FALLACIES OF MODERN ECONOMISTS. 233 



Viewing tlieni from a philosophical standpoint, I should say 

 the one lacks mobility, the other cohesion. The one has a single 

 eye to the freedom of the individual and trusts to luck as to the 

 destiny of society ; the other sees only the social union and equal- 

 ity of all, and trusts to chance to take care of the freedom of the 

 individual. 



I do not want to fall into the vicious error of our a priori 

 friends who think they can predict exactly the results that will 

 flow from their social prescriptions. But if human experience is 

 to be taken for anything, neither socialism nor anarchism are 

 destined to work out the way their advocates would have us be- 

 lieve. Economics is not an exact science. We have not yet ar- 

 rived at that point where we can predict events. The fact that 

 among economists there are so many contradictions is evidence of 

 the want of a scientific basis for their theories. One cause of 

 very much of the disagreement among modern economists is the 

 misapplication of the law of induction. Inductive reasoning is 

 safe only when conducted on proper lines and carried out to the 

 fullest extent, otherwise it is, as Bacon says, " a weak and useless 

 thing." The interminable contention between the schools of free 

 trade and protection (or " aggression," as Herbert Spencer calls 

 the latter) is largely due to this kind of imperfect reasoning. 

 " Your theories are all very fine," exclaims the protectionist, " but 

 we prove our case by facts, cold facts." And when you carefully 

 examine his collection of instances, you find them to consist of a 

 specially assorted lot of isolated cases that apparently favor his 

 theory, all others being carefully avoided or rejected. For exam- 

 ple, on the question of wages. We are told by high political au- 

 thorities that high wages are a necessary consequence of high 

 protection, while free trade produces low wages. Now for the 

 proof. In the United States, a protective country, wages are 

 higher than in free-trade England! The free-trader naturally 

 asks why the protectionist confines his instances to just these two 

 countries. If inductive reasoning is to be applied, why not collect 

 every possible instance ? The results would be as follows : Rus- 

 sia, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, and Italy, are all "pro- 

 tected " countries — some highly " protected." Wages in each of 

 these are far lower than in Great Britain. 



Again, in the free-trade colony of New South Wales wages 

 have been, and I understand are still, higher than in this country, 

 and in parts of Africa where no tariff exists wages are extremely 

 high. On the other hand, in China, where " protection " has ex- 

 isted longer than in any other country, and where it has reached its 

 highest stage of consistency, wages are lower than anywhere else 

 on the face of the globe. And yet once more : " Cold facts " show 

 that the standard of living and rate of wages among the working 



