Skc. 4] INCOME ~ 407, 
difference between the case of the bread and that: of the” 
dwelling is purely one of degree. The uses of the bredd, fol- 
low the acquisition of the bread almost instantly, whereas’ 24 
the uses of the dwelling are not completely ended until 
many years after the dwelling is acquired. From this 
difference in time comes a corresponding difference in value. 
The value of the use of the bread is practically identical 
with the value of the bread. A man will give ten cents to- 
day for a loaf if he expects its use (consumption) to-morrow 
to be worth ten cents. The value of the dwelling, however, 
will be less than the value of its prospective uses, owing to 
the fact that these uses are so remote in the future. If 
the dwelling is expected to last fifty years, and its shelter 
to be worth $1000 a year, this $50,000 worth of shelter will 
not by any means be worth $50,000 in advance, but only, 
say, $15,000. This “capitalized” value of the expected 
uses of the dwelling will be the value of the dwelling. In 
short, the bread and its uses are practically contemporane- 
ous and equal in value, whereas the dwelling and its uses 
are widely diverse in both particulars. Consequently it 
has not seemed worth while to economists to distinguish 
between the bread and its uses; whereas they could not 
help distinguishing between the dwelling and its uses. 
But in science, logical distinctions are inexorable, 
and their violation always brings retribution. It may 
be said in truth that if economists had been serupu- 
lous enough to distinguish a loaf of bread from its uses, 
they would have escaped most of the confusions which 
have so long enveloped the theory of income. Having 
once chosen as the income element the food instead of its 
use, economists have proceeded to do the same in the case 
of clothing and other moderately durable commodities. 
Naturally they have not known where to cease calling the 
concrete instrument income and begin calling its use income 
instead. In their hesitation they have in some cases ended 
by including both. By so doing they commit the fallacy