70

Frank A. Fetter ; [March

eriticism. He says that he pleads “not guilty to the charge of
neglecting the ‘productivity” or ‘technique’ element.” He speaks
of “the true way in which the ‘technique of production’ enters into
the determination of the rate of interest ;”! he says, “ ‘the pro-Iduetivity”
 or ‘technique’ element, so far from being lacking in my
theory, is one of its cardinal features ;”* and, again, “Produetivity
 has not been neglected in my treatment of interest.”
Now it is true that these somewhat general expressions alone
merely raise the reader’s doubts. For to say that he does not
neglect “productivity” or that it is not lacking in his theory does
not positively commit Fisher to belief in a productivity explanation
of interest as distincet from an essentially psychological explanation.
 But other expressions deepen the reader’s doubts, and suggest
 strongly that Fisher objects only to certain formulations of a
productivity theory, not to productivity theories on prineiple.
He admits‘” that in his book he has eritieised “£he ordinary“
productivity theories,” but says that he then “explained to the
reader that later in the book I would rebuild the “technical feature
which, in the theories of others, I sought to destroy.” Again'* he
speaks of his strictures on “the ordinary productivity theories,”
implying that some productivity theory or theories may be tenable,
Again he reproaches Professor Seager with being “open to the
:harge of regarding all productivity theories as alike sound in
principle” (implying that some are sound?). And he expresses
the belief that “every one who has read Böhm-Bawerk should believe
that the ordinary, or as Böhm-Bawerk calls them, the ‘naive’ productivity
 theories are snares and delusions.?$
These passages taken by themselves give the impression that the
author is at heart as good a productivity theorist as any one; indeed,
 he collates them himself, seemingly, for the purpose of
producing just this impression. "This clearly is out of accord with
the spirit and letter of much else that Fisher has said in denying
productivity as a causal explanation of interest. "The most lenient
interpretation is that Fisher is here speaking in the spirit of an
earlier statement :**
® American Economic Review, Sept., 1913, p. 610.
“ Tdem, p. 610,
3 Jdem, p. 611.
® My italics throughout.
*Idem, p. 611.
“Tdem, p. 617.
® The Rate of Interest, v. 251.