2. _Monopoly should not be used as synonymous with scarcity._ Scarcity is the essential condition of all value. The simplest things--bricks, sand, the commonest unskilled labor--would have no value were there not a degree of scarcity relative to the wants that may be gratified. "Monopoly," whatever else it means, always conveys the idea of some exceptional kind of scarcity, scarcity due in part to some source or cause not ordinarily present. It is a bad practice in definition to apply two words to one idea, leaving the other idea unnamed, as is done when monopoly is made synonymous with scarcity. Both words are needed. Such a usage unfortunately is common in economic literature. Many economic writers, for example, have called landownership monopoly, saying that land being the work of nature cannot be increased by men, and therefore must always be scarce. Even if it were true that in the economic sense land could be produced by man, there still would be confusion here between a general class of goods and a special thing. The fact that a particular field cannot be duplicated does not make a monopoly of land as a whole, any more than the existence of desert land in Arizona makes land valueless or a free good. Nor is a land-owner a monopolist any more than is the owner of a valuable machine. The owner of forty acres of land worth four hundred dollars, or the owner of a village lot worth a hundred dollars, can hardly be called a monopolist. It leads to absurdity to use the word monopoly with reference to landownership indiscriminately. Neither mere scarcity nor the limitation of natural stores should be called monopoly when ownership is scattered and combination between owners does not exist. [Sidenote: Monopoly is not merely superior economic power]