There are some people who think it is a waste of time to discuss what is to happen to interest incomes under the Henry George policy. One of your correspondents regards the discussion between L.D. Beckwith and Allan C. Thompson as a matter that need concern these two, only. Nothing, I think, could be farther from the truth. Henry George and those who have followed him have not been content to merely point to the remedy for our economic ills, but have been at pains to show the various effects that would follow the adoption of his plan. Why then should we not be at equal pains to show what would be the effect on investments? Supposing that the earnings of the people increased to such an extent that everyone became a capitalist, with ample funds to supply his needs; supposing that businesses, large and small, would be capitalized by those employed within them; and that in consequence there would be little or no demand for "loans," and that interest rates would go to zero, would it not be well for us to enlighten the people accordingly?

There are large numbers who claim that our policy does not go far enough. They assert that, while we would effectively deal with landowners we would leave untouched other parasites, e.g., the drawers of interest; and they ask, "Why not socialize everything and cut out all parasitism?" These people are electors and we must get their votes before we can hope to bring in our policy.

I, for one, believe that so long as we preach (with Beckwith) that, under free conditions, wages will double or treble, and that "interest and wages rise together," so long will we fail to put our plan over. I contend, therefore, that it is the utmost importance that we make up our minds on this point, and the only way we can arrive at a decision is by free and open discussion. If we decide that interest (under free conditions) will be eliminated, and can prove this, the objection that we "do not go far enough" will be completely answered.