[Footnote 195-3: Thus _John Stuart Mill_, Principles, II, ch. 15, 4, teaches with a certain amount of emphasis that the "gross profits of stock" are different not so much in the different branches in which capital is employed, as according to the personal capacity of the capitalist himself or of his agents. There are scarcely two producers who produce at precisely the same cost, even when their products are equal in quality, and equally cheap. Nor are there two who turn over their capital in precisely the same time. These "gross profits" uniformly fall into three classes: reward for abstinence, indemnity for risk, remuneration for the labor and skill required for superintendence. _Mill_ complains that there is in English no expression corresponding to the French _profit de l'entrepreneur_. [The translator has taken the liberty to use the expression "undertaker's profit," for what the French call the _profit de l'entrepreneur_, and the Germans _Unternehmerlohn_, spite of its funereal associations, and because Mill himself employed it, although he recognized that it was not in good usage.--TR.] (II, ch. 15, 1) _Adam Smith_ had the true doctrine in germ (Wealth of Nat., I, ch. 6), but those who came after him did little to develop it. Compare _Ricardo_, Principles, ch. 6. 21. _Read_, Political Economy, 1829, 262 ff., and _Senior_, Outlines, 130 seq., were the first to divide profit into two parts: interest-rent (_Zinsrente_) and industrial gain. Similarly, _Sismondi_, N. P., IV, ch. 6. According to _A. Walker_, Science of Wealth, 1867, 253, 285, "profits are wages received by the employer."] [Footnote 195-4: _Hufeland_, Grundlegung, I, 290 ff.; _Schön_, Nat-Oek., 87, 112 ff.; _Riedel_, Nat-Oek., II, 7 ff.; _von Thünen_, Der isolirte Staat, II, 1 80 ff.; _v. Mangoldt_, Unternehmergewinn, 34 ff. The latter divides the undertaker's profit (_profit de l'entrepreneur_) into the following parts: A. Indemnity for risk. If this be only an indemnity exactly corresponding to the risk, it cannot be looked upon at all as net income, but only as an indemnification for capital. If individual undertakers, favored by fortune, receive a much larger indemnification than is necessary to cover their losses, such indemnification is not income either, but an extraordinary profit not unlike a lottery-gain, unless it be called, perhaps, the reward of extraordinary courage (_Eiselen_), i. e., wages. If, lastly, the indemnity is uniformly somewhat larger than the risk, in order to compensate for the continual feeling that one is running a risk, it must be remembered that all remuneration for present sacrifice, made directly for the sake of production, is wont to be embraced under the name of wages.