OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

do with that assumption, we can see clearly if we makethe opposite assumption from that of Bohm-Bawerk ,namely, that the longer the productive process thesmaller will be the return. The very same result wouldstill follow. The labor would still be invested at theearliest possible moment. In other words, let the figuresrepresenting units of product decrease instead of increase.The only difference would be that the month’s laboravailable in 1888 would now be so invested as to bringreturns in that year instead of being invested in a twoyears’ process as before. If calculations are performed foreach year and the results are compared, it will appearthat the investment in 1888 yields the highest return,just as it did on the previous hypothesis.

Again, the same result would follow if the productivityincreased and then decreased in all the tables, or if theproductivity should first decrease and then increase. Aslong as the figure representing reduced marginal utilitydecreases, the “units of product” may be of any descrip-tion whatever, without in the least affecting the essentialresult that the earlier the month’s labor is available, thehigher is its value.

On the other hand, if the conditions are reversed andthe reduced marginal utility does not decrease, the earlieravailable labor will not have a higher value, whatevermay be the character of the “units of product.”

Bohm-Bawerk , however, specifically denies this: 33

“The superiority in value of present means of production, whichis based on their technical superiority, is not one borrowed fromthese circumstances [i.e., the perspective underestimate of the futureand the relative underendowment of the present]; it would emergeof its own strength even if these were not active at all. I have intro-

n The Positive Theory of Capital, p. 268.

[479]