we have already remarked, it led even Kicardo to draw patently
As we have already remarked, it led even Kicardo to draw patently false conclusions, and in this form it unfortunately became a weapon in the struggle against the shorter working day. In the extended form it assumed at the hands of Böhm-Bawerk, it can easily be defended from a purely theoretical point of view, but it has, as we have said, a severe disadvantage from a practical point of view. Eminently durable capital-goods cannot be fitted into such a fund without involving the consideration of altogether unmanageable periods of time. For shorter periods, however, these durable capital-goods take on the same economic status as land ; they are “ Rentengüter ”, and their share (or their owners’ share) in the product is determined, at least in the stationary state, quite simply according to the principle of marginal utility or of marginal productivity. A fusion of the Wage-Fund and the marginal productivity theories, however, would then be impossible. Or else one can1 throw overboard the whole concept of the Wage-Fund, or the subsistence-fund, and adopt instead Böhm-Bawerk’s brilliant suggestion. The idea of considering capitalistic production as primary and capital itself as secondary was put forward in the second book of the Positive Theory, but of course Böhm-Bawerk himself did not carry it to completion. By this means everything is dominated by the marginal principle applied to land, labour, and time (the period of waiting or capital-investment) as the factors of production.