planned and built the line, even the coal could hardly have sent the train very far on its journey.
Professor Soddy's main quarrel with what he calls "orthodox economics" is that "it confuses the substance and the shadow, it mistakes debt for wealth, and is guilty of the same mistake as the old lady, who, when remonstrated with for over-drawing her account, promptly sent her banker a cheque for the amount." Many economists are certainly in the habit of explaining themselves carelessly enough to have given this impression to Professor Soddy; but he surely, in bringing this very serious charge against a body of earnest and industrious workers of misunderstanding the very root of their problem, might have cited an example or two, or at least given us a few references to look up, in proof of this sweeping assertion. As it is we are left in doubt as to whom the Professor means as exponents of orthodox economics.
Is this really the "scientific" method of dealing with a problem—just to make an assertion, unsupported by evidence of any kind except the Papal ipse dixit of an eminent Professor? It seems to be so, for he further observes "the fact is that the economist, ignorant of the scientific laws of life, has not
