ABSTRACT
Nevertheless, as we shall see, already in 1924 the following had been contended in The Unclaimed Wealth:— 1. “Laissez-faire is an imperfect system” which does not “ensure” that income is “fully utilised.” (Page 184.) 2. Abstention from consumption or “saving” does not necessarily cause, and may even prevent, an increase in the quantity of capital goods and equipment. (Chapters IX and X, notably pp. 110-111; also The Final Buyer (1928), chapter V.) 3. “Utilisation of material, therefore, takes place in proportion to the justness of the distribution of the power to utilise consumers’ surplus; and wealth is, therefore, greatest when distribution is most just.” (Page 6.) 4. It is necessary for the State to nationalize the monopolies, “to distribute justly the consumers’ surplus arising therefrom,” and to “ensure” that it is “fully utilised” by being “converted into permanent public wealth.” (Pages 184 and 185.) 5. And Mr. J. A. Hobson, in an introduction to the book, wrote (page 13): “I plead for a fair consideration of the substance of ” Mr. Abbati’s “argument, which seems to me an important and original contribution to the solution of the darkest and most urgent economic problem of our time.” Reference to The Unclaimed Wealth will show that these contentions, as here briefl y expressed, are, as far as conveniently possible, based on the wording in the original texts, which will be quoted later.
