bears but a remote and fluctuating relation to the industrial equipment and the other items which may (perhaps properly) be included under the old-fashioned \ concept of industrial capital.*
Capital has been spoken of as the capitalized (aggregated) cost of industrial equipment, etc.,* — a view which had its significance for economic theory a hundred years ago ; hut since corporation finance has come to pervade the management of
'The dlBtinction between btuinen capital and "industriat cspittl " or "capital gooda'' bas been shown by Knies, Geld iind Crtdit, Tol. I. cb. II. pp. 40-60. DistlDctions having a very similar effect in Mme be&ringe are to be found in Rodbertus ("private capital" and "national capilaJ"), in Bohm-Bawerk ("acquisitive capital" and "productive capital," or "private capital" and "social capital"), in Clark ("capital" and ■■capital goods"). Similar distinctiana are made by varioiu nritera to help out Uie incoropetency of the neelrad definition of the term. The merit of these diatinctions does not concern the present inquiry, since they are made for other purposes than that here aimed at. The distinction made above is not an attempt to recsst the Wrminology of economic theory, but is simply an eipedient for present UHc. It amounts to an unqualified acceptance of the concept (more or «M well defined) which business men habitually attach to the term "capital." Mr, F. A. Fetter has latterly spoltea for the restriction of " capital," BB a technical I«rm, practically to what is here called " buBlness capital." Mr. Fetter's " capital concept," however, should probably not be Uken to cover intangible assets, llie practical distinction is visible in the testimony of variouH witnesses before tbe Industrial Coinmiasion, as also in the special report on "Securities," Brport, vol, XIII.
Even so late and competent a student of corporate capital sa J. von KdrSsi is bound by this antique preconception, and his work has suffered in consequence. See Finaniielle Ergebnisit ier ActieitgtMlltehifften, p. 3.