so--then this is most likely to happen if the savers are so numerous
that they will be weak in bargaining and unable to stand out against the
demands of the workers. If there were innumerable millions of workers
and only one saver with money enough to start one factory, the one saver
would be able to name his own terms in arranging his wages bill, and the
salaries of his managers and clerks. If the wind were on the other
cheek, and a crowd of capitalists with countless millions of money were
eager to set the wheels of industry going, and could not find enough
workers to man and organize and manage their workshops, then the workers
would have the whip hand. To bring this state of things about it would
seem to be good policy not to damn the capitalist with bell and with
book and frighten him till he is so scarce that he is master of the
situation, but to give him every encouragement to save his money and put
it into industry. For the more plentiful he is, the stronger is the
position of the workers.

In fact the saver is so essential that it is nowadays fashionable to
contend that the saving business ought not to be left to the whims of
private individuals, but should be carried out by the State in the
public interest; and there are some innocent folk who imagine that, if
this were done, the fee that is now paid to the saver for the use of the
capital that he has saved, would somehow or other be avoided. In fact
the Government would have to tax the community to produce the capital
required. Capital would be still, as before, the proceeds of work done.
And the result would be that the taxpayers as a whole would have to pay
for capital by providing it. This might be a more equitable arrangement,
but as capital can only be produced by work, the taxpayers would have
to do a certain amount of work with the prospect of not being allowed to
keep the proceeds, but of being forced to hand it over to Government.
Whether such a plan would be likely to be effective in keeping industry