[Letter] Sept.16,1889,Smith College [to F.H. Giddings]

Sept. 16, 1889, Smith College.

Dear Friend,
        It is good to
have a critic in the
family, and I thank you
sincerely for your
overhauling of the C.[hristian] Union
article. It was written
to meet an argument
suggested rather than
positively advanced by Dr.
Albott in a previous issue
of the paper. I should be
surprised if such an article
met all that could be said
in behalf of the seizure of
land value by the state. I
am doing my best just
now to supply what was
omitted in the article, namely
a careful study of the relations
of past and present
generations. I should be
glad to have your criticism
of the paper when finished;
but I should be still more
glad to have the opportunity
for a quiet conference on the
subject before it is finished.
In the meanwhile let us
see what is the bearing of the
relations you cite on the H. George proposals.
Let us concede, for the moment, that the
establishment of private property in land in
one generation robs a part of a later
generation. In order to make the case strong
let the classes have a continuous existence.
Heirs of land owners inherit the land, and
heirs of capitalists inherit capital. Heirs of
the former proletariat constitute the later one.
The case then stands thus; A has sold
to B a property in which C has an
interest. Against whom has C a claim
for damages? Law and equity are clear on
the point; his action at law is against A - or
if practical necessity causes him to sue B
then B takes up the case and gets the
payment out of A. For A read society,
for B the landholders, for C the proletariat
of today. If the landless class have a claim
it is against society as a whole. Mr. George
proposes that A and C pool issues and
make a raid on B. His measures would have
the effect of taking value from landholders and
bestowing most of it on
capitalists. Under our
system of free sale it
is absurd to claim that
there is a case in equity
on the side of capitalists
as against land owners.
Some things are not
absurd, but that particular
thing is. Of course I do
not understand that you
advance that claim. I
understand that you advocate
the claims of the proletariat
of a later generation
as against holders of land
by deed of a former
generation. As the statement
in your letter stands I
think you locate the
damages in the wrong place.
Of course I should not
admit the continuity of the
classes in interest, nor would
any fair opponent claim it.
Very much, probably more than
a half of the land of today
is held by heirs of the
proletariat of a hundred years
ago (speaking of the U.S.).
Of the other half a large portion is
held by heirs of the capitalists. The whole
of it is in the general system of
exchange, and most of it is passing to
and fro from class to class and individual
to individual. Therefore, as I have said before
the main question is the equity of holders by
purchase. When I get through I shall I
think have said a few things that you can
agree with. I am not vain enough to
expect to change your view, but I expect to
find that your real view coincides with
mine at several fundamental points.
 Excuse all this about the land
question: my main object in writing
is to state my idea of your Capital
theory. Interest seems to you to be the
extra reward for the extra sacrifice involved
in labor performed after bare sustenance
has been won. The inference is that this
labor merits and gets more than other
labor in the way of a subjective result to the
laborer. Does it do this?
Let A, B, C, D, and E
represent objects of desire
in order of the intensity
of the desire for each.
A is food B, shelter
and clothing C, D, & E
are things of a more and
more luxurious quality.
After getting by labor A &
B it will be extra labor
that secures C. The desire
for A-at-a-later-time
will figure as a desire of
diminished intensity and
may be coordinated with
the desire for B. The
case will stand thus;

Intensity of
Satisfaction at
A year hence
Two years hence
Desires
Present Date
5 - A
4 - B - A
3 - C - B - A
2 - D - C - B
1 - E - D - C

 The man who has secured
A by his first and easiest
labor and chooses to work longer
will have his choice between taking
B at present or A a year later.
The man who has earned A & B will
for his farther and harder labor have his
choice between C at present, B a year hence
and A two years hence. The excess in market
value of A over B only pays an offset for
the diminished subjective value that A
has to the man who must wait a year to
enjoy it. It equalizes B present and A future.
In either case the later and more wearying
work yields a diminished and not an
increased subjective reward as compared with
the earlier and easier labor. Ultimately the
work becomes so wearying and the reward
subjectively so much reduced that the man
quits work. Rest is worth more than a
invisible F in the present or than anything that
is attainable in the future. I cannot quite
see that what you quite truthfully say about
the cost of production of capital figures as
an objection to the thing advanced by Prof.
B. Bawerk. Well - excuse lengthwise again.

           Yours Very truly,
                 J. B. Clark