LAND CIvASSlFlCATION 235 



uses, but does this "least expense" mean "least expense per acre," 

 which would be meaningless because there is no economic reason why 

 we should produce those crops which involve the least expense per 

 acre irrespective of relationship between expense and value, or does 

 the author mean "least expense per physical unit of production," or 

 does he mean "least expense per unit of value of production." If the 

 latter is meant, and this would be the only meaning that would have 

 real economic significance, one is inclined to wonder why there has 

 not been a more widespread tendency on the part of private enterprise 

 to take advantage of the superior profitableness implied by the state- 

 ment, assuming, of course, that due allowance has been made for ascer- 

 taining the present value of prospective future profits. 



In (b) of the same group the point is made that over-production for 

 forests is hardly conceivable because of the great variety of products, 

 while the production of almost any agricultural crop can readily be 

 overdone. Now it is not only possible that forest production could be 

 overdone absolutely, but it is exceedingly probable that it could be 

 overdone relatively, and this is the essential point. In other words, 

 if forest production encroaches too much upon agricultural land it 

 has been relatively overdone. Moreover, while it is true that physically 

 we do not have to cut the timber until we need it, economically the rate 

 of interest and taxes assert a tremendous pressure to realize returns 

 as soon as possible from any expenditure in forest development on 

 the part of private persons. Consequently, if the argument is intended 

 to apply to the extension of forest areas by private individuals it is 

 clearly possible that the area might be very much overdone because 

 of the fact that the product could not be profitably marketed rapidly 

 enough to overcome the losses from deferment of return and ex- 

 penditure for taxation. 



There is possibility that there is some truth in the statement that 

 there is too much improved land in the United States for domestic 

 demands, but certainly the statement is not proven by the assertion 

 that the amount is 5 acres per capita as against two-thirds of an acre 

 in Northwestern Europe. Northwestern Europe is notoriously a 

 crowded country in which the very scarcity of land in proportion to 

 labor has caused the average return per unit of labor to be very much 

 lower than it is in the United States with a resulting reduction in rela- 

 tive standard of living. There can be no question but that we can 

 make a more scientific and efifective use of our improved acreage. But 



