IntroductoryThe Problem

The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes and labor-saving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of labor.

This century has seen a huge increase in the power to produce wealth. Steam and electricity, better methods and labor-saving machines, finer division of work, production on a grander scale and far easier exchange have multiplied the effectiveness of labor enormously.

At the beginning of this marvelous era it was natural to expect, and it was expected, that labor-saving inventions would lighten the toil and improve the condition of the laborer; that the enormous increase in the power of producing wealth would make real poverty a thing of the past. Could a man of the last century—a Franklin or a Priestley—have seen, in a vision of the future, the steamship taking the place of the sailing vessel, the railroad train of the wagon, the reaping machine of the scythe, the threshing machine of the flail; could he have heard the throb of the engines that in obedience to human will, and for the satisfaction of human desire, exert a power greater than that of all the men and all the beasts of burden of the earth combined; could he have seen the forest tree transformed into finished lumber—into doors, sashes, blinds, boxes or barrels, with hardly the touch of a human hand; the great workshops where boots and shoes are turned out by the case with less labor than the old-fashioned cobbler could have4 put on a sole; the factories where, under the eye of a girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than hundreds of stalwart weavers could have turned it out with their handlooms; could he have seen steam hammers shaping mammoth shafts and mighty anchors, and delicate machinery making tiny watches; the diamond drill cutting through the heart of the rocks, and coal oil sparing the whale; could he have realized the enormous saving of labor resulting from improved facilities of exchange and communication—sheep killed in Australia eaten fresh in England, and the order given by the London banker in the afternoon executed in San Francisco in the morning of the same day; could he have conceived of the hundred thousand improvements which these only suggest, what would he have inferred as to the social condition of mankind?

At the start of this marvelous era, people naturally expected that labor-saving inventions would lighten toil and improve the laborer’s condition. They expected the growth in wealth-producing power to make real poverty a thing of the past. Imagine a man of the last century, a Franklin or a Priestley, given a vision of what was coming. He sees the steamship replace the sailing vessel, the railroad train the wagon, the reaping machine the scythe, and the threshing machine the flail. He hears the throb of engines that, obeying human will and serving human desire, exert more power than all the men and all the beasts of burden on earth combined. He sees a forest tree turned into doors, sashes, blinds, boxes or barrels with hardly a human touch. He sees great workshops turning out boots and shoes by the case with less labor than an old-fashioned cobbler needed to put on one sole.4 He sees factories where, under the eye of a single girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than hundreds of stalwart weavers could make it on handlooms. He sees steam hammers shaping mammoth shafts and mighty anchors, delicate machinery making tiny watches, the diamond drill cutting through the heart of rock, and coal oil sparing the whale. He grasps how much labor better exchange and communication save: sheep killed in Australia are eaten fresh in England, and an order a London banker gives in the afternoon is carried out in San Francisco that same morning. He imagines the hundred thousand other improvements these only hint at. What would he have concluded about the condition of mankind?

It would not have seemed like an inference; further than the vision went it would have seemed as though he saw; and his heart would have leaped and his nerves would have thrilled, as one who from a height beholds just ahead of the thirst-stricken caravan the living gleam of rustling woods and the glint of laughing waters. Plainly, in the sight of the imagination, he would have beheld these new forces elevating society from its very foundations, lifting the very poorest above the possibility of want, exempting the very lowest from anxiety for the material needs of life; he would have seen these slaves of the lamp of knowledge taking on themselves the traditional curse, these muscles of iron and sinews of steel making the poorest laborer’s life a holiday, in which every high quality and noble impulse could have scope to grow.

It would not have felt like an inference. As far as the vision reached, he would have seemed to see it. His heart would have leaped, like a man on a height who sees, just ahead of a thirst-stricken caravan, the living gleam of rustling woods and the glint of laughing waters. He would have watched these new forces lift society from its foundations. They would lift the very poorest above any possibility of want and free the lowest from worry about material needs. These slaves of the lamp of knowledge would take on themselves the old curse of toil. Muscles of iron and sinews of steel would make the poorest laborer’s life a holiday, with room for every high quality and noble impulse to grow.

And out of these bounteous material conditions he would have seen arising, as necessary sequences, moral conditions realizing the golden age of which mankind have always dreamed. Youth no longer stunted and5 starved; age no longer harried by avarice; the child at play with the tiger; the man with the muck-rake drinking in the glory of the stars! Foul things fled, fierce things tame; discord turned to harmony! For how could there be greed where all had enough? How could the vice, the crime, the ignorance, the brutality, that spring from poverty and the fear of poverty, exist where poverty had vanished? Who should crouch where all were freemen; who oppress where all were peers?

From these bountiful material conditions he would have seen moral conditions arising, realizing the golden age mankind has always dreamed of. Youth no longer stunted and starved. Age no longer harried by avarice.5 The child at play with the tiger. The man with the muck-rake drinking in the glory of the stars! Foul things fled, fierce things tame, discord turned to harmony! How could greed exist where all had enough? How could the vice, crime, ignorance and brutality that spring from poverty and the fear of it survive where poverty had vanished? Who would crouch where all were free men, and who would oppress where all were equals?

More or less vague or clear, these have been the hopes, these the dreams born of the improvements which give this wonderful century its preëminence. They have sunk so deeply into the popular mind as radically to change the currents of thought, to recast creeds and displace the most fundamental conceptions. The haunting visions of higher possibilities have not merely gathered splendor and vividness, but their direction has changed—instead of seeing behind the faint tinges of an expiring sunset, all the glory of the daybreak has decked the skies before.

These were the hopes and dreams born of the improvements that make this century so remarkable. They sank so deep into the popular mind that they changed the currents of thought, recast creeds and displaced the most fundamental conceptions. The haunting visions of higher possibilities grew more splendid and vivid, and they also changed direction. People no longer saw the faint tints of a dying sunset behind them. The full glory of daybreak had spread across the sky ahead.

It is true that disappointment has followed disappointment, and that discovery upon discovery, and invention after invention, have neither lessened the toil of those who most need respite, nor brought plenty to the poor. But there have been so many things to which it seemed this failure could be laid, that up to our time the new faith has hardly weakened. We have better appreciated the difficulties to be overcome; but not the less trusted that the tendency of the times was to overcome them.

It is true that disappointment has followed disappointment. Discovery after discovery and invention after invention have neither lessened the toil of those who most need rest nor brought plenty to the poor. But there seemed so many things to blame for this failure that until our time the new faith has hardly weakened. We see the difficulties more clearly, but we trust no less that the tendency of the times is to overcome them.

Now, however, we are coming into collision with facts which there can be no mistaking. From all parts of the civilized world come complaints of industrial depression; of labor condemned to involuntary idleness; of capital massed and wasting; of pecuniary distress among business men; of want and suffering and anxiety among the working classes. All the dull, deadening pain, all the keen, maddening anguish, that to great masses of men6 are involved in the words “hard times,” afflict the world to-day. This state of things, common to communities differing so widely in situation, in political institutions, in fiscal and financial systems, in density of population and in social organization, can hardly be accounted for by local causes. There is distress where large standing armies are maintained, but there is also distress where the standing armies are nominal; there is distress where protective tariffs stupidly and wastefully hamper trade, but there is also distress where trade is nearly free; there is distress where autocratic government yet prevails, but there is also distress where political power is wholly in the hands of the people; in countries where paper is money, and in countries where gold and silver are the only currency. Evidently, beneath all such things as these, we must infer a common cause.

Now, however, we are running into facts that cannot be mistaken. From all parts of the civilized world come complaints of industrial depression, of labor condemned to involuntary idleness, of capital massed and wasting, and of financial distress among business men. The working classes report want, suffering and anxiety. All the dull, deadening pain and keen, maddening anguish that the words “hard times” mean to great masses of men afflict the world today.6 This state of things is common to communities that differ widely in situation, political institutions, tax and financial systems, density of population and social organization. Local causes can hardly explain it. There is distress where large standing armies are kept, but also where the armies are nominal. There is distress where protective tariffs stupidly and wastefully hamper trade, but also where trade is nearly free. There is distress where autocratic government survives, but also where political power is wholly in the people’s hands. There is distress in countries where paper is money and in countries where gold and silver are the only currency. Beneath all such differences we must infer a common cause.

That there is a common cause, and that it is either what we call material progress or something closely connected with material progress, becomes more than an inference when it is noted that the phenomena we class together and speak of as industrial depression are but intensifications of phenomena which always accompany material progress, and which show themselves more clearly and strongly as material progress goes on. Where the conditions to which material progress everywhere tends are most fully realized—that is to say, where population is densest, wealth greatest, and the machinery of production and exchange most highly developed—we find the deepest poverty, the sharpest struggle for existence, and the most of enforced idleness.

That there is a common cause, and that it is material progress or something closely tied to it, is more than an inference. The phenomena we group together as industrial depression are only intensifications of phenomena that always accompany material progress, and that show up more clearly and strongly as progress goes on. Progress everywhere tends toward certain conditions: the densest population, the greatest wealth, the most highly developed machinery of production and exchange. Where these are most fully realized, we find the deepest poverty, the sharpest struggle for existence and the most enforced idleness.

It is to the newer countries—that is, to the countries where material progress is yet in its earlier stages—that laborers emigrate in search of higher wages, and capital flows in search of higher interest. It is in the older countries—that is to say, the countries where material progress has reached later stages—that widespread desti7tution is found in the midst of the greatest abundance. Go into one of the new communities where Anglo-Saxon vigor is just beginning the race of progress; where the machinery of production and exchange is yet rude and inefficient; where the increment of wealth is not yet great enough to enable any class to live in ease and luxury; where the best house is but a cabin of logs or a cloth and paper shanty, and the richest man is forced to daily work—and though you will find an absence of wealth and all its concomitants, you will find no beggars. There is no luxury, but there is no destitution. No one makes an easy living, nor a very good living; but every one can make a living, and no one able and willing to work is oppressed by the fear of want.

Laborers emigrate to the newer countries, where material progress is in its earlier stages, in search of higher wages, and capital flows there in search of higher interest. In the older countries, where progress has gone further, widespread destitution is found amid the greatest abundance.7 Go into one of the new communities where Anglo-Saxon vigor is just starting the race of progress. The machinery of production and exchange is still rude and inefficient. The surplus of wealth is not yet big enough for any class to live in ease and luxury. The best house is a cabin of logs or a shanty of cloth and paper, and the richest man must work every day. You will find none of the wealth or what goes with it, but you will find no beggars. There is no luxury, but there is no destitution. No one makes an easy living or a very good one. But everyone can make a living, and no one able and willing to work is oppressed by the fear of want.

But just as such a community realizes the conditions which all civilized communities are striving for, and advances in the scale of material progress—just as closer settlement and a more intimate connection with the rest of the world, and greater utilization of labor-saving machinery, make possible greater economies in production and exchange, and wealth in consequence increases, not merely in the aggregate, but in proportion to population—so does poverty take a darker aspect. Some get an infinitely better and easier living, but others find it hard to get a living at all. The “tramp” comes with the locomotive, and almshouses and prisons are as surely the marks of “material progress” as are costly dwellings, rich warehouses, and magnificent churches. Upon streets lighted with gas and patrolled by uniformed policemen, beggars wait for the passer-by, and in the shadow of college, and library, and museum, are gathering the more hideous Huns and fiercer Vandals of whom Macaulay prophesied.

But as such a community achieves the conditions all civilized communities strive for and moves up the scale of material progress, poverty takes on a darker look. Closer settlement, closer ties with the rest of the world and wider use of labor-saving machinery make greater economies possible. Wealth grows, not just in total but in proportion to population. Some get a vastly better and easier living, while others find it hard to get a living at all. The “tramp” arrives with the locomotive. Almshouses and prisons mark “material progress” as surely as costly dwellings, rich warehouses and magnificent churches. On streets lit with gas and patrolled by uniformed police, beggars wait for the passerby. In the shadow of college, library and museum gather the more hideous Huns and fiercer Vandals that the historian Macaulay prophesied.

This fact—the great fact that poverty and all its concomitants show themselves in communities just as they develop into the conditions toward which material prog8ress tends—proves that the social difficulties existing wherever a certain stage of progress has been reached, do not arise from local circumstances, but are, in some way or another, engendered by progress itself.

This is the great fact: poverty and all that goes with it show up in communities just as they grow into the conditions material progress tends toward.8 It proves that the social difficulties found wherever a certain stage of progress has been reached do not arise from local circumstances. In some way they are produced by progress itself.

And, unpleasant as it may be to admit it, it is at last becoming evident that the enormous increase in productive power which has marked the present century and is still going on with accelerating ratio, has no tendency to extirpate poverty or to lighten the burdens of those compelled to toil. It simply widens the gulf between Dives and Lazarus, and makes the struggle for existence more intense. The march of invention has clothed mankind with powers of which a century ago the boldest imagination could not have dreamed. But in factories where labor-saving machinery has reached its most wonderful development, little children are at work; wherever the new forces are anything like fully utilized, large classes are maintained by charity or live on the verge of recourse to it; amid the greatest accumulations of wealth, men die of starvation, and puny infants suckle dry breasts; while everywhere the greed of gain, the worship of wealth, shows the force of the fear of want. The promised land flies before us like the mirage. The fruits of the tree of knowledge turn as we grasp them to apples of Sodom that crumble at the touch.

It is unpleasant to admit, but it is becoming clear that this century’s enormous and still accelerating increase in productive power has no tendency to wipe out poverty. Nor does it lighten the burdens of those who must toil. It simply widens the gulf between Dives and Lazarus, the rich man and the beggar of the parable, and makes the struggle for existence more intense. Invention has given mankind powers the boldest imagination of a century ago could not have dreamed of. Yet little children work in the factories where labor-saving machinery is most wonderful. Wherever the new forces are anything like fully used, large classes live on charity or on the verge of it. Amid the greatest accumulations of wealth, men die of starvation and puny infants suckle dry breasts. Everywhere the greed of gain and the worship of wealth show the force of the fear of want. The promised land flies before us like a mirage. The fruits of the tree of knowledge turn, as we grasp them, to apples of Sodom that crumble at the touch.

It is true that wealth has been greatly increased, and that the average of comfort, leisure, and refinement has been raised; but these gains are not general. In them the lowest class do not share.[1] I do not mean that the9 condition of the lowest class has nowhere nor in anything been improved; but that there is nowhere any improvement which can be credited to increased productive power. I mean that the tendency of what we call material progress is in nowise to improve the condition of the lowest class in the essentials of healthy, happy human life. Nay, more, that it is still further to depress the condition of the lowest class. The new forces, elevating in their nature though they be, do not act upon the social fabric from underneath, as was for a long time hoped and believed, but strike it at a point intermediate between top and bottom. It is as though an immense wedge were being forced, not underneath society, but through society. Those who are above the point of separation are elevated, but those who are below are crushed down.

It is true that wealth has greatly increased and that average comfort, leisure and refinement have risen, but these gains are not general. The lowest class has no share in them.1 I do not mean that the lowest class has nowhere and in nothing improved, but that no improvement anywhere can be credited to increased productive power.9 I mean that material progress does nothing to improve the lowest class in the essentials of healthy, happy human life. It tends to depress them further. The new forces, elevating as they are in nature, do not act on the social fabric from underneath, as people long hoped and believed. They strike it at a point between top and bottom. It is as though an immense wedge were being forced, not underneath society, but through it. Those above the point of separation are lifted up, but those below are crushed down.

This depressing effect is not generally realized, for it is not apparent where there has long existed a class just able to live. Where the lowest class barely lives, as has been the case for a long time in many parts of Europe, it is impossible for it to get any lower, for the next lowest step is out of existence, and no tendency to further depression can readily show itself. But in the progress of new settlements to the conditions of older communities it may clearly be seen that material progress does not merely fail to relieve poverty—it actually produces it. In the United States it is clear that squalor and misery, and the vices and crimes that spring from them, everywhere increase as the village grows to the city, and the march of development brings the advantages of the improved methods of production and exchange. It is in the older and richer sections of the Union that pauperism and distress among the working classes are becoming most painfully apparent. If there is less deep poverty in San Francisco than in New York, is it not because San Francisco is yet behind New York in all that both cities are striving for? When San Francisco reaches the point10 where New York now is, who can doubt that there will also be ragged and barefooted children on her streets?

Few people realize this depressing effect, because it is not apparent where a class just able to live has long existed. In many parts of Europe the lowest class has long barely lived. It cannot sink lower, because the next step down is out of existence, so no tendency to further depression can show itself. But as new settlements grow toward the conditions of older communities, we can plainly see that material progress does not merely fail to relieve poverty. It produces it. In the United States, squalor and misery, and the vices and crimes that spring from them, clearly increase everywhere as the village grows into the city. Improved methods of production and exchange arrive, and so does the misery. Dependence on public relief and distress among the working classes are most painfully apparent in the older and richer sections of the Union. If San Francisco has less deep poverty than New York, is it not because it is still behind New York in all that both cities are striving for?10 When San Francisco reaches the point where New York now is, who can doubt that ragged, barefooted children will be on her streets too?

This association of poverty with progress is the great enigma of our times. It is the central fact from which spring industrial, social, and political difficulties that perplex the world, and with which statesmanship and philanthropy and education grapple in vain. From it come the clouds that overhang the future of the most progressive and self-reliant nations. It is the riddle which the Sphinx of Fate puts to our civilization, and which not to answer is to be destroyed. So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent. The reaction must come. The tower leans from its foundations, and every new story but hastens the final catastrophe. To educate men who must be condemned to poverty, is but to make them restive; to base on a state of most glaring social inequality political institutions under which men are theoretically equal, is to stand a pyramid on its apex.

This association of poverty with progress is the great enigma of our times. From it spring the industrial, social and political difficulties that perplex the world and that statesmanship, philanthropy and education grapple with in vain. It casts clouds over the future of the most progressive and self-reliant nations. It is the riddle the Sphinx of Fate puts to our civilization, and to fail to answer it is to be destroyed. Modern progress brings added wealth. As long as it goes only to build great fortunes, increase luxury and sharpen the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot last. The reaction must come. The tower leans from its foundations, and every new story only hastens the final catastrophe. To educate men who must be condemned to poverty is only to make them restive. To build political institutions under which men are theoretically equal on a base of glaring social inequality is to stand a pyramid on its apex.

All-important as this question is, pressing itself from every quarter painfully upon attention, it has not yet received a solution which accounts for all the facts and points to any clear and simple remedy. This is shown by the widely varying attempts to account for the prevailing depression. They exhibit not merely a divergence between vulgar notions and scientific theories, but also show that the concurrence which should exist between those who avow the same general theories breaks up upon practical questions into an anarchy of opinion. Upon high economic authority we have been told that the prevailing depression is due to overconsumption; upon equally high authority, that it is due to overproduction; while the wastes of war, the extension of rail11roads, the attempts of workmen to keep up wages, the demonetization of silver, the issues of paper money, the increase of labor-saving machinery, the opening of shorter avenues to trade, etc., are separately pointed out as the cause, by writers of reputation.

This question is all-important and presses painfully on us from every side. Yet no one has answered it in a way that accounts for all the facts and points to a clear, simple remedy. The widely varying explanations of the present depression show this. They reveal a gap between popular notions and scientific theories. They also show that even those who profess the same general theories fall into an anarchy of opinion on practical questions. High economic authority tells us the depression is due to overconsumption, and equally high authority says overproduction.11 Writers of reputation separately blame the wastes of war, the spread of railroads, workmen’s attempts to keep up wages, the demonetization of silver, the issue of paper money, the increase of labor-saving machinery, the opening of shorter routes to trade, and so on.

And while professors thus disagree, the ideas that there is a necessary conflict between capital and labor, that machinery is an evil, that competition must be restrained and interest abolished, that wealth may be created by the issue of money, that it is the duty of government to furnish capital or to furnish work, are rapidly making way among the great body of the people, who keenly feel a hurt and are sharply conscious of a wrong. Such ideas, which bring great masses of men, the repositories of ultimate political power, under the leadership of charlatans and demagogues, are fraught with danger; but they cannot be successfully combated until political economy shall give some answer to the great question which shall be consistent with all her teachings, and which shall commend itself to the perceptions of the great masses of men.

And while professors disagree, certain ideas are spreading fast among the great body of the people, who keenly feel a hurt and are sharply conscious of a wrong. They hear that capital and labor are necessarily in conflict, that machinery is an evil, that competition must be restrained and interest abolished, that wealth can be created by issuing money, and that government must furnish capital or work. Such ideas are dangerous, because they put great masses of men, who hold ultimate political power, under the leadership of charlatans and demagogues. But they cannot be fought successfully until economics answers the great question in a way that fits all its teachings and persuades the masses.

It must be within the province of political economy to give such an answer. For political economy is not a set of dogmas. It is the explanation of a certain set of facts. It is the science which, in the sequence of certain phenomena, seeks to trace mutual relations and to identify cause and effect, just as the physical sciences seek to do in other sets of phenomena. It lays its foundations upon firm ground. The premises from which it makes its deductions are truths which have the highest sanction; axioms which we all recognize; upon which we safely base the reasoning and actions of everyday life, and which may be reduced to the metaphysical expression of the physical law that motion seeks the line of least resistance—viz., that men seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion. Proceeding from a basis12 thus assured, its processes, which consist simply in identification and separation, have the same certainty. In this sense it is as exact a science as geometry, which, from similar truths relative to space, obtains its conclusions by similar means, and its conclusions when valid should be as self-apparent. And although in the domain of political economy we cannot test our theories by artificially produced combinations or conditions, as may be done in some of the other sciences, yet we can apply tests no less conclusive, by comparing societies in which different conditions exist, or by, in imagination, separating, combining, adding or eliminating forces or factors of known direction.

Economics must be able to give such an answer. It is not a set of dogmas. It is the explanation of a certain set of facts. It is the science that seeks, in the sequence of certain phenomena, to trace mutual relations and identify cause and effect, as the physical sciences do in other sets of phenomena. It lays its foundations on firm ground. Its premises are axioms we all recognize and safely base everyday reasoning and action on. They reduce to the metaphysical expression of the physical law that motion seeks the line of least resistance: men seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion.12 Starting from so sure a basis, its processes, which consist simply of identification and separation, have the same certainty. In this sense it is as exact a science as geometry, which reaches its conclusions by similar means from similar truths about space. Valid conclusions in economics should be as self-evident. In economics we cannot test our theories with artificially produced combinations or conditions, as some other sciences can. But we can apply tests just as conclusive: comparing societies in which different conditions exist, or imagining that we separate, combine, add or eliminate forces or factors of known direction.

I propose in the following pages to attempt to solve by the methods of political economy the great problem I have outlined. I propose to seek the law which associates poverty with progress, and increases want with advancing wealth; and I believe that in the explanation of this paradox we shall find the explanation of those recurring seasons of industrial and commercial paralysis which, viewed independently of their relations to more general phenomena, seem so inexplicable. Properly commenced and carefully pursued, such an investigation must yield a conclusion that will stand every test, and as truth, will correlate with all other truth. For in the sequence of phenomena there is no accident. Every effect has a cause, and every fact implies a preceding fact.

In the following pages I propose to try to solve the great problem I have outlined, using the methods of economics. I will seek the law that ties poverty to progress and increases want as wealth advances. I believe that explaining this paradox will explain the recurring seasons of industrial and commercial paralysis that seem so inexplicable when viewed apart from more general phenomena. Properly begun and carefully pursued, this investigation must reach a conclusion that stands every test and, as truth, fits with all other truth. For in the sequence of phenomena there is no accident. Every effect has a cause, and every fact implies a preceding fact.

That political economy, as at present taught, does not explain the persistence of poverty amid advancing wealth in a manner which accords with the deep-seated perceptions of men; that the unquestionable truths which it does teach are unrelated and disjointed; that it has failed to make the progress in popular thought that truth, even when unpleasant, must make; that, on the contrary, after a century of cultivation, during which it has13 engrossed the attention of some of the most subtle and powerful intellects, it should be spurned by the statesman, scouted by the masses, and relegated in the opinion of many educated and thinking men to the rank of a pseudo-science in which nothing is fixed or can be fixed—must, it seems to me, be due not to any inability of the science when properly pursued, but to some false step in its premises, or overlooked factor in its estimates. And as such mistakes are generally concealed by the respect paid to authority, I propose in this inquiry to take nothing for granted, but to bring even accepted theories to the test of first principles, and should they not stand the test, freshly to interrogate facts in the endeavor to discover their law.

Economics as now taught does not explain the persistence of poverty amid advancing wealth in a way that fits what people deeply perceive. The unquestionable truths it does teach are unrelated and disjointed. It has failed to make the headway in popular thought that truth, even unpleasant truth, must make.13 It has had a century of cultivation and has absorbed some of the most subtle and powerful minds. Yet statesmen spurn it, the masses scout it, and many educated, thinking men call it a pseudo-science in which nothing is fixed or can be fixed. This must be due, it seems to me, not to any inability of the science when properly pursued, but to a false step in its premises or an overlooked factor in its estimates. Respect for authority generally hides such mistakes, so in this inquiry I will take nothing for granted. I will bring even accepted theories to the test of first principles, and if they fail it, question the facts afresh to discover their law.

I propose to beg no question, to shrink from no conclusion, but to follow truth wherever it may lead. Upon us is the responsibility of seeking the law, for in the very heart of our civilization to-day women faint and little children moan. But what that law may prove to be is not our affair. If the conclusions that we reach run counter to our prejudices, let us not flinch; if they challenge institutions that have long been deemed wise and natural, let us not turn back.

I propose to beg no question, shrink from no conclusion, and follow truth wherever it leads. The responsibility of seeking the law is ours, for in the very heart of our civilization today women faint and little children moan. What the law proves to be is not our affair. If our conclusions run counter to our prejudices, let us not flinch. If they challenge institutions long thought wise and natural, let us not turn back.