their goods and to get the best price they can, and actually do so, they are said to compete. The action of men in the mass follows pretty regular lines, corresponding to certain abiding motives. If one man dictated all industry, a very fragmentary science of economics would be possible; but the mass of men act according to some rule and are free so to act. When men are free to bring their goods to a market and get the best price possible, a single market price results.
When cost of production was believed to be the regulator of value, it was said that the law of value laid down was true "within the limit of free competition." Market price varied ceaselessly from cost of production, and whenever it did "the law of value" as then formulated was admittedly invalid or inapplicable. The law of monopoly price was supposed to be in marked contrast to the law of competitive prices. The law of prices, as followed in our study, stated in terms of marginal utility, is equally valid in competitive and in monopolistic conditions if there is merely one-sided, or buyers', competition. Two-sided competition is not the sole, though it is the usual condition, which the economist takes account of in reasoning on the problem of price. Anything that keeps men from exchanging what they have for the best price, interferes with competition. Some of these hindrances have been noted, others are now to be.