.
Comments on Gaston Haxo's Treatment of
The Theory of Interest |
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
November-December, 1940] |
Your July-August issue contains an interesting article on a "Theory
of Interest" by Mr. Gaston Haxo. He is sound in his statements that
interest is not due to the reproductive forces of nature; also, that the
contract (interest) freely entered into by borrower and lender, both of
whom benefit therefrom, is equitable; and this custom is not likely to
cease. Payment for service rendered, and it is commonly, so understood,
is the justification for interest, and the average rate is determined by
competition between lenders. The return to lenders is their own concern.
I purchase a machine (capital). I purchase it from my own funds. It is
mine for all time. That is just. But again, I borrow money not for
itself, but for the service it supplies and I buy the machine. It is not
mine. I pay for its hire. That is just. Service for service - interest.
Surely Mr. Haxo's statement that interest as an institution is "but
the evil fruit of an evil economic system", and is "unearned
increment" is wrong. It largely arises from his treating money as
if it purchased only capital. If I, a land speculator, buy and sell
vacant lots I do not spend money in purchasing capital. I purchase land-
a wide distinction. If I buy a block, erect a building upon it, and let
the whole, I am paid in money; I receive so much in interest on my
building (capital). This is just. And I receive so much in land
rent. This is due to society, and I have no just claim to it. Mr. Haxo
makes no such vital distinction.
There is little doubt the enormous land rent incomes of Astors, English
dukes, German junkers, etc. are invested by them partly in purchasing
additional land - not capital. They also invest land-rent money in
capitalistic enterprises, claiming "interest" and also in
interest-bearing Government loans, stealthily reducing the masses to
slavery. The whole world is the sufferer.
The investment origin is land rent privately appropriated. Only in this
sense is Mr. Haxo's statement correct that "interest as an
institution has its roots in land monopoly and the resultant
exploitation of labor". This investment of the people's values we
must put an end to. We must eliminate all land rent from private
incomes.
Then will money lent be invested in capital alone, which, with interest
thereon, Mr. Haxo endorses as just. Long-term interest on debts would
disappear and back debts be paid off, for a new world of prosperity
would prevail. The effect of breaking up land rent monopoly would be the
same as witnessed in early "Go West" days before land
speculation got the mastery and brought the United States to its present
condition of progress and poverty. George would be vindicated. So great
would be the demand for labor and capital, that wages and interest (both
just, and the same in origin) would rise together, and with land rent
collected and the abolition of monopolies, parasitism would be ended.
Melbourne, Australia.
|