Dr. Keynes,[170] who seems to think the sole difficulty as regards the definition of capital arises from the difference in the point of view of the individual and of the community, suggests the use of two terms, "revenue capital" and "production capital." But these terms are doubly unsatisfactory. In the first place, the "productive consumption" economist might fairly claim that as his food, etc., enabled the workman to obtain his wages or revenue, they belonged to revenue capital. On the other hand, regarding it as essential to distinct terminology to sever entirely consumptive goods from productive goods, I should insist that the "production capital" of the community was synonymous with its "revenue capital," and that although the individual view of capital is not always coincident with the community's view, that difference cannot be expressed by the distinction of "revenue capital" and "production capital." Moreover, the consumptive-production economists, to be consistent and to preserve the continuity of the conception of economic activity, would do well to abolish labour-power as a separate factor, and to include the body of the labourer with its store of productive energy as a species of capital. For it is urged (_e.g._, by Professor Marshall) that the fact that the food consumed by labourers enables them to earn an income entitles it to rank as capital. In that case the "wages" which form that income should rank as interest upon the capital. Again, there is no reason for breaking the continuity of the capital at the time when the "food" is actually eaten. The food is not destroyed, but built up into the frame of the labourer as a fund of productive energy. If consumptive goods are once admitted as capital, the labourer's body must be likewise capital yielding interest in the shape of wages. If the other factor "natural agents" be still retained (an unnecessary proceeding, since all land, etc., which is productively serviceable is so by reason of the application of some element of stored labour, and may therefore be called "capital"), labour could be resolved into natural agents (the infant body) and capital (the food, etc., used to strengthen and support the body). Wages could then be reckoned partly as rent, partly as interest. It is difficult to understand why "productive-consumption" economists, some of whom have evidently contemplated the change of terminology, have refused to take a step which would at any rate have the merit of imparting consistency to their terminology. It is, of course, true that no "productive-consumption" economist would straightly admit production not consumption to be the economic goal, but his terminology can only approximate to consistency upon this supposition.