[105] As witness Pharaonic Egypt, Ancient Peru, Babylon, Assyria, Israel under Solomon and his nearer successors.
[106] See F. B. Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion, ch. x.
[107] Cf., e. g., Basil Thomson, The Figians, ch. iv.
[108] As shown, for instance, by the pottery and baskets made for trade by the American Indians where they come in trade contact with civilised men.
[109] For a more detailed discussion of these secondary consequences of the institution of ownership, the irksomeness of labour and the conspicuous waste of goods, which cannot be pursued here, see The Theory of the Leisure Class, ch. ii-vi.
[110] For some further analysis of the relation between ownership, earnings and the material equipment see Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1908, “On the Nature of Capital;” as also a paper by H. J. Davenport in the same Journal for November, 1910, on “Social Productivity versus Private Acquisition.”
[111] For a more detailed discussion of this disciplinary disparity between business and industrial occupations, cf. The Theory of Business Enterprise, ch. iv, viii and ix.
[112] Cf., e. g., Harrington Emerson, Efficiency as a Basis for Operation and Wages, ch. i, iv.
[113] Such is tacitly assumed to be the nature of modern economic life in the current theoretical formulations of the economists, who make the theory of exchange value the central and controlling doctrine in their theoretical systems, and who with easy conviction trace this value back to an individualistic ground in the doctrines of differential utility—“marginal utility.”
[114] Apart from scattered and progressively inconsequential manifestations of this canon of pecuniary equity in the European community at large, there occurs a quaint and well-defined application of it in the practice of “hólmgangr” in late pagan and early Christian times among the Scandinavian peoples. The “wager of battle” is probably of the same derivation, at least in part.