"Your question," said Norrena, "is far-reaching and I can only hint at the reply which it naturally calls forth. The money kings over-reached themselves by encouraging people to secure loans and pledge their real estate for interest and principal, and then by contracting the circulation in order to increase the purchasing power of the money which they received as interest. As long as only a minor fraction of the land was mortgaged the interest was promptly paid, but a time came when nearly all of the lands were mortgaged and the people were compelled to force their products on the markets all at once to get money to pay interest. More and more of the debtors gave up the struggle and abandoned their farms. These lands were useless to the money-kings when no longer cultivated by a sturdy yeomanry. All along this eastern seaboard, where agriculture ought to have been most profitable, farms were abandoned because they would not pay interest on the investment. The money value of lands for actual use to producers, declined to zero, and the people crowded into the city and were regarded, in their impoverished condition, as a dangerous class. Under these circumstances the tendency of the ruling class was to encourage the homeless poor to go upon the lands and dig a subsistence out of the soil, for which there was no market." "Iola explained this to me," I said, "but I have never quite understood why it was that these colonists were not charged a rental that would keep them in perpetual poverty." "That," said Norrena, "would certainly have been the result, if there had been no great Central West, with a widespread tendency to agitate the money question and its relation to the economic condition of the wealth-producing millions. When the people began to organize as consumers with a view to minimizing the demand for money, and to equalize distribution by paying dividends to labor, the money kings were forced to change their policy in regard to labor, and many producers got a firm hold on enough land to furnish a subsistence. The unused lands had no value and the Equitists continued to increase the price of products in the west. The money kings who were not able to sell their lands could avail themselves of opportunities to exchange them for products. The leaders of the co-operative movement here in the east knew how to take advantage of these changing conditions, and by their communal system of co-operation, were able to keep the movement on peaceful lines, and thus avoid violent collisions which might have, locally, at least, set the work of industrial emancipation back for years." "Then it appears," I said, "that it was not the western organization of Equitable Exchange, singly and alone, that compelled the Gold Power to relax its grasp; but this eastern co-operative movement was also a factor in securing better conditions for labor."