unsatisfactory aspect of this so-called science is the lack of basic co-ordination, the subsequent lack of correlation of its formulæ, and the resulting absence of sustained argument, free of apology or specious modification. Many of the argumentative flights seem to be but skilful circling. From the economic ark of Land-value, Labor and Capital—an ark which is anchored to nothing finite or measurable—the dove is sent out seeking for dry land and, finding no place to set foot, returns to its floating premises.
Most economists admit that economics is primarily a study of values. As Gide puts it, “The notion of value is really the basis of all political economy…in fine, works on pure political economy are in reality nothing but treatises on value.”[1] And further, “Value…therefore necessarily presupposes a comparison between…two things. It is a to obtain a notion of the same class as size or weight…to obtain a clear idea of size, weight, value and all other quantitative notions…we must compare all things with one specific object which shall always be the same: we need one single term of comparison: in a word, we require a common measure.”[2] Here, with a very precise statement of simple value, is a basic error, for economic value, the exertion of human effort, in the medium of matter, is not of the same class as size or weight. It is a dynamic value of the same class as energy.
Economics as it stands today, therefore, is a quantitative science without a unit of value! In physics we have the foot-pound-second: in electricity we have the kilowatt-hour: and these, even if not absolute, do define energy in terms of the only constants we know, and give us some point at which to commence and some point at which to stop and tally. Few economic arguments have either beginning or end, and it is no wonder that they become tedious. Our scientific unit of weight is not absolute, but it is constant in its relationship to the mass of the earth. The kilogram, upon which various
