Iron County register., 1891-10-15

and, using the term in Its original sia-
nification, blackmail- The former in
cludes wear and tear OF capital and in
terest on capital; the latter includes
taxes on labor. interest on such taxes.
| and the exactions of monopoly. But
normal rent is neither wages nor black
mail. 1t is the difference in value be-
tween the least profitable opportunities
to which labor resorts. and better op-
portunities. 1t is not part of cost be-
cause at this least productive point
there is no rent; and it does not enter
into price. because price is determined
by cost of production.
The farmer who tills soil naturally
fertile gets in the same market no more
for his grain, bushel for bushel, than
the farmer who produces equally good
grain from less prolific soil; his ad-
vantage is his ability to produce more
grain with equal labor. and the value
of this advantage determines the differ
ence in rent between the two farms.
The merchant who occupies choice
location in the heart of his business
district can charge no more for the
same goods than one whose store is o1
cheaper ground; his advantage is his
ability to sell more goods in given time
and with given labor, and this advan-
tage determines the difference in rent
between the two places The smoker
who buys his cigar where rents are
high pays no more, If as much, than
one who buys the same quality of cigar
where rents are low. The higher rents
of the former place are paid, not by
means of higher prices, but in conse-
quences of quicker sales. Wages, house
hire, value of furniture and interest ara
lower, relative to the volume of busi-
ness done, in places of high rents than
in places of low rents; and the accumula-
ton of these advantages constitutes the
difference in rent
1t is obvious that rent in these illus
trations is no part either of cost or
price. Supposing the poorer land in
all the illustrations to command no
rent rent can not possibly be part of
the cost of producing from it, or selling
on it; and as produce sells at cost (cost
of selling included), rent can be no part
of the price. And since this is so of
pioAuCC lIoLh tlO pOoICE Va
goods sold at the poorer locations,
it must be so of those produced from
and sold at the better. Or, as
equal commodities sell in the same
market at equal price, rent can not en-
ter into the price of one unless it en-
ters into the price of all; but it does
not enter into the price of produce from
land bearing no rent, and, therefore,
it can not enter into the price of land
bearing rent. And, inasmuch as no
product can sell continuously below
cost, the absence of rent as an element
of price proves it's absence as an ele-.
ment of cost. For simplicity, we sup
pose the poorer opportunities in these
illustrations to be rent free; but the
principle would be the same if they
were not, provided they commanded
lower rent than the better opportuni-
ties, as they undoubtedly would.
Mr. Edward Atkinson, Of Boston, is
one of the men who makes this mis-
take of regarding rent as an element of
cost, and proclaims rather than argues
that a land value tax would be shifted
Because merchants and manufacturers
CHARGE up their rent as one of the items
Va unelr DuSlA@SS cApcuSS, Ao AhASAS
that rent as well as wages is part OF
the cost of produce, and that they en-
body it in the price of their goods. II
any man knows less about economic
principles than Mr. Atkinson, the aver.
age merchant or manufacturer is that
man; it is, therefore, quite appropriate
that Mr.. Atkinson shq.ild offer as rroot
of one of his vagaries the form of book
keeping adopted by merchants and
manufacturers. It is modern instance
of the blind leading the blind.
When Mr.. Atkinson shows that mer.
chants and manufacturers whose rent
charges are high, habitually sell the
same quality of goods for more than is
got by competitors whose rent charges
are lower, his proof will be pertinent
That which he now offers would be
ruled out as irrelevant and incomyets
in any court above the grade of q Saoat-
woods justice of the peace.