Socialists, ill content with the share secured by the less skilled laborer, say that the compet.i.tive 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 pa.s.sing 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. a.s.sessors, 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.

[Sidenote: Need of a wise blending of methods]

There is no other kind of distribution than those enumerated. The strongest contrast is between the compet.i.tive 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 circ.u.mstances, 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

[Sidenote: The cycle and order of economic study]

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 repet.i.tion, 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 cla.s.ses, 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 a.n.a.lysis 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.

[Sidenote: The unit in value problems]

_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.

[Sidenote: Former or conventional conceptions of rent and interest]

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.

[Sidenote: Rent and time-value as here used]

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 a.n.a.lysis 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.

[Sidenote: Different stages in value]

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.

[Sidenote: Wages and profits related]

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

[Sidenote: "Orthodox" political economy]

1. _The earlier theories of political economy implied a dismal view of the future of the ma.s.ses._ 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 cla.s.ses), and the socialistic or laboring-cla.s.s 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 a.s.sumed that population would always increase so fast as to force labor to a bare subsistence. The other shares (or the other cla.s.ses 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 ma.s.ses.

[Sidenote: The gloomy socialistic theory]

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 compet.i.tive condition of society the laboring-man must be forever ground down in helpless misery; therefore the only hope of the laboring ma.s.ses is to do away with compet.i.tive society and to subst.i.tute 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 a.n.a.lysis 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.

[Sidenote: George's single-tax theory]

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 cla.s.ses, 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, compet.i.tion 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.

[Sidenote: Recent hopeful theories of wages; Walker's]

4. _Recent theories of value a.s.sign 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.

[Sidenote: Clark's wage theory]

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 a.n.a.lysis is a condition to sound thinking on practical questions.

-- III. INTERRELATION OF ECONOMIC AGENTS

[Sidenote: Organic nature of the productive process]

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 a.n.a.lysis, and this is not possible in isolation or without the compet.i.tion 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 cla.s.ses of forces, act and react upon each other. Two bodies attract each other in s.p.a.ce; two chemicals uniting are both transformed into a substance differing from either. The economic result of materials and men cooperating is something differing from either factor, yet dependent on both.

[Sidenote: The conventional divisions of economics]

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 a.s.sociated 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.

[Sidenote: The broadest principle of value]

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 quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty 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.

[Sidenote: Generality of the law of value]

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 subst.i.tution likewise is a general law, for within limits some subst.i.tution of factors is always possible along the margin. That being true, every movement of price creates its own resistance; subst.i.tutes will be found for materials, demand will decline, and a new equilibrium of price will be attained.

[Sidenote: Mutual employment of the factors]

[Sidenote: An ever changing problem]