OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

further production.” Some writers , 12 who hold this latterconcept of capital, have contended that my treatment ofland as typical of capital in general has led me toerroneous conclusions.

In particular, my criticism of the naive productivitytheories is said to fall down because of this considera-tion. But, as I have before written , 13 “my strictures onthe ordinary productivity theories are not dependent onthe putting forward of ‘land’ as typical of all forms ofcapital” or the particular definition of capital which Ihave used, but are, for the most part, merely a resume ofthe strictures of Bohm-Bawerk, whose definition of capi-tal excludes land. In other words, these criticisms holdtrue quite regardless of whether land is included in thecapital concept or not.

However, while I recognize certain differences whichexist between land and so-called artificial capital, thesedifferences are of degree only, and do not carry the im-portance in most phases of economic theory which ad-herents of this concept of capital attribute to them.Professor J. B. Clark has presented 14 the similarities anddissimilarities of land and other durable agents so com-prehensively and adequately that I shall not attempt togo over again this question at this point. However, onephase of this comparison is of importance. It is claimedby those 15 who hold land to be non-reproducible and,therefore, to lack a cost of production, that its value is

“Seager, The Impatience Theory of Interest, American EconomicReview, Vol. II, No. 4, December, 1912, pp. 834-851; Brown, EconomicScience and The Common Welfare.

“ The Impatience Theory of Interest, American Economic Review,Vol. Ill, No. 3, September, 1912, pp. 610-615. .

” Clark, Distribution of Wealth, pp. 338-344.

“For example, Seager and Brown, cited above.

[459 ]