562 
7h< RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
A Primer of Economics 
By John J. Dillon 
Part XIX 
DISTRIBUTING WEALTH 
How is wealth distributed? 
Wealth, being produced by the joint 
agency of land, capital and labor, it is 
distributed as rent to the landlord, inter¬ 
est to the capitalist, and wages to labor¬ 
ers-. For the purpose of clarification, it is 
also well to define profits as the portion 
that goes to the proprietor or business 
man for risk, management and earnings 
in excess over rent, interest and labor. 
In the .study of the economics of distri¬ 
bution, it is important to remember that 
its philosophy and laws are based on the 
assumption that both production and dis¬ 
tribution are conducted under natural 
conditions, that competition is free and 
unrestricted, and that trade is open and 
uncontrolled. The monopoly of land, the 
concentration of capital, the manipula¬ 
tion of trade and the organized control of 
labor are factors that modify, if they do 
not nullify, the natural laws of production 
and distribution. These distortions and 
nullifications of natural conditions are 
often confusing to tin* farmer, because he 
is unable to harmonize his own experience 
with acknowledged economic laws. The 
fault is. of course, not with the economic 
law, but with society, which permits 
groups of its members to nullify natural 
laws for their selfish aggrandizement at 
the expense of the rest of the community. 
PENT 
What is rent? 
“Rent.’’ as defined by Ricardo, “is that 
portion of the produce of the earth which 
is paid to the landlord for the use of the 
original and undestructible powers of the 
soil.” 
The following is Mill's definition of 
rent: The rent which any land will yield 
is the excess of its produce beyond what 
would be returned to the same capital, if 
employed on the worst land in cultivation. 
Does the landlord receive a portion of 
the products of the forests and mines as 
ren t ? 
The product of the forests and mines, 
timber and minerals, have no connection 
with rent. The net proceeds of the sale 
of timber and minerals are profit. The 
return from the use of land is rent. It is 
important to understand the difference 
because 1 of the difference in the laws that 
regulate rent from those that regulate 
profits. 
Does rent include the reward for the 
use of improvements on land? 
In ordinary practice, the rent of the 
farms includes the use of the improvements 
as well as the land itself, but strictly and 
scientifically speaking, rent applies solely 
to the portion of the produce which goes 
to pay for the use of the land itself. The 
improvements are capital, and are paid for 
in interest. Even in the ordinary practice, 
the value of the improvements and the 
productivity of the land are generally con¬ 
sidered separately. The economists sepa¬ 
rate them absolutely. 
Since land is a natural product, why 
is it not free, like air and sunshine? 
Land differs front air and sunshine and 
many other natural agencies in that it is 
limited in quantity. If land were unlim¬ 
ited in quantity, equally productive, and 
no one location more desirable than an¬ 
other, it would pay no rent and have no 
exchange value. 
Does rent cause high prices of produce? 
Rent does not increase the price of 
produce. On the contrary, high prices of 
produce cause rent. The theory is that 
access to uncultivated land is free. When 
the best lands are cultivated, the poor 
lands are idle because they do not yield 
enough to pay for the labor of culture, but 
when population increases and there is 
greater demand for food, prices increase 
and the poorer land will then pay for cul¬ 
ture. but not enough to pay for the use 
of the land or rent. The product of this 
poor land, however, will set the price in 
the market, and the renter of the pro¬ 
ductive lands will demand the same price, 
though his cost of production is less. 
Then the landlord steps in and demands 
pay for the use of the land that pre¬ 
viously paid no rent. If the demand for 
food had not increased and the price ad¬ 
vanced. this land would have paid no rent. 
Hence, the increased prices were the cause 
of the rent. It was not the rent that 
caused the increased price. 
What is the theory of rent? 
The accepted theory of rent is this: 
while population is small and the country 
sparsely settled, there will be more free 
land than anyone needs. The most fertile 
and desirable land will Ik* cultivated. No 
one need give anything for land or for 
the use of it. because everyone can get all 
he wants for nothing, but as population 
increases, and a demand is created for 
more and more food, the available and de¬ 
sirable land is occupied, and less desirable 
and less fertile land will be cultivated to 
make up the needed supply. Between the 
most productive land, and the land that it. 
will not pay to cultivate at all. there will 
always be some land that will just pay 
for the cultivation and no more, and the 
amount of labor required to cultivate this 
land will be the value of the produce re¬ 
ceived from it. It is what is called the 
poorest land in cultivation, and will pay 
no rent. But the fertile land will produce 
more value in food with the same amount 
of labor as before, and the landlord will 
claim this excess for himself. This differ¬ 
ence then, between the value of the pro¬ 
duce from a given piece of fertile land 
tion, is rent. Rent is the result of the 
comparative scarcity of food and high 
prices. It is equally evident that as pop¬ 
ulation continues to increase, and food 
becomes scarcer and higher in price, un¬ 
less the processes of production are im¬ 
proved, rent will increase and land will 
advance in value. 
If rent were abolished would food be 
cheaper? 
Agricultural produce belongs to that 
class of commodities which under given 
conditions cannot be increased without 
increasing the cost: double the amount of 
labor will not double the product. The 
extra produce must be secured by the ex¬ 
penditure of an extra amount of labor on 
the same land, or on poorer land. In 
either case the additional supply costs 
more than the first. The difference in 
value of the two products is rent. The 
price will be regulated by the highest cost 
of production, and the cost to the con¬ 
sumer will be the same if the rent is paid 
to the landlord, or absorbed in tax by the 
State. Ilenc-e it would not cheapen food 
to abolish rent. 
IIow may rents be lowered or dispensed 
with entirely? 
Anything that would revise the causes 
that increase rent would tend to reduce 
them, and if carried on far enough, would 
ultimately remove them entirely. A re¬ 
duction in the amount of capital used to 
employ labor would ultimately reduce 
population, and cause a less demand for 
food. Because <>f the less demand for 
food, prices would fall. The poorer lands 
could no longer be worked, because they 
would not then yield enough to pay for 
the labor of cultivating them. Then the 
next better class <ff land would be the 
poorest in cultivation, and would pay no 
rent, and the rent of all other laud in use 
would be reduced. The process might 
go on until only the most fertile land re¬ 
mained in cultivation, and if sufficient to 
supply the demand for food, it would pay 
no rent. 
Any marked improvement in the process 
of production, either in improved culture 
or in the use of improved machinery, 
would also tend ultimately to reduce rent 
by reducing the price of produce, and by 
making it unprofitable to use land that 
was before cultivated, though, of course, 
land especially adapted to tin 1 use of ma¬ 
chinery would pay higher rent than other 
lands, for the same reason that fertile 
land pays more rent than poor lands. This 
result, however, would probably be only 
temporary, because the low prices for raw 
material would tend to increase capital. 
This would again cause new demands for 
labor with increased population, extra 
demand for food, and ultimately bring 
poorer land into cultivation again, and 
again increase rents. 
Does the theory of rent coincide with 
actual practice? 
To the author, the theory of rent seems 
clear and logical, but some diligent stu¬ 
dents think it far-fetched, and some accept 
it with doubt, if they do not reject it en¬ 
tirely. Renters find it hard to square the 
theory -and definition of rent with their 
own experience. This is largely due to 
the fact that the conditions assumed by 
the economists art 1 seldom all present in 
real practice. The theory of rent is based 
April 9, 1921 
on the assumption that access to land is 
at all times free, and that the law of sup¬ 
ply and demand always works with free 
play. It assumes that labor will occupy 
poor lands as soon as the demand for more 
food increases the price, and that labor 
will abandon land as soon as the cultiva¬ 
tion of it becomes unprofitable, and not 
before. It also assumes that the landlord 
is alert, and always increases the rental 
of fertile land as fast as the demand for 
food increases prices. Of course, the econ¬ 
omist does not consider temporary or im¬ 
mediate effects, lie bases his conclusions 
on what will ultimately happen, even 
though it may take years to work out the 
changes. In the meantime, society is all 
the time interfering with the natural law 
through the efforts of individuals and 
groups to favor their own interests, and 
in this way the natural course of things 
is changed. Therefore, while the theory 
of rent under natural conditions is logical, 
under our modern conditions of a private 
holding of land, monopolies in trade, and 
a manipulation of markets, it is difficult 
if not impossible to square the theory 
with actual practice. The philosopher is 
correct in his theory, and the renter is 
correct in his experience. The study of 
the theory is worth while, because it is 
the recognition and definition of a fun¬ 
damental truth, and it clarifies the vision 
for a clearer view of the effects of social 
obstructions in the channels of natural 
laws. 
What is the annual rent bill of the 
United States? 
We have no statistics that would justify 
a statement of the actual amount, paid in 
rent, but estimates have been made which 
probably approximate the actual figures. 
In his book, “The Wealth and Income of 
the People of the United States.” Prof. N. 
I. King estimates that the total national 
income for lt)10 was $30,529,500,000. and 
the national rent bill at $2,673,900,000. 
or 8.S per cent of the total income. This 
estimate is on the basis of 4 per cent of 
the total value of the land. The new 
census will soon be available, and will 
change the figures. 
Is the collection of rent for the use of 
land a'legitimate source of income? 
Inasmuch as rent is authorized by so¬ 
ciety and law. it is, to say the least, legal 
and not immoral. The justice of it is 
disputed by the Socialists and by the ad¬ 
vocates of the single tax system. The 
question, however, involves the right of 
private property in land, and this subject 
is treated in another chapter. 
A One-armed Bear Hunter 
What a man can do if lie has the will! 
I am inclosing you some pictures of two 
bears that were shot in the Catskill 
Mountains. A man only had one arm 
and had a large family. lie tracked the 
bears for many miles; finally holed a 
mother bear and two half-grown bears 
in one hole. Now. this man had one arm 
and a single-barrel shotgun, and the one 
hand he had was very numb with the 
cold. As he crept up the rocks and got 
at the mouth of the hole the large bear 
came out and he shot her. Two others 
came out and he shot at them both. The 
first one he missed, so he shot the other 
one, and he got two out of three. He 
came home and got me to go after them. 
I could not get there with my horses, for 
it was a rough place, and six miles back 
in the mountains, so I took my three-year- 
old steers and went after them. It. was 
some trip, over the logs and through the 
brush. 
The picture of the oxen and bears 
was taken near the Overlook Mountain 
House, Catskills, with the people of Over¬ 
look House looking at them. The other 
is when he got them home and hung them 
up by his house, with some of his family 
by him. He brought some meat home for 
the family. This man deserves a lot of 
credit, for he has a family of 10 children, 
and lie makes a fine living and sends them 
to school. He bought a small piece of 
woods about five years ago and built his 
house, and now he has a garden on it, 
raises bees, makes maple sugar and keeps 
chickens; sells maple sugar, honey, eggs, 
butter, and keeps cows, and he gets some 
fur in the season, too. He makes it all 
count. MARTIN MAC DANIEL. 
Ulster Co., N_ Y. 
Keeping Hen Records 
I intend to try the following suggestion 
for picking the best laying hens: Mark 
the hens with numbered bands and make 
a record sheet with the months of the 
year and numbers, or make it semi¬ 
monthly. or as you wish. Then go over 
your hens and examine them, mark on 
sheet those that are laying and those that 
are not, and anything else you wish. It 
seems to me if this was done every couple 
of weeks, at the end of the year your 
record sheet would show fairly well which 
are the he«t layers. E. R 
The One-armed Hunter and His Game. Fig. 22Jf 
and that from the poorest land in eultiva- 
Tlie Ox Team Brings Home the Game. Fig. 225 
