A National Money Accounting as the Basis for Studies of Income Distribution

Abstract

A recent writer has revived,f in very interesting fashion, an old dis? cussion as to whether man, as we know him, originated from solitary or from social progenitors. He argues, rather convincingly, from evidences of language and primitive customs, that the ancestors of man must have been highly socialized animals living much like the bee and the ant, and that the man-like apes represent side branches, or outlaws, from the evolutionary tree. This discussion, aside from its purely scientific interest, has its very practical aspects. We shall have one very definite attitude toward present day political evolution if we believe that society is developing from a primitive individualism toward a highly socialized form. And we shall have quite a different viewpoint if we see in human evolution a steady progression from a primitive and excessive socialism toward a scientific individualism which shall combine a large measure of per? sonal freedom of initiative with the advantages of collective effort, where collective effort is required. In the one case, the Marxian type of socialism represents at least a tendency toward progress; and in the other case, it represents economic infantilism, a mere atavistic recoil from economic growing pains. These two viewpoints are, in some respects, as widely separated as the poles. Yet they have common ground in an agreement that the ultimate test of any social or political plan must lie, first, in the gross production of the tangible and intangible things (goods, services, and gratifications) that satisfy normal and proper human desires; and, secondly, in the equalities and inequalities of the distribution of such gross production among individuals and families. Opinions may differ as to the relative weights that should be assigned to tangible and intangible products. They may differ, also, as to what uniformity of distribution is equitable or socially desirable, as to how far a diminution of the present inequality might increase production, and as to the extent to which gross volume of product should, if necessary, be sacrificed for the sake of such uniformity. But they must agree as to the vital need, from year to year, and from generation to generation, of