1891.] *-V J [Baird. 



of processes of production and the number of producers to he provided for 

 during all these imaginary processes — extended or non-extended, though 

 they be. In fact, he has added to, not decreased, the complication which 

 arose out of the unsound and even absurd wage-fund theory, involving, 

 as it did, a fixed " national subsistence fund." 



Attempting to bolster up the theory of saving as a source of capital, Dr. 

 Bohm-Bawerk has no real conception of the actual source of capital. His 

 whole theory is antagonistic to the truth that wealth consists in the power 

 of man to obtain mastery over nature; and that capital is the instrument 

 by means of which that mastery is acquired; and further, that capital ac- 

 cumulates in the exact ratio that consumption follows production, and 

 that matter takes upon itself new and higher forms — what we term con- 

 sumption and production being mere transformation of substance; in 

 other words, the more continuous and rapid the motion of society, the 

 greater the power to accumulate capital and to acquire wealth. 



An entire "book" is devoted to the discussion of "Price," in which 

 even a definition of that vital woid is wanting, the evidence being therein 

 presented, in abundance, that the author is quite unaware of the fact that 

 price is the expression of the power of a commodity to command money 

 in exchange, and is always expressed in a money of account. 



While two entire volumes are filled with discussion looking towards the 

 effort to establish the cause of interest and of the rate of interest, -Dr. 

 Bohm-Bawerk has not even Ihe most crude conception of why it is that 

 people are obliged to borrow money or credit, or goods, or rent houses, or 

 factories, or why one man buys and another man sells labor power. If 

 he had recognized association with his fellow-men as the most dominating 

 necessity of man's nature, and that money, with its qualities of universal 

 acceptability, and of almost perfect divisibility and aggregation, was the 

 necessary instrument of association, he would not have inflicted upon 

 mankind such a tissue of learned fallacy in reference to "present goods" 

 and "future goods," labor wages and the wage fund theory. Above and 

 beyond all, he would not have made those fundamental errors as to inter- 

 est, which is paid only for the use of money or credit expressed in a 

 money of account, but which he has jumbled up with the hire of all sorts 

 and kinds of goods, wares and merchandise. He does not even know 

 why "present goods" possess what he calls an agio in "future goods," 

 i. e., because of the necessity under which man stands for association and 

 combination with his fellow-men. 



Marshall. 



Under the title of "Principles of Economics," Prof. Marshall, of 

 the University of Cambridge, has published the first volume, 754 pages, of 

 a treatise in which no great broad principle is presented, in which no end 

 of petty details are given, and in which not a single clear and valuable 

 analysis of economic phenomena is to be found; and in which an entire 

 absence of the true capacity for analysis is shown. The profundity of 



