AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



return to land except enough to pay for bringing 

 it into cultivation, and this should perhaps be 

 counted as return to the capital-goods employed 

 in bringing the land under cultivation, in which 

 case the whole product could be said to be divided 

 between the farmers and the capital-goods. With 

 this in mind it might seem the simplest explana^ 

 tion of the return to marginal capital-goods, to 

 say that all of the return except the necessary 

 minimum demanded by the farmers must be 

 credited to capital-goods. This may tend to be 

 true, and yet it explains nothing. It leaves un- 

 answered the question why it is that less produc- 

 tive land is not cultivated at a given time, for 

 the farmers might receive their necessary mini- 

 mum from such land, although this would result 

 in a reduction in the return which could be 

 credited to capital-goods. It becomes evident 

 therefore that the return to capital-goods is regu- 

 lated by a set of more or less independent forces. 

 It is well understood that capital-goods must be 

 kept intact, that seed grains must be replaced, 

 that when a machine is broken it must be put in 

 repair, and when it is worn out it must be replaced, 

 and that the horses must be fed and cared for ; but 

 beyond this amount which is necessary for main- 

 tenance, a certain amount must be paid for the 

 use of capital-goods. This return is usually ex- 

 pressed in terms of an annual rate per cent, upon 

 the value of the capital-goods, but there is no good 



156 



