Discussions Of Papers Presented At Chicago And New York Meetings

R. B. BRINSMADE, Ixmiquilpan, Hgo, Mexico* (written discussion). As the discussion of Mr. Graton's paper by Messrs. Norris, Patterson, and Crane has been from the standpoint of the mineral land-value owners, a few remarks in the interest of the "under dog"-the average taxpayer and citizen-may prove timely. In my discussion of Doctor Raymond's Paper1 and of the papers of Messrs. Gibson2 and Godson, 3 have endeavored to demonstrate, from both political economy and history, that our existing system of unrestricted private ownership of land is incompatible with equality of economic opportunity and, therefore, subversive of our democratic political institutions. In Mr. Graton's paper, the same land problem is important, though camouflaged by the failure of the Federal income tax laws to distinguish between land and capital, in the requirements for valuation, or between earned and unearned incomes in the levying of taxes. I disagree with Mr. Graton's statement, on p. 2967, as follows: The immense majority of mining ventures are failures. A multitude of disappointments is relieved by occasional success. Were it not for the chance of great rewards, all the vitally necessary but mainly unremunerative work of exploration would not be undertaken. In contrast with nearly all other fields of endeavor, it is altogether unlikely that, on the whole, the gains in the successful mining ventures suffice to offset the losses in the unsuccessful.