512 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 
As an attack on the Malthusian theory, Professor Norton’s argu- 
ment is of the same character as that which reasons that since big fish 
eat little fish, and since, as a consequence, every time a big fish is caught 
the lives of a great many little fish are saved and they are thus allowed 
to grow to maturity, therefore the more people there are catching and 
eating big fish the more abundant will fish become, because, for every 
big fish which is caught, a large number of little fish will be enabled to 
grow to bigness. .°. If we will all become ichthopophagi, an inconcety- 
able number of people can subsist and we need not concern ourselves with ~ 
the law of Malthus.—Q. EK. D. 
The real conclusions to be drawn from Professor Norton’s prelim- 
inary analysis, which is really a valuable piece of work if he had not 
spoiled it by trying to base false conclusions upon it, are as follows: 
(1) An increasing population may, by reason of the enhancing value 
of every productive improvement, increase in general prosperity and 
well-being, provided it is not hindered by too great a scarcity of the 
other necessary factors of production, such as land and capital. (2) 
In spite of such scarcity, and the consequent operation of the law of 
diminishing returns, the prosperity may increase, provided the arts of 
production improve rapidly enough to more than counterbalance these 
disadvantages. 
The facts cited by Professor Norton regarding interest rates can all 
be accounted for without calling in this supposititious “ law of progress.” 
A time of rapid invention is naturally a time of great demand for new 
capital, because an invention is a new opportunity for the use of capital. 
Therefore, men who see these new opportunities bid high to get pos- 
session of capital. This, however, is not a complete explanation of in- 
terest. Professor Norton would have difficulty in explaining why an 
appliance embodying one of these new inventions would sell for less 
than its anticipated product, without recourse to some of the “ agio 
theories ” which he dismisses so slightingly. In new countries, where 
land is abundant and opportunities are many, there is likely to be an 
increase of population, because men like to go to such countries. Such 
countries also furnish abundant opportunities for the use of capital, 
and men bid high for it in order to attract it. In old and worn-out 
countries, where opportunities for both men and capital are few, there 
are likely to be a stationary or decreasing population and low rates of 
interest. 
In conclusion let me say that, though these criticisms seem severe, 
they are aimed at some of the conclusions which Professor Norton 
bases upon his analysis rather than upon the analysis itself, which is, 
let me repeat, an admirable piece of work and destined to increase the 
already high esteem in which Professor Norton is held by students of 
economics everywhere. 
