Mr. Hodgkiss' "Australian View on Interest," in the November- December issue, agrees with Mr. Haxo (and "an avalanche of letters to the Editors") that interest is not due to the reproductive forces of Nature. But notwithstanding this basic; scientific error he endorses the "Progress and Poverty" theory that "wages and interest rise together"; resting it upon the familiar proof (!) that wages and interest were high in the Gold-Rush field. Apart from the fact that Rents also were high, more careful consideration is vitally- important.

The Georgeist teaching of increasing interest is obviously antagonizing workers so as to practically prevent acceptance of the land rent remedy. Therefore advocates of the remedy must responsibly determine whether such teaching is true or libelous.

When the remedy cuts off all land-investing, it is obvious that all savings of normally prosperous and provident people will have to be used as capital, or else suffer natural wastage. This will naturally increase the supply of capital available for business demand as compared with the present supply apart from land investments. And even under present less prosperous conditions "idle" savings mount enormously, safety being the main requirement.

Interest yield to owners of capital must now be "equalized" with rent yield to owners of land (in the judgment of investors). But when the alternative of land-investing is cut off, the law of supply and demand will naturally control, and scarcity alone can compel interest. Of course capitalists may earn indefinitely by participating investments, but this has nothing to do with "increasing interest" or mere owners of capital.

Intelligent investors commonly recognize that "safe" interest to mere owners of capital does actually equalise with "safe" rent yield from land investments; and that only participation in business doings and risks gives hope of further (indefinite) yield. No capitalists are converted to public collection of rent by this promising of increased interest, but workers are strongly (and wrongly) antagonized by advocacy of increasing incomes to do-nothing owners whether of land or capital. Business earnings apart from monopoly are naturally respected; confusing them with unearned income breeds Communism and Socialism.