“The state savings institutions receive money and take care of it, but they pay no interest. They do not loan it, so get no income from it and cannot pay any. In fact their fundamental ideas of business have undergone a radical change for these many ages back. They deny that it is fair business to take a profit on any transaction. If a man lends his money to another he is entitled to pay for the time it takes him to make the loan and collect it, but he is not entitled to interest for use of the money. If a man borrows a plow worth ten dollars and wears it to the amount of one dollar, he should pay the owner the one dollar, but it is for repairs, not interest. If he borrows ten dollars in money and returns the full amount there is no wear to make good. If a man borrows ten dollars for which he must pay one dollar interest, then buys a plow and wears it one dollar’s worth he is out two dollars. So he must charge one dollar above its cost, for his crop, when he sells it, and this is called profit. He does not keep it, however, but must pass it over to the capitalist. He might charge two dollars profit, in which case, he would keep one for his profit and give the other to the capitalist for his. In both cases they say, it is wrong and unsound as a business transaction, because it is getting or giving something for nothing. The idea of the legitimacy of profits and interest arose in ancient times in connection with the uncertainty or the gambling element that entered into all business. This was due to individualism or the practice of each one doing business for himself, taking his own risks and chances in a thousand ways. If one spent his time and money in making something to sell, he was not absolutely sure he would be able to find a buyer. And if one loaned his money to be used in business he shared the risks of it and could not be absolutely sure of getting it back again. Up to the amount of the risks, profit and interest were under the conditions legitimate. But while under the individual system everybody charged for the risk of loss, the losses in reality fell on only a part, and so the rest got something for nothing. When insurance companies were organized to distribute part of the risks, making those who did not lose, contribute to make up the loss of those who did, the risks of all were diminished, and the profit and interest charges on that account reduced. If insurance with its distribution of risks had extended to every form of risk, and if the members of the companies or insured persons had embraced everyone in the community instead of only a part, then the special risks to each one would have been altogether eliminated, the insurance would have become a part of the cost of the goods to be added to their sale value, and profits above this no longer legitimate. For if one is entitled to profits so are all those with whom he exchanges and nobody gains; unless the profits of one are higher than those of another in which case