applies to wool and mutton, to beef and hides, as surely as to commodities which are produced quite independently.  It is true that this equilibrium is a rough, imperfect one; and it may happen that what is called a “glut” of wool may co-exist for a short period with what is called a scarcity of mutton.  But qualifications of this nature are in the strictest sense of the phrase, the exceptions which prove the rule.  For the departures from equilibrium which gluts and scarcities represent are always transient and are usually confined within narrow limits.  A strong prevailing trend towards an adjustment of demand and supply is unmistakably manifest amid all the vagaries of changing circumstance.  Let me carry the argument a step further for the benefit of any reader who is restrained by a repugnance too deep and instinctive to be readily overcome, from admitting fairly to his mind that conception of order which I am endeavoring to emphasize.  He will in all probability be one who, cherishing ideals of a better and fairer system of society, looks forward to a time when an organized cooeperation will be substituted for what he regards as the existing chaos.  Let us suppose that his visions were fulfilled as completely as he could desire; and that an immense system of Socialism were in existence, embracing not one country only, but the whole world.  Suppose all the difficulties of human perversity and administrative technique to have been surmounted and a wise, disinterested executive to be in supreme control of our business life.  Let us suppose all this, and ask only the question:  How would this executive treat the humdrum case of wool and mutton?  How would it decide the number of sheep it would maintain?

Shall we suppose that it is inspired by the ideal “to each according to his need,” and that it resolves accordingly that the commodities which people require for a decent standard of life shall be supplied to them as a matter of course?  How, then, would it proceed?  It might estimate the amount of woolen clothing which a normal family requires, allowing for differences in climate, and possibly indulging somewhat the caprices of human taste.  On this basis, a certain number of sheep would be indicated.  It might perform a similar calculation for mutton, and again a certain number of sheep would be indicated.  But it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the numbers which resulted from these independent calculations were nearly equal to one another, or were even of the same order of magnitude; and, if they differed widely, what number would our world executive select?  Would it decide to waste an immense quantity of either wool or mutton; or would it decide that it could not, after all, supply the full human needs for one or other of the commodities?