[Letter] Oct.15,1889,Smith College [to F.H. Giddings]

Oct. 15, 1889, Smith College.

Dear Friend,
       Thanks for the
fuller presentation of
your views. I am eager
to get the article. Clearly
Mr. Bonar and I
neutralize each other's
criticisms. He says
you may refute something
in Böhm Bawerk, but
you don't supplement
it. Your view and his
are inconsistent. I have
said you were supplementing
and not refuting. My
contention was for the
harmony of the two theories.
The alternative uses of
accumulations are of primary
importance certainly, and
that is an essential part
of the theory that I did not
get at first. I still
see the harmonies. In
my nomenclature what is
saved is pure capital.
Concrete capital is used
as soon as created. The
essence of pure cap.
lies in the fact that it
can take on any one of
a large number of
outward forms of embodiment.
It always tends toward
the most remunerative
form.
 Now what I expect to
see decided is whether
you are applying the
same quantitative mode
of measuring the cost of
producing cap. that you
use in estimating the
returns. If you estimate
what a man sacrifices,
in order to get capital
by the proceeds of labor,
by the purely subjective
mode of measuring, and
then apply a market
test to the gains, I
can see that the
overtime labor costs
more and in a way
yields more than the
regular labor. By purely
subjective tests in both
cases I cannot now see
that that is the case.
How can anything be
worth to a consumer
more than today's bread?
However, I expect to
see things take a
clearer shape when the
article appears. I am
afraid my own article
now in process cannot
without throwing unity
overboard include all
the points in the
property theory. It started
to discuss some things
about land that involve
a few major points in
the property theory. It
is getting dangerously
long already. When you
come to Springfield I
want you for a good
visit. When do you
come? Mr. Dennison
spoke of next month.

     Yours Very truly,
          J. B. Clark