The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1891-12-02
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF VALUE,

DIFFERENT KINDS OF VALUE,
The Journal of the Knights of Labor
attributes good deal of confusion OF
thought regarding the land problem to
failure TO distinguish between "the
value of land as Il means of actual pro-
duction,' its value as giving special
advantages Of occupation and business
opportunities, and the purely specu-
lative or fictitious value which results
from boom. y ri 6
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 1.-The value of land
as means Of actual production" and
its value as giving special advantages
of occupation and business opportuni-
ties the simple and all-sufficient
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 great city.
The writer asserts that city values do
notsresult from land monopoly alone.
but from land monopoly in conjunction
with capitalism in its various forms.
"Thc value of the best business sites,''
he says, "is>not produced by the land
in the same sense as wheat is produced
by a farm. or coal by coal mine y
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 one
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, o,
whether in city or country, makes nc
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
IS, 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 s'pro.
duction. ~ He speaks Of wheat as
produced by a farm, and OF coal as
produced" by a mine; whereas,
though the one is produced from a
farm and the other from 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 wha,
it is-something that land actively puts
forth. This is obvious, not alone from
his use of 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 a value created by. the CAPT
talistic system, of exploitation" as il
real value of the land'' and wheat OF
coal in the land, we're, exchangeable
terms instead OF, being the'one an ex
preston of relation in exchange ant
the other a natural element--part O
the land itself. ., -, .o :.
Production" describes not putting
forth by land of its natural fruits
wheat, coal and the like, but draw
ing forth from the land to the con
sumner by. labor, of those fruits. II
this process, the land over which tl,t
fruits are transported, and that OF
which they are exchanged or finally de
livered. play precisely the same part
in essence if not in degree, as the LAM
from which the commodities are origin
ally produced. In briefer terms, trad
is but a form-an advanced form--o
production, ~. tr
Turn now to the value. Of land
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, the,
viii exchange, for more or better com
modit1es than the others. Some, thohgl
equally fertile with others, are NOR
conveniently situated with reference +,
a trading site: and these are more val
liable on that account. Some are trad
ing sites. They are useless, or at leas
not used for primary production at all
| but they are more valuable than tn
! outlying spots, because it is, easier Il
trade--that is easier to produce wher'
commodities are massed than wher.
they haveyet to be transported: Tradin,
[ sifos 4horoforo ar, mara ~, Il, lla tLa