374 THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY
On broad lines the difference between property income and service in- come seems to con^e back to the difference between ^' wages of bare sub- sistence and the balance that " makes life worth living/* With full knowledge of exceptions it is generally true that the properly income gives a man the whole of his time, which is freedom itself, while the service income debars a man any of his time save what is absolutely nec- essary for rest and upbuilding, and this is economic slavery.
In these days when public opinion is correcting our morals to make a place for great individual fortunes, much currency is given to the thought that such wealth is by its very concentration a benefit to all, as well as to the owner. The thought seems to be that concentration of wealth makes investment in large scale production possible, for divided wealth would tend rather to be consumed than invested. But if this is true we reply that it only indicates that consumable wealth is more needed than capital wealth, and if it is not true then large-scale produc- tion would go on with a highly divided instead of a highly concentrated capital. The fact is that the concentration of wealth is on this very account bad, because through the curtailment of the purchasing power of the masses, it is a distortion of effective demand, and through that a distortion of the direction which production must take. Demand or purchasing power is wealth, and where wealth is concentrated there is demand concentrated. The things that will be produced are the things that the owners of wealth demand.
The benefit or advantage of a fortune is the interest or property income it will bring, and that goes to the owner exclusively. If the fortune was owned by many, then the interest or benefit would go to many. If the fortune is owned by one, then the entire benefit goes to one. The great fortune may be looked upon in two ways, one in which the owner lives frugally and reinvests most of his income, and the other in which he consumes all of his income. The first is an increasing for- tune and the second a stationary fortune. In the ethics of the case the stationary fortune is alone under consideration, for whatever we niay say of it may be said with still greater weight of the increasing fortune at some future time. Whatever may be said of a thing because it is big may also be said of it because it is increasing. The fact that a rich man is not consuming his income does not mean that some one else is consuming it — ^his frugality is no sacrifice in favor of the people.
A popular excuse for large fortunes is the current notion that they "give employment.** In the ownership of opportunity it may be truly said that the rich have employment at their disposal, but they do not give it. They sell it at the whole value of the opportunity, and the employed gets the product of his labor minus that part of the product made possible by opportunity — ^he gets " wages of bare subsistence.** If instead of a few large fortunes most people had a moderate fortune.
�� �
