Economics Volume II: Modern Economic Problems

However, the comparative per capita amounts of money (in terms of American dollars) in circulation in different countries is far from being a true index of their industrial development or of their commercial activity. Indeed, beyond a certain point the larger average amount of money in circulation in a country may indicate backwardness in the development of banks and other credit agencies rather than greater amount of wealth or of business. Notice, for example, the medium position of the great commercial countries, Germany and the United Kingdom, as compared with other countries above and below them in the following list.

PER CAPITA CIRCULATION OF MONEY IN LEADING COUNTRIES DECEMBER 31, 1912.

France………………$48.91 America (U.S.)……….$32.98

Australia…………… 38.45 Portugal……………. 29.46

Canada……………… 33.57 Netherlands…………. 26.86

Switzerland…………. 24.32 Mexico……………… 9.17

Germany…………….. 21.36 Finland…………….. 8.38

United Kingdom………. 21.21 Chile………………. 8.24

Spain………………. 19.96 Turkey……………… 7.09

Brazil……………… 18.79 Russia……………… 6.45

Denmark…………….. 17.73 Japan………………. 5.68

Belgium…………….. 15.83 Bulgaria……………. 5.57

Austria-Hungary……… 14.68 Serbia……………… 5.49

Rumania…………….. 13.24 Venezuela…………… 5.51

Italy………………. 13.09 India (British)……… 5.19

South Africa………… 12.93 Ecuador…………….. 4.62

Norway……………… 12.50 Peru……………….. 3.17

Sweden……………… 11.59 Colombia……………. 2.32

Greece……………… 11.02 Paraguay……………. .57

7. #Money defined and reviewed#. Money may be defined as a material means of payment and medium of trade, generally accepted as the price-good and passing from hand to hand. The definition contains several ideas. The words "generally accepted" imply that money has a peculiar social character, is not an ordinary good. As a price-good, money itself must be a thing having value, otherwise it could not be accepted. Trade means the taking and giving of things of value. Money is, therefore, not merely an order for goods, as a card or paper requesting payment; it is itself a thing of value (tho this value may be due partly or solely to its possessing the money function). Such things as a telegram when transferring an order for the payment of money, as the spoken word, and as a mere promise to pay, are not money. Even checks and drafts are merely substitutes for money. Money passes from hand to hand, is a thing that can be handled, and is or can be bodily transported.

The application of the definition is not always easy, for money shades off into other things that serve the same purpose and are related in nature. In many problems money appears to be at the same time like and unlike other things of value, and just wherein lies the difference often is difficult to determine. Even special students differ as to the border-line of the concept, but as to the general nature of money there is essential agreement.

8.# Metal money without or with coinage#. In antiquity the metals were used as money in bulk; that is, the amount was weighed at each transaction and the quality was tested whenever there was doubt.[4] In countries industrially backward, payments are still made in this manner. For some time after the discovery of gold in California, gold dust was roughly measured out on the thumb-nail. In shipments of gold to-day by bankers to settle international balances, metal may be in the form of bars that bear the mark of some well-known banking house. In all of the cases of this kind the gold is money in fact, but not by virtue of any act of government. The metal is simply a valuable good, the receiver of which values it according to its weight and fineness. This is true even when the government mint, for a small charge, tests and stamps the bars at the request of citizens.

Very early it became the practice of governments to shape and stamp pieces of metal to be used as money, so as to indicate their weight and fineness. The act of shaping and marking metal for this purpose is called coinage.[5] The coinage by government had notable advantages in giving to the monetary units uniformity of size, fineness, and value, with the stamp that was readily recognized. But in its simplest form coinage in no way changed the value of the money, and any other mark equally plain put upon it would have served equally well, if only it had carried with it equal assurance of the quality and weight of the metal.

9. #Technical features of coinage#. For each kind of metal money there is an established ratio of fineness for the more precious material, which is mixed with baser metals used as alloys. In the United States all gold and silver coins are made nine-tenths fine; in Great Britain, eleven-twelfths. The established weight of the gold dollar in the United States is 25.8 grains of standard gold which contain 23.22 grains of fine gold. The limit of tolerance is the variation either above or below the standard weight or fineness that a coin is allowed to have when it leaves the mint. This is different for each of the principal coins, being about one-fifth of one per cent on a gold eagle. The par of exchange between standard coins of different countries is the expression of the ratio of fine metal in them. Thus the par of exchange between the American dollar and the English sovereign (the "pound") is 4.866; that is, that number of dollars contains the same amount of fine gold as an English gold sovereign. The embossed design is merely to make the coins easily recognizable and difficult to counterfeit; and milled or lettered edges are to prevent clipping and otherwise abstracting metal from the coins.

10. #Seigniorage defined#. Coinage, as practised by early governments and rulers, came to be a function of great importance politically as well as economically. The right to issue money came to be one of the most essential prerogatives of sovereignty. The prince, king, or emperor stamped his own device or portrait upon the coin; hence the term seigniorage from seignior (meaning lord or ruler). Seigniorage meant primarily the right the ruler, or the estate, has to charge for coinage, and hence it has come to mean also the charge made for coinage, and often, in a still broader sense, the profit made by the government in issuing any kind of money with a value higher than that of the materials (whether metal or paper) composing it. Coinage is rarely without charge, and often has been a source of revenue to the ruler. In antiquity and in the Middle Ages this right was frequently exercised by princes for their selfish advantage to the injury and unsettling of trade. This introduced a very great problem of value into the use of money.

The coinage is said to be gratuitous when no charge is made for coinage. Coinage is said to be free if the subject or citizen may take bullion to the mint whenever he pleases, paying the usual seigniorage. Coinage is limited if the government or ruler determines when coinage is to take place. Thus, coinage may be both free and gratuitous, when citizens are allowed to bring bullion whenever they please and have it converted into coins without charge or deduction. But coinage is free without being gratuitous when any citizen may bring metal to the mint, whenever he chooses, to be coined subject to the seigniorage charge.

[Footnote 1: See Vol. I, pp. 15-16 and 50-53 for an introductory statement of the origin of money in connection with markets.]

[Footnote 2: See ch. 5.]

[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, p. 43, on the decline of barter.]

[Footnote 4: "I will … refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried." Zech. xiii, 9. "I bought the field … and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. And I … weighed him the money in the balances." Jer. xxxii, 9, 10. A shekel was 224 grains, troy weight, which is about equal to six-tenths of the pure metal in a silver dollar to-day and worth now about twenty-four cents in gold. At that time, however, the purchasing power of silver was many times greater than it now is.]

[Footnote 5: From the French coin, in turn from Latin cuneus, wedge, suggestive either of an earlier wedge-shaped piece, or of a wedge-shaped mark on the piece. The German word Münze is from the Latin moneta (as is the English mint, the place where coins are made), which meant money, that name being taken from the temple of Juno, called Moneta, where coins were made.]

CHAPTER 4

THE VALUE OF MONEY

§ 1. Standard-commodity money. § 2. Alternative uses of the money-good. § 3. Money as a valuable tool. § 4. Relative importance of money. § 5. Concept of the individual monetary demand. § 6. Concept of the community's monetary demand. § 7. The money-material in its commodity uses. § 8. The general level of prices. § 9. Effect of increasing gold production. § 10. The quantity theory of money. § 11. Interpretation of the quantity theory. § 12. Practical application of the quantity theory.

§ 1. #Standard-commodity money#. The actual money in use in almost every country to-day consists of a wide and confusing variety: gold, silver, nickel, copper, paper in various forms, issued by various authorities under various conditions as to amount and as to seigniorage. But among all the kinds, in each country some one kind is found standing preëminent and in a peculiar position, as the standard money to which the value of all the other kinds of money is in some manner adjusted. Usually this standard money is composed of a material (gold or silver) which is a commodity; but there are many examples of paper money being for the time the standard. The difficulties of the money problem must be attacked at the point of standard-commodity money, where it is nearest to ordinary value problems and is less complicated than when the various other kinds of money and the various money substitutes are included.

We mean by standard money that kind, no matter what its form, which serves in any country as the unit in which the value of other kinds of money is expressed. The standard usually is a quantity of metal of a certain weight and fineness, which, as a commodity, has a value also in industrial uses. Coins of this standard are called full, or real, money by some writers that deny the title of money to everything else.

§ 2. #Alternative uses of the money-good.# Let us consider the problem of money-value as it would present itself if only one kind of commodity money were in use. This doubtless was in large measure, if not entirely, the case for a time in early societies after one material had proved itself to be the best suited for the purpose. The history of many kinds of money may, we have seen, be traced back to a point where they were not money, but commodities with a direct value-in-use. Such were ornaments, shells, furs, feathers, salt, cattle, fish, game, and tobacco. Each of these materials has, in each situation, a value which is the reflection of its power to appeal to choice. Now, if to the commodity-use is added the money-use, this increases the demand for that good. No new theory is required to explain the value of a commodity as it gradually acquires the added use of a medium of trade. The money use is one that works no physical or visible change in goods except a slight unavoidable abrasion, and at any time a person receiving a piece of commodity money may retain it for its use-value, as food, ornament, tool, or weapon, or may retain it for a time and then spend it as money. This case of value is no more difficult than that of anything else having two or more uses. For example, cattle are used for milk, for meat, and as beasts of burden. Each of these uses is logically independent as a cause of value, yet all are mutually related, the value of cattle to a particular person being determined by the consideration of all the uses united into one scale of varying gratification.

§ 3. #Money as a valuable tool.# Money is often, by a figure of speech, called a tool. A tool is a piece of material taken into the hand to apply force to other things, to shape them or move them. Figuratively, this is what money does. A man takes it not to get enjoyment out of it directly, but to apply force, to move something, and that which he moves is the other commodity. Money thus (as money) is always an indirect agent. Adam Smith aptly likened money to the roads and wagons that transport goods, thus gratifying desires by putting goods into more convenient places. The fundamental use that money serves is to apportion one's income conveniently as it accrues and as it is spent. The use of money increases the value of goods by increasing the ease with which trade takes place. Like any tool or agent, money is valued for what it does or helps to do. It enhances the value of the goods that it buys and sells by dividing them into quantities convenient for use and by making them available at the right times. In the light of the principles of diminishing gratification and of time-preference it is clear that the amounts in which, and the times at which, goods are available have an essential bearing on their values. Money is the most successful device ever discovered for distributing the supplies of a journey along its course, and the goods of daily need over a period of time. The use of money as a storehouse of value by hoarding it is merely a more extreme case of keeping income until a time when it will have a greater value to the owner than it has in the present.[1]

§ 4. #Relative importance of money.# Because money is the general expression of purchasing power, and comes to symbolize all other wealth, it often assumes undue and exaggerated importance in men's eyes. Money is but one of many forms of wealth. It constitutes but a small percentage of the total wealth of a country, and it is far from being the most indispensable to human welfare. Yet its importance, as a whole, in determining the form of industrial organization is enormous. In a society without money, industrial processes would be very different, and trade would be hampered in manifold ways.

A poor community has little money because it cannot afford more; it gets along with less money than is convenient just as it gets along with fewer agents of every other kind that it could use. Pioneers in a poor community where the average wealth is low cannot afford to keep a large number of wagons, plows, good roads, or schoolhouses. If the members of the community were wealthy enough each would have more of these and of other things, and the sum total of money would be greater. Great as is the convenience of money, poorer communities have to do with little of it. It is, therefore, a confusion of cause and effect when poor communities imagine that their poverty is due to lack of money.

§ 5. #Concept of the individual monetary demand.# Let us now seek to get in mind the idea of an individual monetary demand, as that amount of money which at any time is required by an individual to make his purchases in expending his income. Every man may be thought of as having an average monetary demand, or his average individual cash reserve, throughout a period. A man with a salary of $50 a month paid monthly has ordinarily a maximum monetary demand of $50. If his expenditures are made in two equal parts, the one on pay-day, the other thirty days later, his average monetary demand during the month is a little over $25. If most of his purchasing is done in the first week of the month, his average monetary demand may be perhaps $10. Many a workman purchases on credit, running accounts at the stores for a month. Then on pay day he spends his entire month's wages the day he receives it, and goes without money for the rest of the month. His average monetary demand throughout the month would then be about equal to one day's wages. Evidently any person's cash reserve may be expressed as that proportion of his income that is to him of more value retained in money form for any period than if at once expended.

In this conception of the individual monetary demand, must, however, be included not merely the demands of retail purchasers, made by themselves, but also those of all agencies such as merchants, bankers, and transportation companies, serving the needs of ultimate consumers of goods. The use of money may be necessary several times before a commodity completes its journey from producer to consumer.

Of two persons whose expenditures of money are of the same kind and made at the same rate, the one having the larger amount of purchases to make has the larger monetary demand. But the amount of purchases does not always vary directly with the amount of real income[2]; for example, a farmer and a village mechanic may have at their disposal incomes equal in the quantities of goods, such as food, fuel, clothing, and house-uses (worth, let us say, $1000 for each), but the farmer would be getting a larger part of his goods directly from his farm and by his own labor, while the mechanic would be getting first a money income to be expended afterward for food, clothing, and rent. The mechanic would in this case have an average monetary demand much larger than the farmer.

We see thus that a person's monetary demand at any time is that amount of money which rests in his possession as the necessary condition to making his purchases as he desires. Individual monetary demand varies in proportion directly to the delay, and inversely to the rapidity with which the individual passes the money on; and directly to the amount of the person's income that is received and expended in monetary form.

§ 6. #Concept of the community's monetary demand.# The monetary demand of a community at a given time is the sum of the monetary demands of the various individuals and enterprises. It is that stock of money which is necessarily present to effect the exchanges of the community in the prevailing manner at the existing price level. A single dollar as it circulates helps to supply the monetary demand of many individuals in turn: the more quickly each person spends the piece of money he receives, the greater its rapidity of circulation. Let us suppose that every piece of money passed from one person to another once each day. Then a dollar would, in the course of a business year (about 300 days), serve to buy (and at the same time to sell) $300 worth of goods. If the average purchases of each individual amounted to $1000 a year, the average monetary demand of each would be about 3-1/3 dollars.

But every moment beyond the average time that any one kept money would increase his monetary demand. If he delayed a day, a week, or a month in spending the money, waiting until he could buy in some other market, or until a better time to buy, he would thus increase insomuch the amount of money needed to make the trade (on that scale of prices). It requires more slow dollars than swift dollars to make a given volume of purchases.

Evidently the times of maximum monetary demand of the different individuals do not coincide; rather they alternate with each other, and the community's total monetary demand at a given time is a composite of the many individual variations. The amount of money that will remain in circulation in a community depends on several factors, the chief among them being the amount of goods to exchange, the methods of exchange, and the prevailing scale of prices. The amount of goods to be exchanged may change even when the amount produced is unaltered (e.g., a change from agricultural to industrial conditions). The methods of exchange may alter so as to require either more money (e.g., cash instead of credit business), or less money (e.g., use of bank checks displacing use of money by individuals). Or, apart from the other factors, the scale of prices may change as the conditions of gold and silver production are altered. The interrelations of gold and silver production, paper money issues, banking growth, and money-inflow and outflow in foreign exchanges give rise to the most interesting and important problems in the field of monetary theory.

§ 7. #The money-material in its commodity uses#. We are now prepared to take up the question: What determines the ratio at which money exchanges for other goods? And, as money comes to be the unit in which prices are generally expressed, the question becomes: What determines the general level of monetary prices? We have this problem in its simplest form in the case of a commodity-money such as gold. It may be looked upon merely as so much precious metal. The problem of its value as bullion is the same as that of the value of pig iron or of zinc, of meat or of potatoes. There is here no special monetary problem. The value of gold as bullion and its value as money are kept in equilibrium by choice and by substitution. The several uses of gold are constantly competing for it: its uses for rings, pens, ornaments, championship cups, photography, dentistry, delicate instruments, and as a circulating medium. If the metal becomes worth more in any one use, its amount is increased there and is correspondingly diminished in other uses.[3]

When coinage is free and gratuitous[4] the standard money is a commodity. Such coinage is essentially but the stamp and certificate that the coin contains a certain weight and fineness of metal. Where coinage is free and gratuitous each coin will be worth the same as the bullion that is in it so far as the citizens exercise their choice. They will not long keep uncoined metal in their possession when it is worth more in the form of money, nor will they long keep money from the melting-pot when it is worth more as bullion. Yet there may be a slight disparity between the bullion value and the monetary value before the metal is converted into coin or the coin melted down into metal.

This adjustment of the value of commodity-money to other things is made also on the side of supply, in the use of labor and material agents to produce the precious metals and to produce other things. Gold-mining, for example, is one among various industries to which men may apply their labor and their available material agents. Some mines are superior, others medium, others marginal which it barely pays to work. There is, therefore, a rise and fall of the margin of gold production with changes in prices and changes in the cost of production. Large new deposits of gold are discovered from time to time and new methods of extracting gold are invented. If, when it barely pays to work a mine, such changes occur, gold becomes worth less, and the poorer mines eventually must go out of use. As gold rises in value some abandoned mines again come into use. A similar variation may be noted in the utilization of marginal land, marginal factories, marginal forges, and marginal agents of every kind.[5]

§ 8. #The general level of prices#. We come now to a more peculiar aspect of the monetary value problem. In performing its function as general medium of trade, money determines the general level of monetary prices. We have the idea of a general level of prices whenever we contrast the price ratio of money to other commodities at one time with its ratio at another time. Now the monetary prices of the various commodities are constantly changing, and in somewhat different degrees, but on the average there may be a general trend upward or downward, and this is called a change in the general scale (or level) of prices, as contrasted with changes in the values of any two commodities in terms of each other. The general price level will be more fully discussed below (Chapter 6, section 3) in connection with the method of measuring by index numbers its changes. This brief explanation may, perhaps, be enough for our present purpose. Our question now is: What is the effect of changes in the quantity of money (considered apart from chance accompanying changes) upon the general level of prices?

§ 9. #Effect of increasing gold production#. Let us take a case where gold is in general use as money, and where for some time there has been no noticeable change in the amount of business, the methods of trade, and the general scale of prices. What would happen when new gold mines were found that were much easier to operate, and gold began to be produced at a much more rapid rate than formerly? The amount of gold as compared with other forms of wealth evidently would be increased. What if all the increase went into the industrial arts? The value of gold in its industrial uses would fall. Then a part of the increase must be diverted to monetary uses. When any man, by reason of the increasing gold supplies, gets a larger stock of money than he had before, the proportion formerly existing between his use for money and his monetary stock is altered. He has more money than meets his monetary demand at the existing prices. As he seeks to reduce his stock of money to due proportions by buying more goods, he thereby distributes a part of the excess of money to others. This bids up the prices of goods further until the total value of goods exchanged again bears the same ratio as before to the average monetary demand of each individual.

Take an extreme case: if twice as many dollars get into circulation in a community, either some few men may have far more dollars than before, while others have nearly the same number; or every man may have his due proportion of the new supplies, just twice as many as before in proportion to his income. The latter result, "other things being equal," is the logical one after equilibrium has been restored. If prices of goods remained the same as before, there would be twice as many pieces of money available to effect the same number of trades at the same prices. There is no reason why each person should tie up twice as large a proportion of his income in the form of money. If, however, there is a concerted movement to spend the surplus money, there results a general bidding down of the value of money, a general bidding up of the prices of goods. At what point will this movement stop? The rational conclusion must be that, other things being equal, the new equilibrium will be established when the ratio between the value of money and the price of the goods which each individual is purchasing becomes the same as before. The money being doubled, prices must be doubled, and likewise for any other change in quantity.

§ 10. #The quantity theory of money.# This explanation of the effect of changes in the quantity of money in a country upon prices (the general scale of prices) is known as the quantity theory of money. This theory has, for a century, been very generally accepted by competent students of the money problem. It may be summed up thus: other things being equal, the value of the monetary unit, expressed in terms of all other commodities, falls as the quantity of money increases, and vice versa. That is, prices rise and fall in direct proportion to changes in the total quantity. This is a simple explanation of a complex and difficult set of conditions. The phrase, "other things being equal," betokens the statement of a tendency where there are several factors. The quantity theory explains what happens when there is a change in one of the factors—the number of pieces of money. There are three large sets of facts to be brought into relationship with each other in the quantity theory: (1) the amount of business, or the number of trades effected; (2) the rapidity of circulation, depending on the methods by which business is done; (3) the amount of money available. According to the quantity theory we must expect that, when conditions (1) and (2) remain fixed, the value of money will vary inversely as its quantity. This quantity theory may be expressed in the formula P = MR/N when P is the symbol for price, or the general price level, N is (1) above, R is (2), and M is (3). P, therefore, changes directly with either M or R, or inversely with N.[6]

§ 11. #Interpretation of the quantity theory.# The quantity theory must be carefully interpreted to avoid various misunderstandings of it that have appeared again and again in economic discussion.

(1) It does not mean that the price level changes with the absolute quantity of money, independently of growth of population and of the corresponding growth in the volume of exchanges.

(2) It is not a mere per capita rule to be applied at a certain moment to different countries. For example, Mexico may have $9 per capita and the United States $35, while average prices may not differ in anything like that proportion. But in these two countries not only the amounts of exchanges per capita but the methods of exchange and the rapidity of the circulation of money differ greatly.[7]

(3) It cannot be applied as a per capita rule to the same country through a series of years, without taking account of the many changing factors. It is estimated that in 1800 the money stock was about $5 per capita in the United States, and in 1914 about $35[8], but average prices have not necessarily changed in the same ratio. In a period of years a country may change in a multitude of ways, in complexity of industry, modes of exchange, transportation, wealth, and income. These changes require, some larger, others smaller, per capita amounts of money to maintain the same level of prices. For example, the substitution of cash payments for book-credit in retail trade calls for a larger per capita stock of money; whereas an increased use of banks and checking accounts, by economizing the use of money, enables a smaller amount of money to maintain the same level.[9]

(4) Tho applied originally to standard money, the quantity theory applies to all other kinds of money circulating side by side and at a parity of value, so far as these fulfil the definition of money and are not merely supplementary aids of money. These substitutes for, or supplements to, money enable each dollar to do more work, to circulate more rapidly. If the standard money alone were doubled in quantity, while the various forms of fiduciary money (smaller coins, bank notes, government notes) remained unchanged, the quantity of money as a whole would not be doubled. Indeed, in such a case, the method of exchange would be greatly altered. According to the quantity theory, therefore, prices would not be expected to double.

§ 12. #Practical application of the quantity theory#. Despite the number of changing factors affecting the methods of exchange and the amount of business, the quantity theory is a rule unable at any moment. These various factors change slowly, and the quantity theory answers the question: What general change occurs in prices as a result of the increase or decrease of the money in a given community at a given moment? Like the law of gravitation and the law of projectiles, the theory must be interpreted with relation to actual conditions.

The quantity theory makes intelligible the great and rapid changes in prices which have followed sudden changes in the quantity of money. Inductive demonstration of broadly stated economic principles is usually difficult, but there have been many "monetary experiments" to teach their lessons. Many inflations and contractions of the circulating medium have occurred, now in a single country, again in the whole world; and the local or general results have helped to exemplify richly the working of the quantity principle. With the scanty yield of silver and gold mines during the Middle Ages, prices were low. After the discovery of America, especially in the sixteenth century, quantities of silver flowed into Europe. The great rise of prices that occurred was explained by the keenest thinkers of that day along the essential lines of the quantity theory, tho there were many monetary fallacies current at that time. The experience in England during the Napoleonic wars, when the money of England was inflated (by the forced issue of large amounts of bank notes) and prices rose above those of the Continent, led to the modern formulation of the theory by Ricardo and others about 1810. The discovery of gold in California and Australia in 1848-50 greatly increased the gold supply, and gold prices rose throughout the world. Between 1870 and 1890 the production of gold fell off while its use as money increased greatly, and prices fell. A great increase of gold production has occurred in the period since 1890. In part the rising prices since 1897 are explicable as the periodic upswing of confidence and credit, but in the main doubtless they are due to the stimulus of increasing gold supplies.[10] These are but a few of many instances in monetary history, which, taken together, make an argument of probability in favor of the quantity theory so strong as to constitute practically an inductive proof.

[Footnote 1: The old-fashioned miser, however, withdraws his hoarded gold for the time from its usual monetary function as an indirect agent and treats it as a direct good yielding to him psychic income by its mere possession.]

[Footnote 2: See on kinds of income, Vol. I, p. 26 ff.]

[Footnote 3: See secs. 1 and 2 of this chapter; also Vol. 1, especially pp. 31-38 and 353-355.]

[Footnote 4: This means actually gratuitous, for any real difficulty in getting metal to or from the mint operates as a cost in the conversion of bullion into money, or vice versa; e.g., the gold may be in Australia and the mint in London.]

[Footnote 5: See Vol. I, pp. 138 ff. and 361 ff.

FIG. 1. GOLD PRODUCTION OF THE WORLD, 1493-1914.

The changes in gold production here shown have bearings not only upon problems of money, but in some respects upon nearly every modern economic problem. Compare in the present connection this figure with Figure 3, in Chapter 6, Section 4, showing changes in index numbers of prices.

[Illustration: FIG. 1. GOLD PRODUCTION OF THE WORLD. 1493-1710.
AVERAGES FOR PERIODS BEFORE 1870]]

[Footnote 6: This formula is presented by E.W. Kemmerer in "Money and
Prices" (2d ed., 1909), p. 15 ff.]

[Footnote 7: See above, ch. 3, sec. 6, table.]

[Footnote 8:

PER CAPITA CIRCULATION OF MONEY (ESTIMATED) IN THE UNITED STATES IN VARIOUS YEARS.

  1800……$4.99 1850……$12.02 1890……$22.82
  1810…… 7.60 1860…… 13.85 1900…… 26.93
  1820…… 6.96 1870…… 17.51 1910…… 34.33
  1830…… 6.78 1880…… 19.41 1915…… 35.44
  1840……10.91
]

[Footnote 9: On the function of deposits, see below, ch. 7, sec. 11.]

[Footnote 10: Consult Figure 1 in ch. 4 and Figure 2 in ch. 6 for the graphic presentation of these and related facts.]

CHAPTER 5

FIDUCIARY MONEY, METAL AND PAPER

§ 1. Commodity and fiduciary defined. § 2. Present monetary system of the United States. § 3. Saturation point of fractional money. § 4. Light-weight fractional coins. § 5. Worn coins and Gresham's law. § 6. A general seigniorage charge on standard money. § 7. Coinage on governmental account. § 8. The gold-exchange standard. § 9. Nature of governmental paper money. § 10. Irredeemable paper money. § 11. Theories of political money.

§ 1. #Commodity and fiduciary defined#. The actual moneys in circulation in every modern country consist of a wide variety of pieces, differing in denomination, physical size, shape and materials, mode of issue, source or authority of issue, and legal character. Among these kinds, one is the standard and is a commodity-money.[1] In such cases the coinage is free and nearly gratuitous, and the value of the money is kept close to parity with its value as bullion by changing bullion into coin, or coin back into bullion, whenever there is an appreciable difference between the values in the two uses. This adjustment is brought about by the free action of the people. The government, having declared what is the standard money unit, and having provided a mint to make coins, leaves it to citizens, acting from the ordinary competitive motives, to decide when they will reduce or increase the number of coins in circulation.

The other kinds of money are not commodity-money and the materials of which they are made, whatever they be, are not worth as much in any other uses as they are in their present monetary form. Their value is always referred to, and adjusted to, that of the commodity-money, so long as any of it is in circulation. In contrast with commodity-money, these other kinds may be called fiduciary money. By fiduciary money we mean money that has not a commodity value equal to its money value, but which is generally accepted because each receiver has faith that others in turn will take it in the same way.[2]

§ 2. #Present monetary system of the United States.# Here is given a summary of the main features marking the present monetary system of the United States (in 1915).

Not all this variety is essential to an efficient monetary system and several of the kinds survive as the result of historical accidents (political and legislative). But all are now kept in accord with the value of the gold coin which, it will be observed, is the only kind the amount of which is not artificially limited. Silver dollars are no longer coined, subsidiary silver and minor coins are issued only in exchange for other money, as are gold and silver certificates in exchange for gold or for silver, which they merely represent while in circulation.

§ 3. #Saturation point of fractional money.# Fiduciary money is that on which regularly the issuer makes a seigniorage charge.[3] Let us consider now the effect of seigniorage on the value of money.

Fractional coins are those of smaller denominations than the standard unit of money, as shillings and pence in England, and half dollars, quarter dollars, dimes, nickels, and cents in America. Money to serve well a variety of uses must be of different denominations, and "small change" is necessary to make small purchases and for exact settlement in larger payments that are not multiples of the standard unit. The amount required (or most convenient to use) in each denomination of fractional coins is thus a more or less certain portion of each person's monetary demand, shaped by experience and fixed by habit. For example, within certain elastic limits of convenience quarters may be used for halves, and dimes for nickels (and vice versa); but each person has a point of preference. The total demand for each kind of change is the sum of the individual demands. This point where the amount of coins of any denomination (in relation to the whole monetary system) is most convenient may be called the saturation point of that kind of small change, up to which point the people prefer a share of their money in that form, and beyond which they will, if free to choose, exchange that kind for other denominations (smaller or larger). Each kind of money, as the cent, nickel, dime, has its own peculiar demand and its saturation point.

MONETARY SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES, 1915

[Footnote a: "Lawful money" includes gold coin, silver dollars, U.S.
notes, and Treasury notes.]

[Footnote b: Redeemable also in lawful money at bank of issue.]

[Footnote c: Redeemable also at Federal reserve banks in gold.]

[Footnote d: Not usually included in the estimates of total money
in circulation.]

[Footnote e: Represented dollar for dollar by gold kept in the U.S.
treasury.]

[Footnote f: Represented dollar for dollar by silver kept in the U.S.
treasury.]

[Footnote g: Besides, there were about $312,000,000 in the U.S. Treasury not offset by outstanding paper. The total money stock (in circulation and in the Treasury, eliminating certificates representing gold and silver), was about $4,233,000,000, of which 70 per cent was metal (largely represented in circulation by paper certificates) and 30 per cent was paper. Of the 70 per cent 50 was gold, 18 was silver, and 2 was copper and nickel.]

§ 4. #Light-weight fractional coins.# The standard metal is usually too valuable to be suitable for coins of the smaller denominations. Therefore, when gold is the standard, copper, nickel, and silver remain in restricted use. But when coins of these metals are issued at weights corresponding with their bullion value, difficulties arise. Not only are they too heavy for convenience, but with every slight rise in their bullion value as compared with that of the standard metal, they become worth more as bullion than as coin and begin to disappear from circulation. This happened often throughout the Middle Ages and until the nineteenth century. The attempt was generally made to coin gold and silver at a ratio of weight corresponding exactly to their market values at a given moment and, every time the market conditions varied, the best full-weight coins of one of the two metals were taken out of circulation. [4]The country thus suffered for lack either of the larger gold coins or of fractional coins. At length, to remedy this difficulty, fractional silver coins, often called "token coins," were issued, in limited numbers, of less than full proportionate weight and bullion value.

This plan, having been partially tried, was generally adopted by the United States in 1853 at a time when the silver dollar of 371.25 fine grains was legally rated at the same value as the gold dollars of 23.22 grains, and was freely coined. The fractional coins were made a little over 6 per cent lighter per dollar than the dollar coin; two half-dollars or four quarters or ten dimes contained 93.52 cents worth of silver. Since then silver bullion has become worth much less in terms of gold, and for years past the bullion value of the silver in a dollar of silver small change has been between 40 and 60 cents. Why then has the fractional coinage a monetary value equal to the standard money, dollar for dollar?

The answer is, because it is artificially limited in quantity, so that it does not pass the point of saturation in the field of its use. Its value rests on its monetary use; it is fiduciary money, not commodity money. It is limited simply by letting "the needs of the people" determine its amount. This is done by issuing it only in exchange for other money of the larger denominations, and by redeeming it in other money on demand. Fractional coins are issued on the request of banks in exchange for standard money. One needing "change" gets it at the bank; when the bank finds its supply falling short it gets more from the government mints. As business increased in 1898, the demand for nickels, dimes, and quarters became unprecedented, and the mints worked night and day to supply them. If these coins were made in great quantities and forced into circulation by the government through paying them out to creditors and officials, their quantity would become excessive and they would fall in value (be at a discount) compared with standard money. But as this is not done, and as, moreover, they are redeemed on demand at the treasury (and practically at every bank and post office) in other money, any slight tendency to depreciation in any locality is at once corrected. As it is, the government makes a seigniorage profit on the fiduciary coinage, as shown in the following table. [5] The fractional coinage is maintained at a parity with the standard money in accordance with the monopoly principle, expressed in the limitation of the amount.

Receipts:

      Earnings (charges for refining, assaying, manufacture
        for other countries, etc.)……………………. $392,000
      Bullion recovered, by-products, old materials, etc… 143,000
      Profits on seigniorage, subsidiary silver………… 3,013,000
      Profits on seigniorage minor coinage and recoinage… 2,387,000
                                                           —————
      Total receipts…………………………………$5,935,000

  Expenditures:
      All kinds……………………………………..$1,138,000
                                                           —————
        Net revenues from mint service…………………$4,797,000

§ 5. #Worn coins and Gresham's law.# Coins may be light-weight as the result of another cause—namely, the abrasion (wearing off) of the coins in circulation. Nearly always when this has occurred the worn coins have still been accepted as money,[6] and ordinarily without any depreciation. That is to say, they have a value as money greater than the value of the bullion that is in them. Everybody takes them without hesitation as readily as if they were full weight. If, however, at this point, new full-weight coins are put into circulation, these at once disappear while the old ones remain in circulation—a fact that has always been somewhat mystifying.

In explanation of the phenomenon was formulated "Gresham's law" of the circulation side by side of coins of different bullion value: bad money drives out good money. Sir Thomas Gresham (whose name has but recently been given to this so-called law), explained the principle to Queen Elizabeth when counseling her regarding the recoinage of the debased money of the realm as was done in 1560. He showed that when old, worn coins were in circulation and the mint began putting out full-weight coins, the old lighter ones remained as money, while the new ones, being heavier, were picked out by jewelers and by those needing to send money abroad.

Gresham's law has a paradoxical wording and is frequently misunderstood. "Bad" money means not counterfeit money, but merely money that has not as great a bullion value compared with its money value as some other kind of money then in circulation. But not every piece of such money will drive out every piece of good money. The law applies only under certain conditions, and within certain limitations. The "good" will be driven out only if the total amount of money in circulation is in excess of what would be needed if all were of full weight and of best quality. Paradoxically speaking, if there is not too much of the bad money, it is just as good as the good money. But even if good money is driven out, it may not leave the country. It may be hoarded, or be picked out by banks and savings-institutions to retain as their reserves, or be melted for use in the arts. Gresham's "law" becomes thus a practical precept. As applied to the plan of recoinage it is: Withdraw the worn coins as rapidly (in equal numbers) as you put new coins into circulation.

The continued circulation of "bad" money along side of "good" money (light-weight along side of full-weight coins), so long as the total number of coins is not in excess of the money demand for full-weight coins, is explained thus on just the same principle as is the circulation at parity of a light-weight fractional coinage, in the preceding section.

§ 6. #A general seigniorage charge on standard money.# The fiduciary coinage problem presents itself under a some-what different guise in case a seigniorage charge is made on all coinage, even of that metal used as the standard unit. In this case coinage is free but not gratuitous. In this case no bullion is brought to the mint unless the coined pieces the owners receive have a value equal to the bullion value plus the seigniorage charge. The power to impose a seigniorage charge is a monopoly power. Artificial limitation is present. Evidently, the number of coins that can be issued without depreciation is limited to that number which would circulate if they were made full weight without a seigniorage charge.[7] This number of pieces of full-weight metal is the saturation point of the money demand of the country. If more than that could in any way be put into circulation it would become worth less as money than as bullion, and would be melted or exported.

Assume that this full supply of money at a given moment is 100,000 pieces or dollars; then consider the effect of imposing a seigniorage charge of ten per cent on further coinage. The government alone having the right of coinage, the need of money would give the circulating medium a monopoly value. The value of the money would rise. When it had risen until the coin would buy any more than one-ninth more bullion than was in it, the citizens would begin to take metal to the mint. After the ten per cent charge was taken out they would receive a coin which, the containing one-tenth less bullion, would be worth very nearly the same as the metal taken to the mint. No considerable depreciation could take place unless the volume of business fell off so that less money was needed than before. In that case there would be no outlet for the excess of coins until they fell to their bullion value, i.e., till they lost the entire value of the seigniorage, the monopoly element in them. Melting or exporting them before that point was reached would cause to the owner the loss of whatever element of seigniorage value they contained. We thus have arrived at the general principle of seigniorage: when the number of coins issued is limited to the saturation point, a seigniorage charge does not reduce their money value; they are worth more as money than as bullion. And this holds good of a large seigniorage charge as well as of a small one, even up to the extreme limit of a charge of 100 per cent. In this last case the government would retain the whole of the bullion brought to it and would give in return a piece of money made of material (metal or paper) with a negligible value.

§ 7. #Coinage on governmental account.# The fiduciary coinage problem may be presented also when coinage is not free, and the times and amount of coinage are determined by law or by legally authorized officials. In this case the bullion must be obtained by purchase in the open market (and paid for by some form of legal money, or by bonds). Coinage is then said to be "on governmental account."

Now, assuming that the normal money-demand (the volume of business, or sum of exchanges) remains unchanged, let us consider what will result if the government begins to issue money in this way, when, as in the preceding case, 100,000 units of full-weight money are in circulation. This action might be taken most simply by recoining all the full-weight pieces that came into the treasury, making them contain 1/10 less precious metal, and paying out 1111 pieces for every 1000 received. Every time this was done there would be an excess of 111 pieces above the normal money-demand, and 111 full-weight pieces would be exported or melted (Gresham's law). The process (in strict theory) may be repeated 90 times, at which point 90,000 full-weight coins have been received, 100,000 light-weight coins have been issued to take their place and 10,000 full-weight coins have gone out of circulation. The total seigniorage charge would be 1-10 of 90,000, or 9000 units. No depreciation has taken place, and the pieces, by reason of their limitation, bear a money value in excess of the bullion that is in them.

Now the government, with the next 1000 pieces collected by taxation, could buy enough bullion (in the open market) to make another 1111. The excess of 111 pieces could not now be promptly removed by the melting down or exporting of 111 coins, for all those remaining in circulation have a bullion value 1/10 below their money value. As this process is repeated the excess must continue to grow from 100,000 to 111,111, and the value of the money piece in terms of bullion continue to fall from 10 to 9. At this point the 111,111 pieces would contain just the same amount of bullion and have just the same value as the 100,000 pieces did before. Thereafter no further profit would accrue to the government from issuing coins of that weight. To make a further profit it must again reduce the amount of pure metal in the coin.

This process was often repeated in the Middle Ages. A ruler, either by making a higher seigniorage charge or by coining on his own account, debased the quality or reduced the weight of the money of his realm. For a time the new coins, having the same monetary use, circulated at par with the old coins. The ruler, pleased with this almost magical power of getting a revenue with little trouble, continued to issue coins until suddenly the heavier coins began to be exported or melted, and the value of the other money fell, to the mystification alike of the prince and of his people. The reason is now perfectly plain: the number of coins was not kept within the proper limits and they went down to their bullion value. The only way a further profit could be made in this way was to debase the coin again. By successive steps the coinage came to consist almost entirely of cheaper alloy.

§ 8. #The gold-exchange standard.# In a number of silver-using countries and colonial dependencies near the end of the nineteenth century, the fluctuations of the value of silver in terms of gold was a constant source of difficulty in the payment of foreign obligations to gold standard countries. Yet there were strong reasons in the habits of the people and in the industrial conditions of the country to forbid the adoption of gold and the disuse of silver as the actual money in circulation. The method adopted, that of the gold-exchange standard, involved these features.

(1) Closing the mints of the country to the free coinage of silver, as was done most notably in India in 1893 and in Mexico in 1904.

(2) Adoption of a fixed ratio of exchange between the silver coins in circulation and some gold coin which is made the standard of value in all transactions (as the dollar or the pound sterling), the money in circulation thus being all or nearly all of a fiduciary nature.

(3) Regulation and limitation of the amount of money in circulation so that a fixed parity between it and gold may be maintained (a) by the limited issue of coins only on governmental account, (b) by the sale, at a fixed rate, of foreign exchange bills payable abroad in the standard unit, the money paid for the bills being withheld from circulation in a special reserve, (c) by the purchase of foreign bills of exchange at a fixed rate, thus paying out and putting again into circulation some of the fiduciary money in the special reserve.

These monetary changes furnish numerous illustrations and demonstrations of the quantity theory of money as applied to the entire circulating medium of a country.[8]

§9. #Nature of governmental paper money.# The problem of seigniorage presents itself in its most extreme form when money is made of paper. Paper money is issued either by a government or by a bank. We will consider governmental notes here, reserving until Chapter 7 the case of bank notes.

The issue of paper money in some cases grew out of the practice of debasing metal. However this may have been, governmental paper money may be looked upon as money for which a seigniorage of one hundred per cent is charged. The gain of seigniorage from paper money is greater and is just as easily secured as that from coinage of metals. Governmental paper money is called "political money," in contrast with commodity money. However, all coins that contain an element of seigniorage, or monopoly value, are to that degree "political money." The typical paper money is irredeemable; that is, it cannot be turned into bullion money on demand. It is simply put into circulation, usually with the "legal-tender" quality. Money has the legal-tender quality (as the term is used in the United States) when, according to law, it must be accepted by citizens as a legal discharge for debts due them, unless otherwise provided in the contract. The prime purpose of making money legal tender is to reduce the danger of dispute as to payments; but another purpose often has been to force people to use a depreciated money whether they would or not. The purpose of the issue of political money is usually to gain the profit of seigniorage for the public treasury, and often it has been the desperate expedient of nearly bankrupt governments. Governmental paper money differs from bank notes in that its value does not necessarily depend on the promise of redemption by the issuer. It differs from promissory notes and bonds in that its value is not based on the interest it yields, but mainly on its monetary uses. The issue of paper money may save the government the payment of interest on an equal amount of bonds. The promise to receive paper in payment for taxes or for public lands may help to maintain its value by reducing its quantity, but nothing short of its prompt redemption in standard coins makes it truly redeemable.

§ 10. #Irredeemable paper money.# The most notable examples of paper money in the eighteenth century were the American colonial currencies, the continental notes, and the French assignats. In all the American colonies before the Revolution, notes or bills of credit were issued which were in most cases legal tender. Parliament forbade the issues, but to no effect. Without exception they were issued in large amounts and without exception they depreciated. The continental notes were issued by the Continental Congress in the first year of the war (1775), and for the next five years. The object at first was to anticipate taxes, and it was expected that the states would redeem and destroy the notes, but this was not done. The notes passed at par for a time, but depreciated rapidly as their number increased. It has been estimated that the country had less than $10,000,000 of coin before the war, and when, in 1780, over $200,000,000 of notes were in circulation they were completely discredited: hence the phrase "not worth a continental." Specie then quickly came back into use. A few years later the leaders of the French Revolution, failing to learn the lesson of the American experience, issued, on the security of land, notes called assignats in such enormous quantities that they became worth no more than the paper on which they were printed. The paper money issued under the English bank restriction act of 1797-1820 is especially notable because it gave rise to the controversy which did much to develop the modern theory of the subject. Parliament forbade the Bank of England to redeem its notes in coin because the government wished to borrow the coin the bank held. The result was the issue of a large amount of bank money not subject to the ordinary rule of redemption on demand. It was virtually governmental paper money. The notes depreciated and drove gold out of circulation, and it was not until 1821 that specie payments were definitely resumed.

The United States, under the Constitution, did not try legal-tender paper money till 1862 when paper notes (called greenbacks, because of the color of ink with which the reverse side was printed) were first issued, later increased to a total of about $450,000,000. Other interest-bearing notes were issued with the legal-tender quality and circulated as money to some extent. Greenbacks depreciated in terms of gold, and gold rose in price in terms of greenbacks until, in June, 1864, it sold at 280 a hundred. Fourteen years elapsed after the war before these notes rose to par, in terms of gold (in December, 1878), and they became legally redeemable in gold January 1, 1879. This was called "the resumption of specie payments."

Almost every nation has at some time issued political money. During the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, France, through the medium of its great state bank, made forced issues of notes of a political nature, which only slightly depreciated. Many countries—Russia, Austria, Portugal, Italy, and most of the South and Central American republics—have had or still have depreciated paper currencies.

At once, at the outbreak of the great war in 1914, the governments of the warring nations began to exercise a strict control over the issue of paper money, sought to gather into the public treasury all the specie, and to give paper (either governmental notes or bank notes) practically a forced circulation, making it almost the sole circulating medium. The values of the paper moneys have fallen in all the countries, especially in Germany and Russia. In such cases the money partakes somewhat of the characters both of bank notes and of political money. Resorted to in desperate extremities, political money has usually proved to be a costly experiment. A result usually unintended is the derangement of business and of the existing distribution of incomes. The rapid and unpredictable changes in prices gives opportunity for speculative profits, but injure legitimate business. This incidental effect on debts and industry offers the main motive to some citizens for advocating the issue of paper money. It is peculiarly liable to be the subject of political intrigue and of popular misunderstanding. It is this danger, more than anything else, which makes political money in general a poor kind of money.

§ 11. #Theories of political money.# There are two extreme views regarding the nature of paper money, and a third which endeavors to find the truth between these two. First is that of the cost-of-production theorists, who declare that government is powerless to influence value, or to impart value to paper by law. They deny that there is any other basis for the value of money than the cost of the material that is in it. Money made of paper, on a printing press, has a cost almost negligibly small, and, therefore, they say it can have no value. The facts that it does circulate and that it is treated as if it had value are explained by the cost-of-production theorists as follows: while the paper note is a mere promise to pay, with no value in itself, it is accepted because of the hope of its redemption, just as any private note. Depreciation, according to this view, is due to loss of confidence; the rise toward par measures the hope of repayment.

Taking a very different view, the extreme fiat-theorists assert that the government has unlimited power to maintain the value of paper money by conferring upon it the legal-tender quality. The meaning of fiat is "let there be," and the fiat-money advocates believe that the government has but to say, "Let there be money," to impart value to a piece of paper. The typical fiat-money advocates in the United States were the "Greenbackers," who wished to retain the greenbacks issued in the Civil War and to increase the amount greatly. They saw in paper money an unlimited source of income to the government. They proposed the payment of the national debt, the support of the government without taxes, and the loan of money without interest to citizens. All might live in luxury if the extreme fiat-money theorists could realize their dreams. The depreciation that has taken place in nearly every case where government notes have been issued, the fiat-theorists declare to be due to a mild enforcement of the law of legal tender. To them the fact that paper money may circulate for a time at par appears a reason why it always should. They do not recognize that there is a saturation point in the use of money, and that its use is still further limited by the fear of larger issues.

The almost universally accepted opinion among economists rejects both of these views, tho recognizing in each a certain limited aspect of the truth. The cost-of-production view quite overlooks the features in which paper money differs from ordinary credit paper. The value of one's promises to pay depends on his reputation and his resources; the resources constitute the basis of value. Bonds have value because they yield interest and are payable at a definite time in standard money. But paper money, lacking this basis for its value, has another basis in its money use, in its power to buy goods.

The theory of paper money here outlined makes the value of paper money a special case of monopoly value. As the power of any private monopoly over price is relative, not absolute, so is that of the government over the value of political money. The money use is the source of value of the paper notes. It is this which gives the economic condition for value in paper money and strictly limits the power of the government—a fact overlooked by the fiat-theorists. Business conditions remaining unchanged, the limit of possible issue without depreciation is the number of units in circulation before the paper money was issued, the saturation point of full-weight and full-value coins. Whenever governments have failed to stop at that point, paper money has depreciated. But under wise and honest control and regulation political paper money might serve the monetary function very effectively.

[Footnote 1: The problem of a legally authorized double standard, bimetallism, is treated in the next chapter. An irredeemable paper money may be, for a time, the standard money.]

[Footnote 2: The faith (fides) is not always that the issuer of the money (whether it be a bank or the government) will redeem the money on demand at any future time; for fiduciary money may circulate while irredeemable, that is, either carrying no promise of redemption in the standard money or in fact not being redeemed. Yet undoubtedly actual redemption on demand or a good prospect of future redemption is one of the circumstances stimulating the faith and the readiness of each person in turn to receive fiduciary money.]

[Footnote 3: In the broad sense as above defined, ch. 3, sec. 10.]

[Footnote 4: See next section on worn coins.]

[Footnote 5: Receipts and Expenditures of Mint Service in 1914:]

[Footnote 6: It makes no difference what may be deemed the cause of their acceptance; whether it be habit, public opinion in business circles, or the act of law making them a legal tender; the essential thing is that they continue to be accepted as money.]

[Footnote 7: In this and following numerical examples no account is taken of the possibility that the standard metal may depreciate in the world market in terms of all other goods as a result of its diminished use as money in one or more countries. This properly belongs in a complete theoretical treatment of the subject.]

[Footnote 8: See "Modern Currency Reforms" (1916), by E.W. Kemmerer, professor of Economics and Finance in Princeton University, for a detailed treatment of this remarkable series of monetary changes, probably unequaled in instructiveness to the student of monetary theory.]