Berkeley, and Malthus. Nevertheless, it remained an offence against the new science built up in the nineteenth century for the explanation, the defence, and the glorification of the era of capitalism which had transformed the modes of manufacture, commerce, and communications and appeared to justify itself by an illimitable increase of wealth — for those who were in charge of the new processes. For these processes of capitalistic production were dependent upon a constantly increasing provision of new capital and, therefore, upon the willingness of an increasing number of persons to save and invest income which they might have spent in raising their standard of comfort and luxury.
So it came about that the heresy of over-saving committed a deadly offence. It contravened the one claim which political economy had to ethical respectability. For the “economic man,” though consciously moved by intelligent self-interest in the pursuit of personal gain, was led “as by an invisible hand” to a line of conduct conducive to the welfare of the community. He could, therefore, figure as a benevolent or kindly being. For it was his function to keep down the costs of production, including wages, to the lowest level, in order that the product of industry should be as large as possible.
It was difficult for students of this economic theory to gloss over its essential selfishness by adducing passages from the writings of economists which show
