But, as an answer to this objection, it might be argued bythe abstinence theorists (if I may ascribe to them the bestargument I can think of) that while waiting-cost is certainlynot a discountable cost, nevertheless its inclusion in the list ofcosts obviates the necessity of discounting the other items ofcost or of income. If all income and all cost items, includingwaiting, are counted at full value — not discounted at all —the capital may be valued simply by taking their net sum.Thus, to count “waiting” as a cost appears as an alternativeand plausible method of keeping accounts. By this system wecould apparently get rid of discounting and merely add andsubtract items regardless of their situation in time. While thisprocedure obviates the objection to the abstinence theory ofcost, so far as its application to capital value is concerned, itleaves objections equally great to its application to income. Ifwaiting is a genuine economic cost, it must certainly be includedon the outgo side of the income account. To show how thiswould apply to the cost of the tree, the following table is pre-sented.
Income Account of Tree if Waiting is Cost
True
Income
Alleged
Outgo
Alleged
Net
Income
True CapitalValue at Endop Year
1st year
2d year
3d year* * *
14th year* * *
25th year
$0.00
0.00
0.00
* * * *
0.00
# * * *
3.00
Labor $1.00
Waiting .05
“ .05
“ .05
*****
“ .10
*****
“ .15
* *
* *
$1.05
1.10
1.15
* * *
2.00* * *
3.00
Total
$3.00
$3.00
00.0
According to this method of accounting, we see that, dur in gthe year in which the sapling is planted, its cost consists of laborto the extent of SI, expended, let us say, at the beginning of theyear, and 5 cents’ worth of waiting suffered during the course
[ 535 ]