Now, the fact is that in this problem there has been inserted the most deliberate falsehood that was ever spoken in the name of economic science. The implication is that in order to double his income all the farmer has to do is to double his output. And that implication is a lie. It is a known fact that with our present marketing system the farmers of the country receive even less for their bumper crops than they receive for their lean crops of the same products. And why not? If there is an iota of truth in the so-called law of demand and supply, it follows that just as the farmer increases his output of crops, there must follow a corresponding decrease in price or purchasing power. Hence an increased output cannot possibly benefit the farmer. In the chapters dealing with Detroit we made the acquaintance of Professor Edwin L. Miller, principal of the Northern High School. An agonized pupil mails me another book by this professor, entitled “Practical English Composition, Part II.” It deals with the subject of journalism, and I find the margin dug into by an indignant pencil, where Professor Miller tells his students what public-spirited and well-meaning men are the editorial writers of the American press. The professor gives examples of editorials, one of them an exposition of the follies of Socialism, taken from the Philadelphia “Record.” I quote one paragraph: There is a common impression among Socialistic workmen, encouraged by some of the new-fangled college professors, that the weaver produces all the cloth that comes off the loom he tends, and he is robbed if his wages are only a part of the value of the cloth. But he is only one of a long line of producers, each of whom has to get some of the money for which that cloth is sold.