Yes, as Yuri brings out from Walker, it is often useful to distinguish the  
lender-capitalist from the equity-capitalist, the one who rolls the dice.  
The world of finance has dozens of subspecialists, but it would not make  
much sense to make each one a factor of production, when they all deal with  
capital.    
  
It is even more useful to distinguish net income-creating investing from  
buying up old assets like, but not limited to, land.  Possibly Walker had  
something like that in mind, but if so, only too vaguely.  Keynes was better  
about it.  
  
It is odd that Walker, who earlier wrote a pro-Ricardian book on *Land and  
its rent* (1883), should in the quoted passage divide the industrial world  
into just capitalists and laborers.  Perhaps consistency was not his  
strength.  
  
Yuri adds, "Yes, by modern standards, and even compared to Henry George, Ripley/Dana are
indeed "careless writers"."  Not clear why he drags in George at this point, but I cannot
agree that "modern standards" are much if at all improved over the classics. Most current
texts, for example, throw around terms like income, consumption, investment, inflation,
capital, saving, etc., without much definition or consistency.  OTOH, when George wrote
"land" he told you exactly what he meant: "All the material universe outside man and his
products."
  
Mason Gaffney