CHAPTER III

PLAN OF CRITICISM

ALL the Use theories rest on the following assumption. Not only does real capital itself possess value, but there is a Use (Nutzung) of capital which exists as an independent economical good, possessing independent value; and this latter value, together with the value of the capital, makes up the value of the product of capital.

Now in opposition to this I maintain:—

CHAPTER IV

THE USE OF CAPITAL ACCOBDING TO THE SAY-HEBMANN SCHOOL

CHAPTER V

THE TEXTE CONCEPTION OF THE USE OF GOODS

CHAPTER VI

CRITICISM OF THE SAY-HERMANN CONCEPTION

HAYING, then, sufficiently explained the nature and the constitution of the use of goods, let us come back to the principal point under consideration—the critical examination of the conception of “use”put forward by the Use theorists.

CHAPTER VII

THE INDEPENDENT USE: AN UNPEOVED ASSUMPTION

OF the prominent representatives of the Use theory, two have taken particular pains to prove the existence of an independent use, Hermann and Knies. I shall therefore make their argument the chief subject of critical examination. Besides these writers, however, the contribution made by Say, the Nestor of the Use theory, and by Schäffle, deserve our consideration. To begin with the last two writers, a few words will show the misunderstanding into which they have fallen.

CHAPTER VIII

THE INDEPENDENT USE: ITS UNTENABLE CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER IX

THE INDEPENDENT USE: ITS ORIGIN IN LEGAL FICTION

CHAPTER X

MENGER’S CONCEPTION OF USE

UP till now my analyses have gone to prove that there is no independent use of goods of the kind conceived of by the Say-Hermann side of the Use theory, and by nearly all the economists of the present day in their train. It still remains to be proved that there cannot be an independent use even in that essentially different shape that Menger sought to give the conception.

CHAPTER XI

FINAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE USE THEOEY

IN Chapter III. I indicated that I proposed to maintain two theses. The first of these I think I may regard as proved, viz. that the use assumed by the Use theory as having an independent existence has really no existence at all. But even if it had, the actual phenomena of interest would not be sufficiently explained thereby. The proof of this second thesis will not require many words.

BOOK IV

THE ABSTINENCE THEORY