tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">[148-3] Lastly, the difference between the amount stipulated for, and the original amount of both rent and wages, as well as the interest of capital, is of special importance. The former consists in the price paid by the borrower for the use of the factor of production to the owner; the latter in the immediate products which the employment of the same productive power brings on one's own account. Evidently, the original amount is, in the long run, the chief element in the determination of the stipulated amount. While the former depends more on the deeper and more durably effective elements of price, especially the cost of production, the value in use and the paying capacity of purchasers; the latter is conditioned more by the superficial variations of supply and demand, and even by custom. For our purposes, the former is by far the more important, but, at the same time, by far the more difficult to perceive.

[148-1] This is possible between labor and capital, at least in so far as a comparison can be instituted between the sacrifice of human rest there is in labor and the sacrifice of enjoyment in the building up of capital. But the person who introduces an entirely unimproved piece of land into the service of production, stands to the laborer as well as to the capitalist in a relation which is entirely incomparable with any other. (See § 156.) The doctrine of former agriculturists, that one-half of the harvest was to be ascribed to the soil and the other to the manure, would not suffice here, even if it were correct. Compare Fraas, Gesch. der Landbau- und Forstwissenschaft, 257. But in the production of a calf, the coöperation of a bull and cow are necessary. Yet no one is in condition to determine what portion of the calf is to be accounted as belonging to either. If the bull and cow belong to different owners, the relation of supply and demand, and the deeper causes that determine them, decide in what proportion the value of the calf is to be divided among them.

[148-2] Among the greatest services rendered by Adam Smith is, his complete demonstration, that any income may be resolved into one or more of the three great branches of the national income. (I, ch. 6.)

[148-3] Ricardo has not unfrequently bewildered uncritical readers, by his habit—in which he is by no means always consistent—of using the expressions higher and lower wages, higher and lower profit of capital, to designate not the absolute greatness of these branches of income, either in money or in the wants of life, nor their greatness from a personal point of view, but only their relative greatness as compared with the aggregate income, the measure of the quota of the aggregate product which is divided among workmen, capitalists, etc. And yet, in the case of most economic questions, this is without doubt the less interesting side. Compare the polemic of R. Jones, On the Distribution of Wealth, 1831, I, 288 ff.; Senior, Outlines, 142 seq.; Carey, On the Rate of Wages, 1834, 24. Thus, according to Ricardo, the increase of one branch is possible only at the expense of another, while in the case of flourishing nations, the three branches increase absolutely and together. Ricardo, himself, was by no means unacquainted with this, as may be seen from Baumstark's German translation of his work, pp. 37, 108 ff.

CHAPTER II.

THE RENT OF LAND.

SECTION CXLIX.

THEORY OF RENT.

Rent is that portion of the regular net product of a piece of land which remains after deducting the wages of labor and the interest on the capital usual in the country, incorporated into it.[149-1] Hence it is the price paid for the using of the land itself, or for what Ricardo calls the original inexhaustible forces of the soil which are capable of being appropriated.[149-2] This price also depends, of course, on the relation between demand and supply; the demand in turn, on the wants and means of payment of buyers, but the supply by no means on cost of production, which, from the definitions above given, is here unthinkable. However, land has this in common with other means of production, that its price is mainly determined by that of its products.

[149-1] According to von Thünen, Der isolirte Staat. in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Nat. Oek, 1850, I, 14: "what remains of the revenue of an estate after deducting the interest on all the objects of value which may be separated from the soil." According to Whately, it is surplus profit. The expression "regular product" supposes, among other things, an average skillfulness of the economic individual. Thus, for instance, the farm-rent of a piece of land generally includes besides the real rent of the land, interest on much capital which is more or less firmly fixed in the soil. The importance of the latter may be approximately determined from the fact that in the electorate of Hesse, for instance, the value of all meadow lands, woods, and agricultural lands is estimated at from 205 to 206 millions of thalers, and the value of all the houses at 100 millions. (Hildebrand, Statist. Mittheil. über die volkswirthschaftlichen Zustände Kurhessens, 1852, 37.) In the English income tax of 1843, the annual value of all lands in Great Britain was estimated at over 45 millions sterling, that of all houses at over 38 millions. However the farm-rent of a piece of land does not by any means always embrace the entire rent. A part of the rent is paid to the state in the form of taxes, and another portion to the payment of tithes. Short leasehold terms, frequent land sales, the comparatively great difficulty of disengaging capital invested in the cultivation of land, the union of landed proprietor, capitalist and laborer in one person easily obscure the law of rent.

[149-2] The stores of immediate plant food in a piece of land, of minerals in a mine, of salt in a salt mine, etc., are subject to the law of rent only in so far as they may be considered inexhaustible; that is, they are not, strictly speaking, subject to it. Our definition applies all the more to the capacity for cultivation, and of support or bearing capacity mentioned in § 35; and hence it is easier to follow the law of rent in the case of land used for building purposes than for agriculture. When v. Mangoldt claims that the exhaustibility or