consumption exceeds production, the national wealth shrinks, and the nation lives on its accumulated capital and, moreover, allows its accumulated fund of durable wealth to deteriorate. Since it spends no time in keeping its durable wealth in repair or its volume intact, but spends all of its time in producing ephemeral goods for immediate self-gratification, its great architectural monuments, if it has any, sink into decay; no time is spent in preserving them. Its buildings become dilapidated for the same reason. Its soil becomes depleted because no energy is spent in conserving its fertility. The people live as it were from hand to mouth, and everything tends downwards.

When production exceeds consumption, on the other hand, not only are durable forms of wealth conserved-kept in repair and intact — but they are continually improved and new forms produced. There is energy to spare from the work of producing ephemeral articles for immediate consumption. Here time is devoted to permanent works and new forms of construction. Durable goods. multiply in quantity, capital accumulates, more and better tools and equipment are provided, and productive power accumulates by a kind of geometrical progression.

Whether, in the nation at large, production exceeds consumption or not depends on the general habits of the average person. If the average person demands large quantities of those things which supply physical and temporary satisfaction, such as luxurious food and drink, fashionable clothing, and expensive amusements, there will be a tendency for consumption to exceed production. If, however, the average citizen is satisfied with the kind of food which nourishes, and increases strength and efficiency, with clothing which affords comfort and convenience, with amusements which are inexpensive and which tend to preserve the health, strength, and agility of both mind and body, there will be a tendency for wealth to accumulate.

Other factors are, however, involved. There might be a population with simple habits such as we have indicated, but with no desire for the durable satisfactions of life and with

little energy to be devoted to production. Such a population would necessarily remain in a low state of civilization. It would not provide abundantly either for the temporary or for the permanent means of satisfaction, but would remain in sloth and squalor. But if, in addition to the simple habits of consumption so far as food, clothing, and amusements were concerned, the average person possessed an intense desire for durable goods, for architecture, libraries, schools, and other civilizing agencies, the conditions would be favorable to the accumulation of wealth and to all forms of economic progress. If, in addition to all these, the average person were energetic and not disinclined toward work, if he were willing to study hard and work hard, and if his motives were such as to drive his mind and body at high speed, -the conditions would be still more favorable. This combination of favorable conditions would make progress almost inevitable. Nothing except a geological cataclysm or a world war would prevent such a people from advancing in the arts of civilization.

Preference for durable goods. It is to be borne in mind that the motives and desires of people are fundamental to this problem. Any people can have as much progress and as high a state of civilization as they desire, provided they desire them strongly enough and are willing to pay the price. If the people of ancient Athens had preferred to spend their time, their energy, and their money on ephemeral satisfactions rather than on the architectural adornment of their city, they could have done so. If they had so chosen, they could probably, for several centuries, have consumed somewhat more luxurious food and drink, worn more expensive clothing, and amused themselves in more costly ways. But because they chose rather to spend their money and their energy on durable goods, they left the world richer than they would have done if they had made the ignoble choice.

The same comment may be made upon the people of various medieval cities, who cared so much for their religion that

they were willing to spend their money, time, and energy in building cathedrals as monuments to their religious faith. They could have chosen otherwise. They could for centuries have had more luxurious food and drink, adorned their bodies with more expensive clothing, and had more of their time for selfamusement. But they did not choose in this way, and because they did not, the world still possesses their great architectural monuments. Similarly, any city of to-day can be as fine and beautiful as it wants to be, provided it is willing to pay the price. If it chooses not to build durable forms of satisfaction, it may go on consuming luxuries in many forms, and it may go on amusing itself, multiplying holidays, and enjoying various other forms of waste; but if it is willing to live on the products of a part of the people, in order that the remainder may be employed in building for the future, there need scarcely be any limit to its possibilities for civilization and culture. If it chooses to follow the example of those cities of the past that became great and left something to show that they once existed, something to justify that existence, it will merely be choosing to consume from day to day, and from generation to generation, less than it produces, in order that a part of the productive energy of each generation may build for the future. That spells progress. If it chooses otherwise, it will never leave anything to show to future generations that it once existed, much less to justify that existence. The life history of its citizens could be briefly summarized in these words: They were born to breed and die, like the insects of the hour, generation after generation, in endless and unprofitable repetition.

Value of a man. From the standpoint of progress the value of the individual depends on the excess of his production over his consumption. The following formula will determine with mathematical accuracy how much a person is worth from the standpoint of national prosperity: V=P– C.

In this formula V stands for value, that is, the value of the man; P stands for his production; C, for his consumption.

Thus the formula reads, The value of the man equals his production minus his consumption. In the cases where his consumption exceeds his production his value is negative; he is a drag on progress, and the world will at least save his victuals when he leaves it.

The whole life is the unit. Lest this be too hastily interpreted, it should be pointed out that a human life as a whole, and not a fragment of it, should be regarded as a unit. The consumption of a child exceeds his production; but this does not condemn him. So, likewise, during the declining years of those who reach a good old age, consumption may exceed production; but this does not condemn the life. If the life as a whole produces more than it consumes, it leaves the world richer by that difference.

Again, production should be given a very wide interpretation. One may produce without handling material goods of any kind, but by inspiring the productive virtues in others, by teaching productive skill to other people, by scientific investigation, by transmitting knowledge, and in various other ways. If, after making all allowance for these different forms of productivity, the mature individual in sound health finds that he is producing less than he is consuming, it is time for him to begin to consider his ways and to experience a change of heart. He needs to be converted from a waster into a producer.

Boarders at the national table. Dairymen sometimes use the term boarder to describe a cow whose feed and care cost more than her milk is worth. Every wise dairyman tries to get rid of his boarders and keep only those cows whose production exceeds their consumption. The formula V=P-C applies very clearly to the value of the cow. A wise farmer would not keep a horse whose production did not exceed his consumption. A manufacturer would discard a machine which required so much power, care, oil, repairs, etc. as to exceed the value of its product. It would seem that men ought to be held to at least as high a standard as that to which cows,

horses, and machines are held. A man who falls below that standard is as much of a drain upon his country as is the cow, horse, or machine.

The class of boarders includes not simply the tramps and beggars but everyone else who is not usefully engaged, even though he or she lives upon his wife's or her husband's earnings, his wife's or her husband's fortune, or upon inherited wealth. The class includes even others. Even those who are somewhat usefully engaged may be consuming such expensive products, and may require so many servants to wait upon them, as to use up more man power than they replace by their own work. As a mere exercise in patriotism, therefore, every mature person should ask himself seriously whether the country is the gainer or the loser by reason of his existence, whether the cost of keeping him is greater than the advantage, whether the man power required to produce for him and take care of him is not greater than the man power which he contributes to the nation's fund of productive energy by his own work.

The conservation of man power. The importance of this consideration is peculiarly clear in a time of great national crisis, such as the great European War of 1914-1918, when all the liberal nations were at death grips with a military autocracy whose limitless ambition threatened to overwhelm the democratic world. The necessity of conserving every ounce of man power was upon every nation. We saw clearly then that anyone who was not usefully engaged was a menace rather than a help to us in our struggle. The food alone which such a person consumed was acutely needed, to say nothing of the man power which he required in other ways.

Even those who were usefully engaged should have felt that luxurious consumption on their part was an interference with the plans and purposes of their country. To consume unnecessary luxuries is to require an unnecessary quantity of man power to produce for us. This was little short of a crime when that man power was so intensely needed to win the war.