Chapter I. Introduction

RECENT LITERATURE ON INTEREST

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

SINCE the appearance of the first edition of my work the problem of interest has been the subject of lively and varied discussions. The literature on this subject during the last fifteen years has been relatively more abundant than during any previous period of equal length, and while the strife which it indicates has brought no solution of the great problem, there is perceptible on the literary battle-field a certain shifting among the contending forces which seems to me to indicate a more advanced stage of the conflict, one approaching a final decision. The struggle is less desultory than it was fifteen years ago. Though some new opinions have appeared, many of the older ones have been entirely or almost entirely discarded, and the battle now centres about a few earnestly defended points between which the decision hang:. And even with reference to these the decision seems to me to be really nearer than ever before. There is no more skirmishing, no more fighting between advanced outposts. The preliminary actions have so far done their work, the premises and consequences of the contending theories, the essential nature of their theoretical content, so to speak, have been so clearly revealed, that the dispute can scarcely again deviate into side issues, and the pending decision must strike the very core of the matter.

To be the historian of the present is, for well-known reasons, a precarious matter. He who himself stands in the midst of the forest cannot easily obtain a good view of it. In my case there are two special reasons which render very difficult the task of being a good expositor of the present condition of the literature of interest. The fact that I myself am the author of one of the competing theories makes me partial in spite of the best of intentions, and, in particular, it is doubly difficult to preserve the right perspective in estimating the magnitude of the points at issue if to the nearness of the point of view be added the personal preference of the observer. Besides, the present generation of political economists are undoubtedly in the process of transforming their views regarding the interest problem. Whatever theory may finally maintain its ground, it is certain that the one which we shall transmit to the next generation as that of our times, will be essentially different from that which we found in the text-books of our youth and accepted as the basis of our thinking. We all, even the most conservative among us, have transformed the ideas which were transmitted to us. To review with an unbiassed historical eye and correctly to judge a literature in such a state of transformation, is a matter of peculiar and exceptional difficulty. One is confronted with a mass of transitional views, among which may be found, and apparently in the largest number, insignificant variations of expiring theories, as well as hopeful links in the chain of progressive development, and it would require an absolutely prophetic eye to decide with certainty whether a given theory is to be ranged in the one category or the other.

In spite of these difficulties, however, I should consider myself guilty of leaving a perceptible gap in the work which I have undertaken, if by these considerations I should permit myself to be frightened away from the task of attempting to give to my readers a critical survey of the. contemporary literature of interest. Generally a critical history of doctrine is written for the purpose of illuminating the path of future investigation, and it would evidently on this account be in the highest degree improper if one were to leave in wilful darkness that portion of the road most recently covered and that point from which future travellers must start. However, I cannot proceed to this part of my task without the frankest acknowledgment of fallibility and insufficiency.

Regarding the larger part of the literature of the present day, I must limit myself in advance to a summary sketch. As a rule, I shall omit to present in detail and to discuss doctrines which are mere modifications of a main theory. And by so doing it is not my desire to indicate that I regard the modification as of little consequence or the respective doctrine as unimportant. I shall submit to an exhaustive exposition and criticism only a few of the most recent theories, indeed, only those which are either of such evident peculiarity that they are distinguished by essential characteristics from the types of theories previously described, or which, in case they are mere modifications or combinations of previous theories, have been so clearly formulated and at the same time so carefully worked out that the extent of the modification which they involve can be seen with perfect clearness.