DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0358
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY.
substance in the contingency of one crop, e.g., of hop growing.
Nor need I at this particular point dwell on the necessity which
there is of making contracts for the use of land liberal, equitable,
and elastic, unless one wishes, as in recent years, to see ruin over-
take both interests, that of the landowner and that of the farmer..
But when you come to production on a small scale you cannot
exhibit the same balance-sheet. What is the cost of production
is a question which you may ask without getting an answer. In
the case which I have just now described, the capital invested in
plant, stock, buildings, rent and labour, may, hypothetically at
least, be conceived of as invested in some other calling, some
other premises, some other farm. Though economists have
talked absurdly, that is, metaphysically, about capitals invested
in business as essentially mobile, when they could not be realized
and changed from their present object without serious loss, and
probably ruin, there has been a time when the individual possessor
could have exercised a fairly free discretion in the investment of
his property. I will admit that the discretion is not absolute.
Men cannot change from calling to calling with facility. An un-
successful tradesman cannot turn himself into a successful physician,
unless he practices homoeopathy, where I have heard that such a
mutation has been, advantageously for the individual, effected, for
the law steps in to prevent it. Men in carrying on an occupation
are very much tied by their early training and its associations.
Economists have written as unwisely about changes of industry as
they have about wage funds, with an ignorance which is almost
sublime as to the invariable and manifest facts of human life. I
say this that I may not be misunderstood. There is a freedom in
production on a large scale, but the freedom is limited by con-
ditions in the first instance, and soon becomes curtailed when the
choice is made.
But in the case of a producer on a small scale the cost of pro-
duction may be almost intangible and incapable of estimate. This,
has been noted long since in what economists call by-industries,,
that is callings which do not constitute the regular labour and
livelihood of those who practice them. Generally it must be
allowed this by-industry, when its produce comes to be sold, is
very poorly remunerated. But what if it be used in the family ?
substance in the contingency of one crop, e.g., of hop growing.
Nor need I at this particular point dwell on the necessity which
there is of making contracts for the use of land liberal, equitable,
and elastic, unless one wishes, as in recent years, to see ruin over-
take both interests, that of the landowner and that of the farmer..
But when you come to production on a small scale you cannot
exhibit the same balance-sheet. What is the cost of production
is a question which you may ask without getting an answer. In
the case which I have just now described, the capital invested in
plant, stock, buildings, rent and labour, may, hypothetically at
least, be conceived of as invested in some other calling, some
other premises, some other farm. Though economists have
talked absurdly, that is, metaphysically, about capitals invested
in business as essentially mobile, when they could not be realized
and changed from their present object without serious loss, and
probably ruin, there has been a time when the individual possessor
could have exercised a fairly free discretion in the investment of
his property. I will admit that the discretion is not absolute.
Men cannot change from calling to calling with facility. An un-
successful tradesman cannot turn himself into a successful physician,
unless he practices homoeopathy, where I have heard that such a
mutation has been, advantageously for the individual, effected, for
the law steps in to prevent it. Men in carrying on an occupation
are very much tied by their early training and its associations.
Economists have written as unwisely about changes of industry as
they have about wage funds, with an ignorance which is almost
sublime as to the invariable and manifest facts of human life. I
say this that I may not be misunderstood. There is a freedom in
production on a large scale, but the freedom is limited by con-
ditions in the first instance, and soon becomes curtailed when the
choice is made.
But in the case of a producer on a small scale the cost of pro-
duction may be almost intangible and incapable of estimate. This,
has been noted long since in what economists call by-industries,,
that is callings which do not constitute the regular labour and
livelihood of those who practice them. Generally it must be
allowed this by-industry, when its produce comes to be sold, is
very poorly remunerated. But what if it be used in the family ?