It must not be forgotten that what is really loaned is capital,--commodities in general,--not money; the money is only a medium for effecting the transfer, and a measure of the capital transferred. What should be returned, therefore, in repayment of a loan is the same amount of commodities in general that was borrowed,--the same value. It is _not_ meant that bond-holders and money-lenders should be entitled to no share in the generally bettered condition of mankind due to lowered labour cost of producing commodities. They should, and in the long run would, receive their full share, through the higher rate of interest that increased general profits would bring if money value were constant, and by this means would obtain a _just_ share, determined by open competition and not an unjust share, determined by the insidious device of a varying measure. It _is_ meant, however, that the money-lender is entitled to no share in any increased productiveness of labour during the lifetime of his loan, beyond the interest stated. He gets his share of such increased productiveness through the higher interest he will subsequently receive in re-loaning his capital. If prices of commodities have declined while wages have increased, as Mr. Wells claims, it shows that the labourer, on the whole, has received some share of the increased production, since his wages will buy more of commodities in general than formerly. Whether the employer of labour has also received a share is more difficult to determine; but it is absolutely certain, if prices have fallen, that the money-lender, who is entitled to no share at all, aside from interest, has also received a share, and a very large one in many cases; since the money returned to him in discharge of a debt will purchase a much larger amount of commodities in general than it would when it was loaned; and this share has evidently been drawn from what should have gone to one or both of the other classes, and they are wronged to that extent. While the labourer may, or may not, have received the share to which he was entitled during the last twenty years, it seems highly probable, from Mr. Wells' statistics and arguments, that it is the employer of labour--who as a rule is the borrower--who has been injured most by the fall of prices. One of the great aims and endeavours of mankind is to produce the largest amount of commodities possible, with the least labour,--or to lower the labour cost of commodities. It is this lowered labour cost, which is "a blessing and benefit to all mankind," not lowered prices. The two are not the same, nor have they any real connection. Lowered labour cost depends solely on the improvement in skill, methods, machinery, etc., which will go on as well with prices constant on the average, as with falling prices,--in fact, even better,--and the product will then be distributed honestly; while with falling prices the distribution is dishonest.