Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/287

 The scientist, on the other hand, knowing the diameter of the earth, measures off a definite volume of water; and the pull of the mass of the earth on this detached unit he calls a pound. He does not care whether this is a gold pound or a putty pound if its movement disturbs our equilibrium to the same degree.

Value&thinsp;=&thinsp;$Effort⁄Resistance$&thinsp;. This is all we know in economics; but it is quite enough to lay the foundation for the just measurement of any effort exerted within the equilibrium of an economic field whose ultimate dimensions we can state in mathematical terms.

In economics, we employ an arbitrary “measure of value” as a “medium of exchange.” From a scientific standpoint, our “medium of exchange”—the equilibrium of the time and area in which we exert effort—is our only possible “measure of value.” To employ anything more, or anything less, is to set the stage deliberately for the tragedies of trial and error, which we call “economic cycles.”

It may be unnecessary to state the economic situation again in general terms; but what we must try to realize is that, with the initiation of democracy, there was established a rational basis for economic science. Logical and spontaneous reactions, for the first time, could be counted upon, and these became measurable because they took place within cleanly-defined limits. From that point forward, we had definite factors to deal with. The constant dynamic force is due to the need of man for the bare essentials of bodily freedom and his desire for a growing amplification of that freedom. This force is in direct proportion to population in a self-attained democracy. Our one fixed limit is foothold and one of our conventional measures of effort is time. With freedom of spontaneous effort provided for, within fixed limits, we have at hand the essentials of dynamics. Exchange of immediate service for past, present or future service is made possible: the free flow and counterflow of effort which democracy desired, and vainly thought to have attained. It failed for one main reason, namely, there was no realization that the true value of impulse