What an amazing jumble of words by our logician of usury! Here he comes
 again with his increased value of capital! He seems to think that this enormous
 expansion of the reproduction process, hence accumulation of real capital, took
 place on one side, and that on the other there existed a "capital", for which
 there arose an "enormous demand", in order to accomplish this gigantic increase
 of commerce! Was not this enormous increase of production an increase of
 capital itself, and if it created a demand, did it not also create the supply,
 and, simultaneously, an increased supply of money-capital? If the interest rate
 rose very high, then merely because the demand for money-capital increased
 still more rapidly than its supply, which implies, in other words, that with
 the expansion of industrial production its operation on a credit basis expanded
 as well. That is to say, the actual industrial expansion caused an increased
 demand for "accommodation," and the latter demand is evidently what our banker
 means by the "enormous demand for capital." It was surely not the expansion of
 this demand for capital alone, which raised the export business from
 £45 to £120 million. And furthermore, what does Overstone mean when he says
 that the country's annual savings swallowed by the Crimean War form the natural
 source of supply for this big demand? in the first place, how did England
 achieve accumulation in 1792-1815, which was a far different war from the
 little Crimean one? In the second place, if the natural source was dry, from
 what source did capital flow at all? It is well known that England did not
 request loans from foreign countries. Yet if there is an artificial source
 besides the natural one, it would have been best for a nation to utilise the
 natural source in war and the artificial one in business. But if only the old
 money-capital was available, could it double its effectiveness through a high
 rate of interest? Mr. Overstone evidently thinks that the country's annual
 savings (which, however, were supposed to have been consumed in this case) are
 converted only into money-capital. But if no real accumulation, i.e.,
 expansion of production and augmentation of the means of production, had taken
 place, what good would there be from the accumulation of debtor's money claims
 on this production?