Sec. 7] CAPITAL 65

§7
Should economists continue to reject the simple definition
 above explained, and insist on restricting the
term capital to some narrower meaning, our only recourse
 will be to follow the example of John Rae,' and,
after defining capital as a part of ‘stock, quietly shelve
the term and proceed to the analysis of “stock” instead.’
We shall then be in the curious position of acknowledging
that the “problems of capital ”’are not problems of “capital ”’
only, but of stock, and shall have to regard such common
phrases as “the interest on capital,” “l'intérét du capital,”
and “capitalzins” as misnomers. But this or any other
settlement of the difficulty will be welcome to all who are
tired of the present confusion of tongues. A business friend
recently complained that he was chiefly deterred from reading
 the books of economists because they seemed to have no
settled terminology. It does not so greatly matter what
name we select by which to call a concept. The important
matter is to select for consideration those concepts which are
fruitful in scientific analysis. That the concept —by what-.
ever name we call it — of a stock of wealth at an instant of
time is thus fruitful will, we believe, appear more plainly
as we proceed to apply it to what have been called, rightly
or wrongly, the ““ problems of capital.”
1 Sociological Theory of Capital, edited by Professor Mixter, Macmillan,
 1905.
2 Tt is not, of course, denied that “stock ”’ falls into several more or
less distinct groups. One classification has already been given in the
chapter on “Wealth,” and there are many others. One of the most
striking divisions of the stock of wealth as it exists in modern society
is between that at home and that in business. This is the basis of
many definitions of capital, especially that of Komorzynski (Credit,
Innsbruck, 1903, p. 138). But the distinction applies only to modern
and highly differentiated societies. Like all classifications of concrete
things, it serves a descriptive purpose but does not help analysis.
It is well known that in science the most general conceptions are
the most fruitful. Professor J. Willard Gibbs, noted for the generality
 and simplicity of his methods in mathematical physics, used
to say, “The whole is simpler than its parts.”
F