Sec. 7] CAPITAL 65 
§7 
Should economists continue to reject the simple defi- 
nition above explained, and insist on restricting the 
term capital to some narrower meaning, our only re- 
course 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 read- 
ing 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, Mac- 
millan, 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 gen- 
erality and simplicity of his methods in mathematical physics, used 
to say, “The whole is simpler than its parts.” 
F