144 TWELFTH REPORT. 



paid all that it was "worth" and the subsisteii(?e wage has been far less 

 ooninion in America than in Europe. Labor was the factQi' which had 

 to be economized, rather than land, and its productivity was scrutinized. 

 The result was a productivity theory, and the application of the dif- 

 ferential idea, or an echo from one of the numerous early writers who 

 suggested the marginal concept for value determination, completed the 

 rcheme. But oftentimes in the earlier days capital was the scarcest of 

 all, when like results might be expected for interest theory. 



Nor is it unlikely that the readiness with which certain of our theor- 

 ists take to the idea of capital as a mobile fund, criticising the idea of 

 capital as the aggregate of capital goods, has been furthered by the 

 prevalence of corporations and speculation and the relative mobility of 

 investment, taken together with the preceding conditions. 



Finally, America's relative isolation has made her a stanch pro- 

 tectionist country. Located remote from the old centers of arts and 

 industry, and at a time when the products of manufacture were o! 

 great importance, the "American system" according to which ocean 

 freight charges were to be saved and home markets developed, was a 

 natural consequence. America, directly and through List, has been 

 the center of the modern protectionist idea. 



Of course these "tendencies" do not find equal expression in all our 

 economists, and there have always been some who have upheld the classi- 

 cal doctrines; but our most characteristic ones will alwavs be found to 

 illustrate the reality of them sufficiently well. 



With this background in view let us turn to briefly examine some of 

 our recent economic thinkers and their thoughts. 



n. 



Perhaps to some extent on account of the comprehensiveness of the 

 American Economic Association, it seems that there is no such division 

 into important schools as is the case in Germany, for instance. Or the 

 fact may be due in part to the later development of activity in economic 

 thought. Coming after the reaction against extreme Itistorismua has set 

 in, there was less occasion for the schools involved. Moreover the ab- 

 sence of so widespread and acute a condition of class antagonism and the 

 evils accom]>auying it may explain in part the slight importance of 

 socialism to date. It is characteristic of American economics that there 

 is relatively little difference of opinion as to the taritf and government 

 control, neither being entirely condemned. 



On the whole there are but two great groups with so many variations 

 within both — and so shading into one another — that they cannot be 

 called schools. One holds to a large part of the teaching of Mill; the 

 other follows the Austrian school and Professor Clark. Accordingly 

 there is on the surface at least wide difference in the importance at- 

 tributed to cost in value determination, in the theory of interest, and 

 in the treatment of land and the return from land. To mentio'ii but a 

 few names: Professors Clark, Patten, Fisher, and Fetter are inclined to 

 emphasize the subjective point of view and the utility side of marginal 

 utility, and to deny the significance of the classical rent doctrine; Pro- 

 fessors Ely, Carver, Bullock, Taussig, and Laughlin would lay more em- 

 phasis on costs and hold to an enlightened Ricardian doctrine of rent. 



