Manuscript notes by F.H.Giddings, 6 pages of fragment, page A 9 to page A 13 only .[Not dated,but presumably from meeting mentioned above, written in October 1887.]

    Manuscript notes by F. H. Giddings, 6 pages of fragment,
    page A 9 to page A 13 only. [Not dated, but presumably from
    meeting mentioned above, written in October 1887.]

 There is however another
important objection to measuring
the consumer's surplus from the
effective utility of commodities,
measured in price. Future goods
have no consumer's surplus. The util-
ity of future goods is imputed to
them and depends upon the utility
of the present goods into which
they are changed by the process
of production.
Each portion of bread has a different
utility to the consumer. The surplus
utility of the first portions remain even
if the a lower price allows the con-
sumption of more bread with a
lower utility. There is in this
case a true consumer's surplus.
 When however the price
of plows is reduced so that more 
more plows are used the first
plow has no more utility than
the second or the last plow. The
same utility is imputed to all
of them.
 If the lower price of plows
reduces the price of bread, the con-
sumer's surplus on the bread will
be increased through the use of
additional quantities of bread.
This surplus is however the only
surplus created and if we meas-
ure that is a consumer's surplus on plows
because they have fallen in price.
There is a duplication. Suppose
all the future goods needed to
produce wheat fell one half
in value the satisfaction of having
there goods would be one half
as great as formerly. No merchant
or farmer would think more
highly of any of these ( )
because of the fact that he would
be willing to pay more for it
if its quantity were reduced. The
satisfaction of possession falls
with the value. The possession of a
twenty dollar plow gives
first half the satisfaction of
a forty dollar plow.
 However it would be different
with the bread made from ( ).
There would be a real consum-
er's surplus on all but the last
increment. And this surplus would
increase as the value of the future goods
fell. The fall in the value
of these future goods
does create a consumer's surplus
not on themselves but on
the bread made by
them. If therefore we say
the value of one plow is
forty dollars, second ( )
plow thirty dollars and the third
plow twenty dollars, there is apparently
a consumer's surplus of thirty dollars if
these plows are used. These
thirty dollars units really represent
the consumer's surplus of the
bread created through the
use of the plow. If one plow
is used the price of bread will
be high and the consumer's sur-
plus will be small.
 Suppose that a Plow can pro-
duce 1000 bushels of wheat and
that the price of wheat would
be thirty cents a bushel if one plow
could be had. Then if two plows
could be had for thirty dollars
each, the price of wheat
were two plows in use would be
twenty nine cents - and with three
plows in use each costing twenty
dollars the price of wheat would be
twenty eight cents. There is
now apparently a consumer's
surplus of thirty dollars on plow
and another of thirty dollars on
wheat. The two surpluses are
however really but one surplus counted twice
as the welfare of the consumer
has been increased by thirty
dollars only and not by sixty
dollars.
 The consumer gets only thirty
dollars worth of surplus utility more
than before. (Insert here A 13 a and A 13 b)
 I have no desire to exagerate
the differences between
Professor Marshall and my-
self yet where differences arise
from different methods of measur-
ing utilities, the legitimate con-
sequences of each method must
be made plain. He measures
objectively and ( ) what of