OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

this is done, however, the figures of present value of the svarious yearly products become absolutely alike; hencethe maximum of the former, if there be a maximum, mustbe identical with the maximum of the latter.

Though Bohm-Bawerk did not consider this case in histables, he speaks of it briefly in his text, but seems to besomewhat puzzled by it. He says: 34

"If the value of the unit of product were to be the same in allperiods of time, however remote, the most abundant product would,naturally, at the same time be the most valuable. But since the mostabundant product is obtained by the most lengthy and roundaboutmethods of production—perhaps extending over decades of years—the economic center of gravity, for all present means of production,would, on this assumption, be found at extremely remote periods oftime—which is entirely contrary to all experience.”

Bohm-Bawerk ’s confusion here is probably to beascribed to his insistence on the indefinite increase ofproduct with a lengthening of the production period.Practically we ought to assume that somewhere in the -series the product decreases. We would then have a morepractical illustration of the fact that the labor availablethis year and that available next year stand on a perfectequality.

The conclusion is that, if we eliminate the “other twocircumstances” (relative underestimate of, and overpro-vision for, the future), we eliminate entirely the super- \ ^iority of present over future goods. The supposed thirdcircumstance of technical superiority, in the sense thatBohm-Bawerk gives it, turns out to be non-existent.

The fact is that the only reason any one does prefer theproduct of a month’s labor invested today to the productof a month’s labor invested next year is that today’s

** Positive Theory oj Capital, p. 269.

[ 481 ]