MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 135 



vance in the value of laud iu Xew York City was nearly equal to the 

 total advance for 275 years preceding 18<S5. Again, it may be asserted 

 that increasing land values spell increasing land rents or vice rersa. 

 And jjroductive industry must pay the growing rent bill of the nation. 



A considerable increase in land values is not only noted in the cities 

 and towns, but in the case of farm land as well. For example, a Cal- 

 houn county newspaj)er recently stated that land values in that connty 

 had nearly doubled within the past live or six years. 



Land rents and monopoly returns, it may be asserted, are two differ- 

 ent kinds of income. It must be granted that a technical definition of 

 monojioly will exclude up to the present time the ownership of land 

 from the category of monopoly. But the ownership of a particular piece 

 of land is an exclusive privilege. There can be no duplication of tluit 

 particular portion of the ear-th's surface. To own land is to possess 

 a partial monopoly, to be favored by certain unique and special privi- 

 leges.^ At any rate, whether land rent is, or is not, a monopoly return, 

 it will, let it be repeated, claim its share of the national dividend, — 

 this is, for our present purpose, the significant fact. To venture to esti- 

 mate the per capita increase in the total rent bill may not be advisable; 

 but certainly such increase is no negligible quantity, as the one fairly 

 accurate estimate in New York City proves beyond controversy. 



Year after year, larger and larger portions of the total national divi- 

 dend are being absorbed in market opportunity rents of various 

 sorts, — city land rents, returns from franchises and rights of way, forced 

 gains of various sorts due to the elimination of competition, and so on.- 



An analysis of market opportunity rents will disclose at least two 

 kinds or classes, — differential rents and "forced" or monopoly gains.'' 

 The former are due to unequal market opportunities. Differential rents 

 do not directly cause high prices or directly increase the cost of living. 

 On the other hand, forced or monopoly gains are direct factors in raising 

 the price level, and are potent factors in increasing the cost of living. 



Time permits only a brief reference to certain remedial measures 

 which are concerned with the tariff' and monopoly. One obvious sug- 

 gestion would be to reduce the tariff' on articles produced in this 

 country under conditions which approximate monopoly. This might 

 be of, at least, some temporary value ; but it would hasten the organi- 

 zation of international combinations which in turn would stifle inter- 

 national conq>etition as has intranational competition been eliminated. 

 Reduction of the tariff, aitho desirable, is not of vital importance as a 

 means of preventing the upward trend in the cost of living. 



Fundamental remedies must be of two diff'erent kinds, — those which 

 are concerned with differential rents and those which are concerned 

 with forced or monopoly gains. The problem is in part that of distri- 

 bution of wealth. It is not one of lowering the general price level ; it 

 is one of lowering specific prices, of eliminating certain monopoly gains, 

 and of diverting other monopoly gains from private pockets to the pub- 

 lic treasury. The real problem is to reduce the prices of certain articles 

 and to increase the sum total of services rendered by the community. 



Some of the remedies which will prove eff'ective in reducing the cost 



U'arlton. "The Rent Concept. Narrowed and Broadened." Quart, of Econ., Xov., 1907. 



-Carlton. "Taxation and Capitalization." The rublii-. July 10. 1908. 



•■'"Monopoly" is here used as the term is used by Professor lOly in "Monopolies and Trusts." 



