Iron County register., 1891-11-26
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF VALUE.


The Journal of the Knights of Labor
attributes a good deal of confusion of
thought regarding the land problem to
failure to distinguish between 1.-The
value of land as means of actual pro-
duction," it's value as giving special
advantages of occupation and business
opportunities" and the purely specu-
1ative or fictitious value which results
from boom"
Advocates of the single tax usually
distinguish between the first and the
third kinds of value here specified,
though it is only in certain aspects of
the problem that the distinction is i'm
portant 1t is true, however, that they
do not distinguish between the first and
the second-between ''the value of land
as means of actual production" and
its value as giving special advantages
of occupation and business opportuni-
ties"-for the simple and all-suff1cient
reason that there is no such difference
to be distinguished.
In illustration of what it means by
the first kind of value, the journal re-
fers to farms, mines and forests; and
in illustration of the second, it refers
to the business streets of a great city.
The writer asserts that city values do
not result from land monopoly alone,
but from land monopoly in conjunction
with capitalism in it's various forms
''The value of the best business sites,"
he says, sis not produced by the land
in the same sense as wheat is produced
by farm. or coal by a coal mine. :"
This last is quite true. City values are
not produced as wheat or coal But
neither are any other values Values
merely measure the relation of pne
thing to another in exchange. When
one man with pair of shoes prefers a
hat, and another with the hat prefers
the Shoes they will, if free, make an
even trade. We should say, then, that
these shoes and this hat are of equal
value If the owner of the shoes, while
preferring them to one hat, would
rather have two hats than the shoes,
and the owner of two hats would rather
have the shoes than the hats, the men,
assuming that they acted freely, would
trade on that basis; and then we should
say that the shoes were double the val
ue of each of the hats. Or, if the man
with the hat would rather have par
ticular piece of. land whether agricul-
tural, mineral or building land, or
whether in city or country, makes no
difference), and the owner of that land
would rather have the hat, they would,
if free, trade the hat for the land; and
then we should say that this hat and
this land were of equal value. The in
PRODUCTION of money would not change
the nature of the transaction. Money,
in this connection, is only medium of
trade, enabling traders who do not
know of each others wants to come to-
gether. But if money were used, and
the hat, in terms of money, was worth
SIS, we should say that the land was
worth S.. This relation. which is indi-
Gated by the term value" is, of course,
not produced" as coal and wheat are
The Journal writer's confusion seems
to be traceable to his misconception
not alone of value" but also of PRO
duction." He speaks of wheat as
produced" by farm, and of coal as
''produced' by a mine; whereas,
farm and the other from a mine, both
are produced by labor We are not
criticising our critics rhetoric He ex-
presses his thought with accuracy, and
it is his thought not his language that
is wrong. He supposes that production
is something very different from what
it is-something that land actively puts
forth. This is obvious. not alone from
his use of a proposition that indicates
action, and from his comparison of land
value and wheat as products, but also
from his statement that the portion of
labor products claimed by landlordism
represents not the real value of the
land, but value created by the capi-
talistic system of exploitation" as if
real value of the land and wheat Or
coal in the land, were exchangeable
terms, instead of being the one an ex-
preston of relation in exchange and
the other a natural element-part of
the land itself.
production" describes not putting
forth by land of it's natural fruits
wheat, coal and the like, but a draw
ing forth from the land to the con-
surner, by labor of those fruits. In
this process. the land over which the
fruits are transported, and that on
which they are exchanged or finally de-
livered. play precisely the same part,
in essence if not in degree, as the land
from which the commodities are origin
ally produced. In briefer terms, trade
is but a form-an advanced form-of
production
Turn now to the value of land It
results from production in circum-
stances that secure exclusive possession
of particular spots to particular people.
Some spots are more fertile than others,
though in other respects the same
These are more valuable that is they
will exchange for more or better COM
moditles than the others Some, though
equally fertile with others, are more
conveniently situated with reference to
a trading site; and these are more val
liable on that account Some are trad
ing sites They are useless, or at least
not used for primary production at all;
but they are more valuable than the
outlying spots. because it is easier to
trade-that is, easier to produce-where
commodities are massed than where
they have yet to be transported Trading
sites, therefore, are more valuable than
primary production sites. And when
we come to a great city, which, after
all, is but more perfect trading spot. |
because both in quantity and variety
there is greater massing there of the |
products of the worlds labor, we find |
a still higher value attaching to the |
land But from beginning to end, land |
is the premium men are willing to pay |
r