1914] Interest Theories, Old and New 71

If after all has been said and understood, any one still prefers to
call such a loan “productive,” no objection is offered, provided always
‘hat it is made wholly clear what is meant by the term “productive,”
Here it seems clear that Fisher did not think the term productive,
 which he carefully enclosed in quotation marks each time, was
a fitting adjective for such loans, made by borrowers for the purpose
 of gaining a profit. In his reply to Seager, however, Fisher’s
mood is all for so emphasizing any earlier statement of the tolerant
sort as to make it appear that he does not deny the productivity
theory of interest. He cites several passages in his earlier writings
in which he has used such expressions as “the elements of truth
contained in the claims of the productivity theories.”!” He says:
“It was through mathematics that I saw the nature and importance
 of productivity in relation to interest,” giving the impression
that he at one time disbelieved in productivity as a causal explanation
 but had come to see his mistake. He says that his book “was
written expressly for that purpose (rendering of the technique
element).!® Despite his ability to adduce these evidences of his
innocence of the charge of disbelief in the productivity interest
theory, Fisher is penitent for not having made his position clearer.
He declares that he has himself “to blame” “for the mistakes he
(Seager) has made.” He concludes this recantation :*
I ought, I doubt not, to have put forward the productivity element
more prominently and with less avoidance of the term “productivity.”
[ remember consciously avoiding this term so far as possible lest the
reader should associate my theory too much with the many false thepries
 of productivity.®
The most clear-cut evidence that he cites from his writings to
prove that he never intended to deny the validity of the productivity
 theory per se is this:?! “Again I specifically stated (The
Rate of Interest, p. 186) : ‘But while the slowness of Nature is a
zsufficient cause for interest, her productivity is an additional
cause.”” A phrase which might have been deemed an oversight
when taken in connection with other earlier statements, is here
deliberately reaffirmed, and casts doubt upon the meaning of much
of Fisher’s previous writings. Just what is his position on the productivity
 theory? His recent apology, appearing at the same time
” AMERICAN Economic Review, Sept., 1913, p. 612,
w Tdem, 613.
# Idem, p. 617.
» My italics.
n Tdem, p. 612.