billion such dollars. But the Bureau of Labor “1918” dollar[1] differs from the National Bureau “1918” dollar[2] as 157⁄196, so that we must reduce our 78.47 billion Bureau of Labor dollars in this ratio, or inversely expand the 61 billion National Bureau dollars, if we want to make a comparison. Let us reduce our dollar as a tribute to the conservatism of the National Bureau. This will give us 62.85 billion “1918” National Bureau dollars to set against its own estimate of 61 billion similar dollars.
Comparing these two estimates we have the following, with a population of 104.18 million:
| Per Capita Income | |||
| |||
|
There is a slight discrepancy, but we can proceed with confidence, since our figures are well within the 10% latitude which economists claim as their privilege. The result obtained, in dealing with anything as promiscuous as a so-called “stable gold dollar” is due to something more than art: it is sheer luck.
Now let us again firmly refuse to indulge in “statistical finesse” and split the difference between our estimate and that of the National Bureau. This gives us approximately 594 “1918” dollars (of the National Bureau brand) per capita, per annum.
We may proceed, then, for the sake of elucidation, to estimate the net current value now arising from the measurable potentialities represented by 363 square feet of a population-density of 1 man per 18 acres, our proposed scientific dollar.
What we have to start with is our compromise estimate of gross yield, amounting to 594 “1918 N.B.” dollars per capita, per annum. If we are going to determine the net value of this effort, in terms of actual accomplishment, we should know what was consumed, and then take what is left over as net gain.
