. From its present narrow focus on LABOR alone (with the limited goal of "full employment")

• To a new and broader focus on both LABOR and CAPITAL
(with the larger goal of "full production")

Under this plan, it would be basic national policy to enable every family
to participate in producing wealth, not only through their LABOR but
also through their ownership of CAPITAL. To implement this, both
government and business would seek ways to extend the ownership of
capital to all families, so that ultimately they could have two incomes:

• A FIRST INCOME from wages paid for LABOR

• A SECOND INCOME from dividends paid on CAPITAL (stocks).

ONE-FACTOR ECONOMIC CONCEPTS

and

TWO-FACTOR ECONOMIC CONCEPTS:

The income maintenance hangup is, and has always been, the attempt to make one-factor economic concepts work in a two-factor real world. Let me now in half a minute explain two-factor theory:

-

-

It is the idea that each of the two factors produces wealth in exactly the same

sense:

This idea is contrary to explicit
socialist dogma.

It is also contrary to U.S. economic
policy: the Employment Act of 1946
and the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964.

Both political parties espouse one-
factor economic policy.

The various studies on economic goals
that have been made in the U.S. since
the T.N.E.C. studies of 1938-42 uni-
formly conclude that our proper
economic goal is full employment, so
they are contrary to two-factor theory.

Two-factor theory is contrary to
Keynesian doctrine.

While physical capital does not pass unnoticed in the western economies, we assert that its function is to enhance the "productivity of labor."

This, of course, is contrary to reality
and to two-factor theory.

If two-factor theory is sound, and if double-entry bookkeeping is the logic of a market economy, then the only way to eliminate