Since the foregoing was written, I have found that another theorist, Professor Alvin S. Johnson, had also given consideration to the same idea, as a means of escape from the Austrian circle. Professor Johnson refers to the notion briefly in his review of Social Value (Am. Econ. Rev., June, 1912, p. 322), holding that the doctrine is logically tenable, though rejecting it on psychological grounds. "The value of a thing newly created can be explained only with reference to values antecedently existing." That there is a continuity in the value system, as in the whole social-mental life of men, I should be the last to deny. But it is not the antecedently existing values, as antecedently existing, that give value to the new piece of wealth. The antecedent values function only as persisting, as contemporary social forces. We do not find the motivating power of existing values in the ashes of burnt out desire! It seems to me very essential to distinguish the two methods of approach to the problem. It is possible to state a historical sequence—if you know it,—showing how values have historically come and gone. But for an equilibrium picture, of the sort that our price theory demands, where there is a mechanical balancing of contemporary factors (as in Marshall's balls in the bowl illustration), such an account is of no use. Existing social forces have their history. But, at a given moment, they are what they are, and what they were at a different time adds no ounce of weight to the power they now exert. If a quantitative account of value is called for—and price-theory is essentially concerned with the measurement of values—we must bring measure and measured into contemporary balance. The historical account is one thing; the cross-section analysis is another. "Static theory" is a mechanical abstraction from the organic cross-section picture, which, by making it superficial, is able to make it exact.
It seems to me that this distinction must be kept clear if progress in the science is to be made. At every point, divergent conclusions are reached if the two view-points are merged. The distinction between statics and dynamics is, in a general way, the same as the distinction here made between the historical and the cross-section view. It is no answer to the Ricardian theory of land-rent for Carey to point out that historically, in new countries, the uplands are cultivated first, and the more fertile river-valleys later. Ricardo is talking about statics, and Carey about dynamics. Carey does not answer Ricardo, because he is talking about a different problem. The utility theorist especially has no right to leave the static view-point. All the elementary laws on which the utility theory is based are static laws. The law of satiety, of diminishing utility, is a static law, and the utility theorists are careful to point out that it holds only for an individual at a given time. It rests on nerve fatigue. Give the nerve time to rest, and utility does not sink. On the contrary, the dynamic law of wants is that wants expand. As old wants are satisfied, new wants arise, so that, in the course of time, marginal utilities do not sink—the competition of new wants forces up the margins of the old wants. Moreover, with time, tastes change, habits are formed, and the same wants may grow more intense—as in the case of olives or whiskey. All this has been seen by the creators of the utility theory. Thus, Wieser: "The want as a whole of course retains its strength so long as a man retains his health; satisfaction does not weaken but rather stimulates it, by constantly contributing to its development, and, particularly, by giving rise to a desire for variety. It is otherwise with the separate sensations of the want. These are narrowly limited both in point of time and in point of matter. Anyone who has just taken a certain quantity of food of a certain kind will not immediately have the same strength of desire for a similar quantity. Within any single period of want every additional act of satisfaction will be estimated less highly than a preceding one obtained from a quantity of goods equal in kind and amount." (Natural Value, p. 9.) A similar statement is in Taussig's Principles (I, 124), "In such cases, however, the tastes of the purchasers may be said to have changed in the interval. At any given stage of taste and popularity, the principle of diminishing utility will apply." Illustrations could be multiplied.
It is true that future marginal utilities come into the utility theory scheme, but they come in, not as future utilities, but as "present worths" of future utilities, or as "present anticipated feelings" in Jevons' phrase[100] suffering a discount, usually, in the process. But I am not aware of any writer among the founders of the utility school, who has sought to bring past utilities into the scheme. The past is dead. Its effects persist in the present only in present processes. A memory is a present psychological fact.
Consider further. Is it the prices of yesterday that determine the subjective value of money to an individual, if the prices of yesterday are different from the prices of to-day, and the individual knows it? In so far as we have the clear, intelligent economic mind, seeking its interests—and the marginal utility theory assumes this type of mind—the tendency is to bring all the factors in the problem into the present. If prices change slowly, so that the individual can count on essentially the same situation to-day that he had yesterday, doubtless he will not take the trouble to recast his value system. There is a tremendous lot of trouble in bringing about, in the individual's mind, the rational equilibration of values—trouble which the Austrian theory commonly abstracts from, but which should be recognized in the analysis, and accorded its own marginal significance in the scale. To throw the emphasis on inertia, however, and to assume that men do not readjust their margins to meet changed conditions, is to depart from the fundamentals of the Austrian theory. If the price-situation is a rapidly changing one, men do rapidly readjust their estimates of money. If money is fluctuating rapidly in value—as, say, during a time when there is depreciated paper money, whose future depends on military events, the adjustments may be very rapid indeed. I quote the following from the news columns of the New York Times, of April 4, 1914, p. 2: "Jaurez, Mexico, Apr. 3.—After the hysterical outbursts last night that greeted the news of the fall of Torreon, this city was preternaturally calm to-day.... The silent gentleman with the dyed mustache who spins the marble at the roulette wheel in the Jaurez Monte Carlo, conducted by Villa's officers for the benefit of the rebel treasury, seemed the only person who was not excited. When the crowd of players suddenly deserted him on the sound of the bugle call of victory, he gave the marble another whirl from sheer force of habit, but none returned.... In an hour, however, play was faster and more furious than ever, for holders of Constitutionalist money early realized that their currency had suddenly increased in value, and that they were somewhat richer than before." I do not question the fact, however, that men are slow in making calculations, and that society is often unconscious of changed conditions, and often readjusts less rapidly than occasion requires. There is a vast deal of inertia, of blind habit, of custom, etc. But emphasis on these factors is not marginal utility theory! Factors like these are emphasized by a functional psychology, and by a social psychology—not by an individualistic psychology which rests on the assumption of rational calculation. It is not past utilities that explain present subjective values of money when these subjective values are out of harmony with the present market facts, but rather present habits, present customs, present disinclination to readjust, etc. There is a big difference, psychologically, between the mental processes through which one arrived at one's present state of mind, and the present state of mind itself. The original "commodity utility" of the money metal, in the far away time before the money use affected its value, is surely no longer a factor. Certainly not on the basis of an individualistic psychology of the Austrian type. All the individuals who experienced that original utility are long since dead! Not even memories of the original utilities persist.
When writing the passage in Social Value, quoted above, I did not suppose that I was dealing with a notion that anyone else would ever take seriously. My purpose in discussing it was chiefly to throw into sharp relief the contrast between the historical and the cross-section viewpoints, and to make clear that my own theory was based on analysis of existing psychological forces. Since finding, however, that two writers for whose views I have so much respect have independently developed the same idea, and have taken it seriously, I have felt it worth while to give it this extended consideration.
Von Mises, like Wieser, needs an absolute value of money in his thinking. He does not call the concept by that name, but, following Menger[101] speaks of the "inner objective value of money" and the "outer objective value of money." (Mises, p. 132.) The latter is the purchasing power of money, a relative concept, exactly expressed in the price-level. The inner objective value of money is designed to cover the causes of changes in prices which originate on the money-side of the price relation alone.[102] This inner objective value of money performs the same logical function in the theory of money that the absolute social value concept of the present writer does, even though the psychological explanation lying behind it is very different.
Von Mises considers the quantity theory at length, noting a number of defects in it, chief of which is the fact that it has no psychological theory of value behind it, that it does not account for the existence of the value of money, and at most gives a law for changes in a value whose existence is taken for granted. The details of this criticism, however, need not be here presented. The quantity theory is to be treated in detail at a later point of our study.
The writer who has most definitely stated the relation of utility to the functions of money, is David Kinley (Money, ch. viii). He would explain the value of money, by (a) its utility as a commodity, and (b) its utility in the money-employment, the employments reaching a marginal equilibrium. The utility of the money metal in its commodity use calls for no analysis. But what is meant by the utility of money as money? Where the writers so far discussed have denied that money as money has any utility, Dean Kinley finds a utility in the money-function itself: money facilitates exchange, and exchange, by transferring goods from those who do not need them to those who do need them, increases the utility of those goods. Money, as money, thus produces utility.[103] The utility of money is the extra utility which comes into being by virtue of its use, as compared with what would exist in a state of barter. The marginal utility of money is the utility of money in the marginal exchange—the exchange which would be effected by means of barter if money were any more difficult to procure. The marginal utility of money, then, is not the whole of the marginal utility of the good for which it is exchanged, but rather is the differential part of that utility which is created by means of the use of money in exchange. The marginal utility of money, thus, appears in separate services of money. Money is a durable good, which gives forth its services bit by bit. The value of money is based on these separate services, it is "the capitalized value of the service rendered in the marginal exchange."
This conception is, it seems to me, much truer to the spirit of the general marginal utility theory than the theories of Wieser, Schumpeter, or von Mises. If the utility theory at large were valid, the application here would be valid. To Dean Kinley's conception of a marginal utility of the money service, I offer simply the objections which I offer to the utility theory at large—objections indicated in what has gone before, and in my Social Value. The application of the capitalization theory to the value of money I have already discussed in a previous chapter, and shall again consider in the chapter on "The Functions of Money."
I conclude that the marginal utility theory has not solved the problem of the value of money. The reason, however, is simply that it has not solved the general problem of value. The marginal utility theory, in so far as it seeks to make marginal utility the cause of value, is circular. The effect of a given man's wants upon the value of the goods he wants depends, not on the marginal intensity of those wants alone—a penniless prisoner may desire a marble palace ever so intensely without affecting its value—but also upon the value of the wealth possessed by the individual who experiences the wants. But this is to explain value, not by marginal utility alone, but by value as well—a circle. Or, if we leave the standpoint of absolute values, and look at the matter in terms of prices, the same situation presents itself. The price which an individual is willing to pay for a good depends on his income,—which commonly rests on prices—and on the prices he has to pay for other goods which enter into his budget. His price-offer, expressive of the marginal utility of a horse to him, is made with consideration of the price of a buggy, of harness, of feed, of the wages of the servant who cares for the horse, the price of a barn, and of the other things that the possession of the horse involves. And not these alone: less immediately, but still vitally, his whole budget enters. Higher prices for theatre tickets or for food or for clothing will reduce his price-offer for a horse. Further, his price-offer for the horse will be tremendously influenced by his opinion as to the permanent market price of horses. He will not be willing to pay a price for the horse which he cannot expect to get back if he should decide later to sell the horse. The direct influence of market price on individual demand-price is very great indeed. Marginal utility (subjective use-value) very frequently gives place to subjective value-in-exchange in the determination of an individual's marginal demand-price—which means that the market controls the individual instead of the individual controlling the market. With sellers, it is generally subjective-exchange-value, rather than marginal utility, that determines supply-price-offer. The sellers, in so far as they are producers, have little need for the great mass of their stocks. They will sell them, rather than keep them, at almost any price. The reason they ask high prices is simply that they think the market will give them the high prices. The individual price-offers, in the aggregate therefore, presuppose the whole market situation—presuppose a general value and price system already fixed and determined. Each individual price offer presupposes many other prices, though not, of course, the whole market. Since, then, much of the market situation is assumed in the determination of each particular price, by the Austrian method, it is obviously circular reasoning to think that the determination of each price separately by this method will supply data for a summary of the market situation as a whole. In the one form in which the utility theory avoids a circle,—that presented by Schumpeter, and discussed in an earlier part of this chapter—it is not a causal theory. Marginal utility is not a cause of market prices, but rather, marginal utilities and market prices are alike resultants, effects, of more fundamental factors. No writer[104] who has presented the utility theory in this form has tried to apply it to the value of money, and even if it could be so applied, it would not give a causal explanation of the value of money in terms of marginal utility. In most of the efforts to apply the utility theory to money, the circle becomes so obvious that one marvels that able theorists should for a moment fail to see it.
PART II. THE QUANTITY THEORY
CHAPTER VI
THE QUANTITY THEORY OF PRICES. INTRODUCTION
The quantity theory, in its usual formulations, is a theory, not of the value of money, in the absolute sense of value, but of the general price-level, the average price of goods exchanged for money. It is not a psychological theory. It does not deal with psychological quantities, or psychological forces. It is a mechanical theory, concerned simply with quantities, and the relations between them. The essence of the quantity theory comes out in the following brief statement: given a number of units of money; given a number of units of goods to be exchanged; assume these two numbers to be independent[105] of each other; assume all the goods to be exchanged for all the money; then the average price will be a simple function of the quantities of goods and of money respectively, such that an increase in the amount of money will increase the average price per unit of goods proportionately, if goods remain unchanged in amount, or an increase in goods will lower the price per unit proportionately, money being assumed to remain unchanged in amount. The qualification is commonly added that if goods have to be exchanged more than once, the effect is the same on prices as if there were an added number of goods equal to the added number of exchanges, and that if money is used more than once in exchanging a given number of goods, the effect is the same as if there were proportionately more money. Both quantity of goods and quantity of money are commonly defined as actual quantity multiplied by "rapidity of circulation." Rapidity of circulation, however, for both money and goods, is commonly thought of as a constant, so that the original formula remains unaffected by the qualification, so far as a prediction as to the effect of increase or decrease of money or goods on prices is concerned. Involved in the quantity theory, and explicitly stated by many writers, is the doctrine that the substance of which money is made is irrelevant, that it is the number, and not the quality or size of the money-units that counts. "In short, the quantity theory asserts that (provided velocity of circulation and volume of trade are unchanged) if we increase the number of dollars, whether by renaming coins, or by debasing coins, or by increasing coinage, or by any other means, prices will be increased in the same proportion. It is the number, and not the weight, that is essential. This fact needs great emphasis. It is a fact which differentiates money from all other goods and explains the peculiar manner in which its purchasing power is related to other goods. Sugar, for instance, has a specific desirability dependent on its quantity in pounds. Money has no such quality. The value of sugar depends on its actual quantity. If the quantity of sugar is changed from 1,000,000 pounds to 1,000,000 hundredweight, it does not follow that a hundredweight will have the value previously possessed by a pound. But if money in circulation is changed from 1,000,000 units of one weight to 1,000,000 units of another weight, the value of each unit will remain unchanged." (Irving Fisher, Purchasing Power of Money, pp. 31-32.) To the same effect is Nicholson's exposition, in which the money is assumed to consist of dodo-bones, the most useless substance that Nicholson could think of. For the quantity theory, prices are determined by the numbers of goods and dollars that are to be exchanged for one another, and not by the values of the goods and dollars;—indeed, for the quantity theory, "value" commonly has no meaning apart from the prices which are supposed to be adequately explained by the mechanical relations of numbers.
In the critical study which follows, virtually every doctrine and every assumption of this preliminary statement will be challenged. I shall deny, first, that the quantity of goods to be exchanged and the quantity of money to be exchanged for the goods, are independent quantities, maintaining, rather, that an increase in either of them tends normally to be accompanied by an increase in the other. Quantity of goods and quantity of money exchanged are not simple physical stocks, given data. Rather, they are consequences of human choices and human relationships, and vary from a large number of highly complex psychological causes, many of which are common to both. I shall deny, second, that "rapidity of circulation," either of goods or of money, is a simple constant, independent of quantity of goods or of quantity of money. I shall maintain, rather, that rapidity of circulation of money is a phenomenon which calls for psychological explanation: that the rapidity of money really means the activities of men; that these activities are complex, and obey no simple law; that instead of being an independent factor, constant, in the situation, the rapidity of circulation of money is bound up with the quantity of money, the quantity of goods to be exchanged, the rapidity of circulation of goods, and the prices of the goods, and that the rapidity of circulation of goods is likewise causally dependent on the factors named—or better, on the causes which control them; that rapidity of circulation, whether of money or of goods, is not a causal factor independent of prices, but rather in part depends on prices. In the third place, I deny the doctrine that the question as to what the money-unit is made of is irrelevant. On the contrary, I shall maintain that the quality of money, rather than its quantity, is the determining factor. I shall not maintain that only money made of or redeemable in valuable bullion can circulate, nor shall I maintain that the value of money depends wholly on the value of its bullion content when money is made of valuable metal. I recognize that value can come from other sources. But I shall maintain that value from some source other than the monetary employment is an essential precondition of the monetary employment, even though recognizing that that monetary employment may, in a way later to be analyzed, add to the original value of the money. The doctrine that only physical quantities, or abstract numbers, of goods are relevant I shall challenge especially, maintaining, on the contrary, that the psychological significances, the values, of goods are the really important thing, so that an increase in the number of one sort of goods may have a very different effect on the average of prices from an increase of the same number of units of some other good, and so that an increase in the number of goods exchanged under one set of conditions may have a very different effect on prices—or may be accompanied by a very different movement in prices, for the question of causal relations is a complicated one—from the change in prices that might accompany the same increase in the amount exchanged of same goods under other circumstances. Finally, the doctrine of the quantity theory that the price-level is a passive result of the other factors named: quantities of goods and money, and their respective velocities; that prices cannot initiate a change in the situation, will also be challenged. I shall undertake to show that the first change in the situation may appear in prices themselves, and that the quantities of goods exchanged, and of money, and their velocities, may then be altered to correspond with the change in prices.
I shall further maintain, as against the whole spirit of the quantity theory, that it does not seize hold of essentials in the causes lying behind prices. I shall contend that the factors with which it deals, instead of being independent foci to which converge the causes governing the price-level, and through which causation flows in one direction, are really not true "factors" at all, but rather are blanket names for highly complex and heterogeneous groups of facts concerning which few general statements are possible. Quantity of goods exchanged, for example, may be in some of its parts caused by rising prices, in others of its parts may be causing falling prices and is chiefly caused by fluctuating prices. The net change in prices in this case is not the result of any one movement from "quantity of goods" as a whole. Changes in the price-level are not one result, but rather, are the mathematician's average of many changes, due to a host of causes, in many individual prices. The quantity theory is an effort to simplify phenomena highly complex. Of course, the simplification of complex phenomena in thought is a laudable scientific goal, but when the simplification goes so far as to group things only superficially related, and to leave out the really vital elements, it is worthless. Value theory, with all the value left out, is like Hamlet with no actor for the title rôle. Simplification in the explanation of general prices has gone as far as we can legitimately take it when we seek to summarize all the factors involved in the foci of, on the one hand, the value of money, and, on the other hand, the values of the particular goods. The general price-level is an average of many concrete prices. Each of these individual prices has a concrete causal explanation. The general price-level has, not a few simple causes, but an infinite host of causes. Indeed, the general price-level has no real existence. It is a convenient mathematical concept, by means of which we may summarize the multitude of concrete facts. It is useful as a device for measuring changes in the value of money, on the assumption that changes in the values of goods neutralize one another. This assumption is never strictly true, and often is demonstrably false. The general price-level is neither a cause nor a result. Particular prices, in general, are results of two causes, namely, the value of money and the value of the good in question, and particular prices may then become causes, changing the quantity of money involved in a given set of exchanges. Neither quantity of money, nor quantity of goods exchanged, nor rapidity of circulation, nor general price-level is a simple, homogeneous quantity, obeying definite laws.
I shall also undertake to show that in many important cases the quantity theory leads to conclusions regarding the price-level which contradict other laws of prices, notably the capitalization theory, the cost of production doctrine, and the law of supply and demand. I have previously pointed out that these three doctrines are inapplicable to the problem of the value of money itself. On the assumption of a value of money, however,—using value in the absolute sense—they are applicable to the problem of prices, and, since the price-level is merely an average of particular prices, they should be applicable to the problem of the price-level also. It will be shown, in the course of the criticism which follows, first that the quantity theory contradicts each of these doctrines, in certain situations, and second, that in these cases, the conclusions based on the cost theory, the supply and demand theory, and the capitalization theory are right, and the conclusions based on the quantity theory are wrong. It has been maintained by certain writers, as Knut Wicksell[106] and Irving Fisher,[107] that cost of production and supply and demand are inapplicable to the problem of the general price-level. I shall maintain the contrary, holding that while these doctrines are inapplicable to the problem of the value of money, they are applicable to the problem of general prices, on the assumption of a fixed value of money. By the value of money I mean its absolute[108] value, and not—what the quantity theorists commonly mean—its "purchasing power," or the "reciprocal of the price-level."
I shall undertake to show that no sound conclusion reached on the basis of quantity theory reasoning is the peculiar property of the quantity theory school; that every valid conclusion which may be based on the quantity theory may also be deduced from the theory maintained in this book, and, indeed, that most of them may be deduced from several other theories of money, notably the commodity or bullionist theory. I shall show a number of false and misleading doctrines which logically spring from the quantity theory, and shall undertake to show that the quantity theory fails to give an adequate basis for several important parts of the theory of money, among them Gresham's Law, the theory of international gold movements, and the theory of elastic bank-notes and deposit-currency.
So much for the theses to be maintained. The detailed proof of these contentions will best be given in connection with a critical account of various versions of quantity theory doctrine. Attention will be given in this summary to the expositions of Nicholson, Mill, Taussig, and Kemmerer, and very special attention to I. Fisher, though some other writers will also be taken into account.
CHAPTER VII
DODO-BONES
Must money have value from some source outside its money-functions? It is a part of the quantity theory that this is unnecessary. I have cited, in the preceding chapter, Irving Fisher and J. S. Nicholson to this effect. Nicholson's statement is interesting and picturesque, exhibiting the quantity theory in all the nakedness of its poverty, and I shall present it at some length. "For simplicity," to isolate his phenomenon, he assumes a hypothetical market, in which the following conditions obtain: (1) No exchanges are to be made unless money (which he assumes to consist of counters of a certain size made of dodo-bones) actually passes from hand to hand. No credit or barter. (2) The money is to be regarded as of no use whatever except to effect exchanges, so that it will not be withheld for hoarding, i. e., will be actually in circulation. (3) There are ten traders in the market, each with one kind of commodity and no money, and one trader with all the money (one hundred pieces), and no commodities. Further, let this moneyed man put an equal estimation on all the commodities. Now let the market be opened according to the rules laid down; then all the money will be offered against all the goods, and, every article being assumed of equal value, the price given for each article will be ten pieces, and the general level of prices will be ten. It is perfectly clear that, under these suppositions, if the amount of money had been one thousand pieces, the price-level would have been one hundred per article, etc. Under these very rigid assumptions, then, it is obvious that the value of money varies exactly and inversely with the amount put into circulation.—The rapidity of circulation he regards as coördinate, in fixing the price-level, with the volume of money. To illustrate this, he assumes again his hypothetical market, and "dodo-bones," assuming as before that one merchant has all the money (one hundred pieces), and that ten have commodities of equal value. Instead, however, of the merchant with the money desiring all the commodities equally, he is made to desire only the whole of that of trader one, who in turn desires the whole of number two's stock; and so on to the ninth merchant, who wants the commodity of number ten, who wants the dodo-bones. In this case, each article will be exchanged only once, as formerly, but the money will change hands ten times, and the price of each article will be one hundred instead of ten. "We now see that, under these circumstances, with the same quantity of money, and the same volume of transactions, the level of prices is ten times as great as before, and the reason is that every piece of money is used ten times instead of once." Whence he concludes: "The effect on prices must be the same when, in effecting transactions, one piece of money is used ten times as when ten pieces of money are used once."[109]
Ricardo, too, expresses the dodo-bone theory very explicitly. "If the state charges a seigniorage for coinage, the coined piece will generally exceed the value of the uncoined piece of metal by the whole seigniorage, because it will require a greater quantity of labour, or, which is the same thing, the value of the produce of a greater quantity of labour, to procure it.
"While the state alone coins, there can be no limit to this charge of seigniorage; for, by limiting the quantity of the coin, it can be raised to any conceivable value. It is on this principle that paper money circulates; the whole charge for paper money may be considered a seigniorage. Though it has no intrinsic value, yet, by limiting its quantity, its value is as great as an equal denomination of coin, or of bullion in that coin."[110]
Would the dodo-bones circulate? Nicholson chose the illustration to throw into the sharpest relief the absence of any value from a non-monetary employment. Nobody has any use for them as dodo-bones. What economic force is there, then, to make them circulate? Nicholson says nothing about an agreement among the traders, assigning a significance[111] to the dodo-bones, so that they might function in the same way that poker chips do—indeed, any such notion would vitiate his illustration, for he proposes to explain an adjustment of prices by natural economic laws. Why then, will any of the traders give up his valuable commodities for the worthless dodo-bones? Will you say that he will take them, not because he wants them himself, but because he knows that others will take them from him? But why would the others want them? Because they in turn can unload them on still others? But this seems a plain case of the vicious circle. It is, in effect, saying that the dodo-bones will circulate because they will circulate. A will take them because B will take them; B will take them because C will take them, C because ... N will take them; N takes them because A will take them.[112] I do not deny that if the traders used the dodo-bones as counters, agreeing that such dodo-bones should represent some other commodity chosen as a standard of values, that the dodo-bones would circulate. But, in that case, they would be, not primary, self-sustaining money, but merely representative, or token money. And just here let me lay down two general propositions[113] respecting the two main functions of money: to serve as a standard, or common measure, of values, the article chosen must, as such, be valuable. The thing measured must be either a fraction or a multiple of the unit of measurement. But this quantitative relation can exist only between homogeneous things. The standard, or measure, of values, then, must be like the commodities whose values it is to measure, at least to the extent of having value.[114] The second proposition is respecting the medium of exchange. The medium of exchange must also have value, or else be a representative of something which has value. There can be no exchange, in the economic sense—I abstract from disguised benevolences, accidents, and frauds—without a quid pro quo, without value balancing value, at least roughly, in the process. Now when it is remembered that the intervention of the medium of exchange, taking the place of barter, really breaks up a single exchange under the barter system into two or more independent exchanges, and that the medium of exchange is actually received in exchange for valuable commodities, it follows clearly that the medium of exchange must either have value itself, or else represent that which has value. These two propositions seem almost too obvious to require the statement, but they contradict the quantity theory, and they are not, on the surface, reconcilable with certain facts in the history of inconvertible paper money. It is necessary, therefore, to state them, and to examine further some of the phenomena which seem to contradict them. If they are true, Nicholson's dodo-bones will perform neither of the primary functions of money. They have no value, per se—they cannot, then, measure values; they are neither valuable nor titles to valuable things—they are not quid pro quo in exchange, and will not circulate.
I shall not pause long to discuss the doctrine that money needs no value itself, because it is really a sort of title to, or claim on, or representative of, goods in general. The notion, first, would not pass a lawyer's scrutiny. There are no such indefinite legal rights. A system of legally fixed prices, with a socialistic organization of society, would be necessary to give it definiteness—and in such a situation there would be no room for a quantity theory of prices! Economic goods, as distinct from money, are not generally "fungible" to the extent that would make them indifferent objects of legal rights. Besides, whether or not the thing is logically thinkable, it is legally false. Legal factors enter into the economic value of money, as will later be shown, but it is economic, and not legal, value, which makes money circulate. Helfferich has taken the trouble to give the notion of money as a mere title to things in general a somewhat more fundamental analysis, and I would refer the reader who is not satisfied by the foregoing on this point to his discussion.[115]
I wish to make very clear precisely how much I mean by the foregoing argument that circular reasoning is involved in saying that A will take the dodo-bones because B will take them. The same question arises for B, and for the others. The real question is as to the cause for any general practice of the sort. Why should A suppose that B will take them? What could bring about such a system of social relations that a general expectation of this sort could arise?
Kemmerer undertakes to give an answer in a hypothetical case by the following ingenious assumption (Money and Credit Instruments, p. 11): the money consists of an article which formerly had a high commodity value, which has lately entirely disappeared, but the money continues to circulate, through the influence of custom, and because of the demand for a medium of exchange.
In this illustration Kemmerer recognizes the historical fact that money has originated from some commodity which had value because of its significance as a commodity. Historically, a great many different commodities have served, and gold and silver finally emerged victors for reasons which need not just now concern us. These historical facts, coupled with the idea that value is, essentially, "something physical,"[116] or coupled with the notion that value arises only from marginal utility, or from labor, have been accepted by the Commodity or Metallist School as sufficient proof that standard money is only possible when made of some valuable commodity. Professor Laughlin seems to think of the whole thing as depending on the value of gold bullion, and to recognize the money-employment as a factor in affecting the value of money only in so far as it draws gold away from the arts, and so raises its value there by lessening the supply.[117] If money originated in a commodity, how is it possible for the commodity value to be withdrawn, and for money still to retain its value?
This brings us to a question I have raised before, namely, whether the genetic, or historical account of a social situation, and the cross-section analysis of the same situation, necessarily agree.[118] Is it possible that when a commodity basis was necessary to start the thing, and when even in the modern world gold bullion, interconvertible with gold coin, remains the ultimate basis of the money-systems of all great commercial peoples, that you could withdraw the commodity support and keep money unchanged in value? Or could you even have any value left at all? Now in answer, I propose to admit the possibility of so doing. The forces which a cross-section analysis reveals are not necessarily identical with those which a theory of origins sets forth. Once the thing is set going, the forces of inertia favor it. A new theory, fixed in the minds of the people, say the quantity theory itself, might give them such confidence in their money that its value might be maintained. A fiat of the government, making the money legal tender, supplemented by the loyalty of the people, might keep up its value. I think there is reason to believe that this is a source of no little importance of value for the German paper money to-day, and, to a less extent, of the notes of the Banque de France. All these possibilities I admit. Value is not physical, but psychological. And the form of value with which we are here concerned, economic value par excellence, is a phenomenon of social, rather than individual psychology. Many and complex are the psychical factors lying behind it. Belief, custom, law, patriotism, particularly a network of legal relationships growing out of contracts expressed in terms of the money in question, the policy of the state as to receiving the money for public dues, the influence of a set of customary or legally prescribed prices, which tie the value of money to a certain extent to the values of goods—factors of this character can add to the value of money, and can, conceivably, even sustain it when the original source of value is gone. Social economic value does not rest on marginal utility. In general, utility is essential, as one of many conditions, before value can exist, even though the intensity of the marginal want served by a good bears no definite relation to its value. But in the case of the value of a money of the sort here considered, marginal utility is in no sense a cause of the value. Rather, the marginal utility[119] of such money to an individual is wholly a reflection of its social value, and changes when that social value changes. It is quite consistent with the general theory of economic value which I have set forth in Social Value, for me to admit possibilities of this kind. The value of money in such a case has become divorced from its original presuppositions. The paper, originally resting on a commodity basis, or the coins originally valued because they could be transformed into non-monetary objects of value, have become objects of value in themselves. Analogous phenomena are common enough in the general field of values, and are less common in the field of economic values proper than one might suppose. Thus, most moral values tend to become independent of their presuppositions. Moral values of modes of conduct have commonly arisen because those modes of conduct were, or were supposed to be, advantageous in furthering other ends. Morality, in its essence, is teleogical. Yet so far have the moral ideals become ends in themselves that it is possible to have great thinkers, like Kant and Fichte, setting them up as eternal and unchangeable categorical imperatives, regardless of consequences. Thus Fichte declares, "I would not tell a lie to save the universe from destruction." Older still is the dictum, "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum." Yet truth and justice, in the history of morals, and, in the view of most moral thinkers to-day, are of value primarily because they tend to preserve the universe from destruction, and would never have become morally valuable had they had the other tendency! Legal values manifest this tendency even more—one needs only to point to our vast body of technical rules of procedure in criminal cases, which persist long after their original function is gone, and after they have become highly pernicious from the standpoint of the ends originally aimed at. In the sphere of the individual psychology the phenomenon is very common. The miser's love for money is a classical example. The housewife who so exalts the cleanliness of her home that the home becomes an unhappy place in which to live, is an often-described type. The man who retires from business that he may enjoy the gains for the sake of which he entered business often finds that the business has become a thing of value in itself, and longs to be back in the harness, while many men, long after economic activity is no longer necessary, continue the struggle for its own sake. Activities arise to realize values. The value of the activity is derived from the value aimed at. But consciousness is economical, and memory is short. The activities become habits. The habits gather about themselves new psychological reactions. The interruption of habitual activities is distasteful. Life in all its phases tends to go on of its own momentum. The activities tend to become objects of value in themselves, whether or not their original raison d'être persist. In both the social and the individual sphere, apart from blind inertia and mechanical habit, active interests tend to perpetuate the old activities, whose raison d'être is gone. The judge who continues to apply the outgrown absurdities of adjective law may do it from timidity or from being too lazy to think out the new problems whose solution must precede readjustment to present social needs, but the criminal lawyer who can free his guilty client by means of these technicalities has an active interest in their perpetuation. The individual who would readjust his conduct in the light of changed interests finds that active opposition is met in the emotional accompaniment of the old habits. The economic society may wish to be free from a money whose original value is gone, but there is a powerful debtor interest which approves of that money, and whose support tends to maintain its value.
All these possibilities I admit. My own theory of value, which finds the roots of economic value ramifying through the total social psychological situation, rather than in utility or labor-pain alone, involves possibilities like these. But—and this is a point I wish especially to stress—we are out of the field of mechanics, and in the field of social psychology, when we undertake to explain the value of money that way. No longer is there any mathematical necessity about the matter. There is no such a priori simplicity as the quantity theory deals with. Factors like these might maintain the value of money for a time, and then wane. These factors might vary in intensity from day to day, with changing political or other events, leading the value of money to change from day to day, quite irrespective of changes in its quantity.[120] In so far as you have a people ignorant of the nature of money and of monetary problems, a people in the bonds of custom, with slightly developed commercial life, whose economic activities run in familiar grooves unreflectively, you will most nearly approximate a situation like that which Professor Kemmerer assumes. But that means that what might be true in India, or to a less degree in Austria—countries to which the quantity theorists are accustomed to refer—need not at all be true in the United States. Here everybody was talking about the theory of money in 1896—not necessarily very intelligently!—and here, moreover, such phrases as "good as gold," and propositions like that which came from Mr. J. P. Morgan in his testimony before the Pujo Committee that "gold is money, and nothing else," would seem to indicate that a very great part of our people might utterly distrust such a money as Professor Kemmerer describes. The banker's tendency to look behind for the security, to test things out, to seek to get to bed-rock in business affairs, holds with a great many people. An overemphasis on this is responsible for the doctrine of Scott[121] and Laughlin[122] that the sole source of the value of inconvertible paper money is the prospect of redemption, and that inconvertible paper money differs from gold in value by an amount which exactly equals the discount at the prevailing rate of interest, with allowance for risk, for the period during which people expect the paper money to remain unredeemed. We have not the banker's psychology to any such extent as that. Apart from the fact that the money function adds to the value of money, under certain circumstances,—a point to be elaborated shortly—other, non-rational factors, contagions of depression and enthusiasm, patriotic support, "gold market" manipulations, etc., entered to break the working of the credit theory of paper money as applied to the American Greenbacks. I may here express the opinion that the credit theory is the fundamental principle in the explanation of the value of the Greenbacks, however. But we have not the banker's psychology to any such extent as the extreme forms of that theory would assume. "Uncle Sam's money is good enough for me," is a phrase I have heard from the Populists,—who, by the way, were pretty good quantity theorists! "The government is behind it." There are plenty of men for whom that assurance would be enough. Indeed, the general notion that in some way, not specified, perhaps not yet known to anybody, the government will do what is necessary to maintain the value of its money is a ground which might well influence even the most sophisticated banker. I think such a general confidence in the English government has clearly been a factor in the price of Sterling exchange since the balance of trade turned so overwhelmingly against England in the present War.[123] Our monetary history, I may add, has been in considerable measure a struggle between these two opposing psychological reactions on that point. The utter breakdown of the fiat theory came in Rhode Island, and in connection with the Continental Currency, in the days before the Constitution was adopted. On the other hand, I do not believe that those who put a banker inside every one of us can prove that their principle has been a complete explanation at any stage of our monetary history. But clearly considerations like these take away all mathematical certainty from the matter.
The foregoing analysis makes clear, I trust, that the notion that the money function alone can make an otherwise valueless money circulate is untenable. There must be value from other sources as well. All that is conceded is that there need not be a physical commodity as the basis of the money. Value is not necessarily connected with a physical commodity.
There is a disposition on the part of many quantity theorists to beg the question at the outset, to assume money as circulating, without realizing how much this assumption involves. The assumption involves the further assumption that there are causes for the circulation of money. But the same causes which make money circulate will also be factors in the determination of the terms on which it circulates, i. e., the prices. To seek then, by a new principle, the quantity theory, to explain these prices without reference to these causes, is a remarkable procedure. There is sometimes a disposition to do the thing quite simply indeed: define money as the circulating medium, and, by definition, you have it circulating! A rather striking case of this, which is either tautology or circular reasoning, appears in Fisher's Purchasing Power of Money (p. 129): "Take the case, for instance, of paper money. So long as it has the distinctive characteristic of money,—general acceptability at its legal value,—and is limited in quantity, its value will ordinarily be equal to that of its legal equivalent in gold." (Italics mine.)
It is not quite easy to construct, even ideally, a social psychology which would perfectly fit the quantity theory. One would have to assume that money circulates purely from habit, without any present reason at all. The assumption must be that the economic life runs in steady grooves, so that quantity of goods exchanged will always be the same, or at least, that it will always be the same proportion of the goods produced—there must be no option of speculative holding out of the market allowed the holder of exchangeable goods. The individuals must have constant habits as to the proportions of the money they receive to be spent and to be held for emergencies. All the factors affecting "velocity" of both money and goods must be constant—Professor Fisher maintains very explicitly that velocities, both of money and of bank-deposits are fixed by habit (loc. cit., p. 152),—and, in any case, the assumption is necessary. A thoroughly mechanical situation must be assumed, where there is the rule of blind habit. Given such a mechanism, you pour in money at one end, and it grinds out prices at the other end, automatically. But, strangely enough, in this social situation where blind habit rules, prices are perfectly fluid! In India, or in other countries where the assumptions of the quantity theorist come most nearly to realization, so far as the general rule of habit is concerned, one finds also many customary prices. In a country completely under the rule of habit, the prices would, as a matter of psychological necessity, be also fixed. What might then be expected to happen in such a country, if an economic experimenter should disturb them in their habitual quantity of money? Which habits would give way, those relating to prices, or those to velocities, or those relating to quantities of goods exchanged?[124] I shall not trouble to solve this problem, as it seems to me not the most useful way to approach the problem of the value of money, but I submit it to the consideration of advocates of the quantity theory. My present purpose is accomplished in pointing out the psychological assumptions which the quantity theory makes: a psychology of blind habit, in a situation where the price-level is free from control by customary prices.
Now at another point I wish to mediate between the quantity theorists and their extreme opponents. Representatives of the Metallist of Commodity School—like Professor Laughlin, and Professor Scott in his earlier writings—seem to deny that the money-employment has any direct effect in increasing the value of money. The money-employment affects the value of money only indirectly, by withdrawing the money metal from the arts, so raising the value of the money metal, and consequently raising the value of the coined metal. The quantity theory, on the other hand, would utterly divorce the value of money from causal dependence on the stuff of which the money is made. Both these views seem to me extreme. Unless money has value from some source other than the money employment, it cannot be used as money at all. Nobody will want it. On the other hand, the money use is a valuable use. Exchange is a productive process. Money, as a tool of exchange, enables men to create values. And you can measure the value of the money service very easily at a given time if you look at the short time "money-rates," i. e., rates of discount on prime short term paper. These are properly to be considered, not interest on abstract capital, but the rent of a particular capital-good, namely, money. The money is hired for a specific service, namely, to enable a man to get a specific profit in a commercial transaction. Money is not the only good which can be thus employed, and which is paid for for this purpose. Ordinarily a man will pay for money for this purpose. Sometimes, however, one needs the temporary use of something else more than one needs money, and the holder of money pays a premium for the privilege of temporarily holding the other thing. I refer especially here to the practice of "borrowing and carrying" on the stock exchange. The "bear" sells stock which he does not possess, and must deliver the stock before he is ready to close his transaction by buying to "cover." He goes to a "bull" who has more stock than he can easily "carry," and who is glad to "lend" the stock in return for a "loan" of its equivalent in money. Ordinarily the bull is glad to pay a price for the money, as it is of service to him. Sometimes, however, the situation is reversed, and the service which the temporary loan of the stock performs for the hard-pressed bears is greater than the service which the money performs for the bulls, and the payment is reversed. When the bull pays a premium to the bear, for the use of the money, the amount paid is called "carrying charge," "interest charge for carrying," "contango," (London) or (in Germany) "Report." This is the usual case. But sometimes the bear pays the bull a premium for the use of the stock, and the charge is then called "premium for use," "backwardation," (London) or "Deport" (Germany).[125] Money is, thus, not the only thing which has a "use" in addition to the ordinary "uses" which are the primary source of its value.[126] In the case of other things, however, this kind of "use" is unusual. In the case of money it is the primary use. The essence of this use is to be found in the employment of a quantum of value in highly saleable form in facilitating commercial transactions. Commercial transactions, in this sense, are not limited to ordinary buying and selling. I think it best to defer further analysis of the money service to a later chapter, on the functions of money, which will best be preceded by a consideration of the origin of money. For the present, it is enough to note that money has certain characteristics which enable it to facilitate exchanges, and to pay debts, better than anything else, and that this fact makes an addition to its value. It is possible, I think, to measure this addition to value rather precisely in certain cases. Thus, in the case of the American Greenbacks, we find them at a discount, say from the beginning of 1877 on, as compared with the gold dollar in which they were to be redeemed in Jan. 1879. I think it safe to contend that the country was practically free from doubt as to their redemption after the early part of 1877. The discount steadily diminished as the time of redemption approached. Laughlin's theory is thus far beautifully vindicated. The central fact governing the value of the Greenbacks during this period was the prospect of redemption. But, and here I think we see the influence of the money-use, the discount was not as great as would have been called for by the prevailing rate of interest, as measured by the yield on other obligations of the Federal Government, at this time. And the discount completely disappeared some little time before the actual redemption. I see no cause for the absence of a discount in the later months of 1878 except the additional value which came from the money use. This additional value is, ordinarily, not very great. And money is not alone in possessing it. In extraordinary circumstances it may become quite large. Thus, in 1873, in the midst of the panic, the gold premium fell sharply. At this time the significance of the Greenbacks as a legal tender, a means of final payment of obligations (Zahlungs- or Solutions-mittel), as distinguished from medium of exchange (Tauschmittel), attained an unusual significance. In ordinary times, the marginal value of this function of money sinks to zero, but in emergencies it may become very great. In ordinary times, during the Greenback period, uncoined gold bullion, or gold coin used, not as money, but simply by weight in exchanges, played an important rôle, competing with the Greenbacks in various employments, particularly as bank reserves, and as secondary bank reserves, and so reducing the marginal value of the money-employment of the Greenbacks themselves. Gold bullion is not the only thing which can thus serve, however. To-day, and generally, securities with a wide market, capable of being turned quickly into cash, without loss, or capable of serving as the basis of collateral loans, up to a high percentage of their value, have a much higher value, for a given yield, than have other securities, equally safe, but less well-known and less easily saleable. The "one-house bond" (i. e., the bond for which only one banking house offers a ready market) must yield a great deal more to sell at a given price than the bond of equal security which is listed on the exchanges, and has a wide market. Part of this is in illustration of another function of money, the "bearer of options" function, which enables the holder to preserve his wealth, and at the same time keep options for increasing its amount when bargains appear in the market. Foreign exchange performs many of these functions of money in European countries, particularly Austria-Hungary.[127]
The notion that the whole value of gold coin rests on its bullion content arises most easily in a situation where free coinage has long been practiced, and where there are no legal obstacles to the melting down of coin for other uses. Where free coinage is suspended, the peculiar services which only money can perform—or rather, the services which money has a differential advantage in performing—may easily lead to an agio for coined over uncoined metal. The mere fact that coined metal is of a definite fineness well known and attested is often of some consequence, though the attestation of well-known jewelers may give this advantage to metal bars as well, for large transactions. But for smaller transactions, nothing can easily take the place of money. A high premium on small coins, apart from redemption in standard money, may easily arise from the money-use alone. And standard coin may well attain, in greater or less degree, a premium. If it is scarce, as compared with the amount of business to be done, this premium may well be greater than if it is abundant. But that an indefinite premium is possible, or that this premium varies exactly and inversely with the quantity, I see no reason at all for supposing. If the premium be great enough, men, especially in large transactions, will make use of the uncoined metal—just as they did use gold in this country during the Greenback period. The advantages of money are not absolute. Money is simply more convenient for many purposes than other things. The possibility of a premium is limited by the possibility of substitutes. It is further limited by the fact that a high premium would awaken a distrust which would bring the premium to destruction, by destroying trade, and so destroying the money-use on which the premium is based.
A detailed discussion of the Indian Rupee since 1893 lies outside the scope of this chapter. I think it may be well, however, to recognize at this point that the limitation in the quantity of the rupee, through abrogation of free coinage, was a factor in the subsequent rise in its value. It was not the only factor, by any means. But it was a factor. It may be also recognized as a factor in the value of Austrian paper money.
The doctrine just laid down, as to the influence of the money-use in adding to the value of money, is in no sense the same as the quantity theory. For one thing, it is easily demonstrated that the value-curve for the uses of money is not described by the equation, xy = c. This curve expresses, in terms of value, the idea of proportionality which is an essential part of the quantity theory. Put in terms of the money market, we have a demand-curve for money, not for the long-time possession of money, but for its temporary use—a rental, rather than a capital value, is expressed in the price which this curve helps to determine. This curve is highly elastic. When money-rates are low, transactions will be undertaken which will not be undertaken when the rate is a little higher. In the second place, the method of approach is very different. It is not the whole volume of transactions which must employ money, but only a flexible part. In the third place, the money-use is here conceived of as a source, not of the whole value of money, but only of a differential portion of that value. In the fourth place, the argument runs in terms of the absolute value of money, and not in terms of the level of prices.
It is not the legal peculiarity of money, as legal tender, which is necessarily responsible for this agio when it appears. In the first place, not all money is legal tender. In the second place, we find the same phenomenon in connection with "bank-money" at times—I would refer especially to the premium on the marc banko of the Hamburg Girobank. (Cf. Knapp, Staatliche Theorie des Geldes, p. 136.) The legal tender peculiarity may, however, in special circumstances be a source of a very considerable temporary agio.
It is possible, however, to frame a hypothetical case in which, barring temporary emergencies, the money-use will add nothing to the value of money, and in which the whole value of money will come from the value of the commodity chosen as the standard of values. Assume that the standard of value is defined as a dollar, which is further defined as 23.22 grains of pure gold. Assume, however, that no gold is coined. Let the circulating money be made of paper. Let this paper be redeemable, not in gold, but in silver, at the market ratio, on the day of redemption, of silver to gold. This will mean that varying quantities of silver will be given by the redeeming agencies for paper, but always just that amount required to procure 23.22 grains of gold. Let us assume, further, that the government issues paper money freely on receipt of the same amount of silver. Assume, further, that the government bears the charges which the friction of such a system would entail, by opening numerous centres of issue and redemption, by providing insurance against fluctuations in the ratio of silver to gold for a reasonable time before issue and after redemption, meeting transportation charges, brokerage fees, etc. In such a case, the standard of value would not be used as money at all. It would have no greater value than it would if it were not the standard of value—abstracting from the fact that in the one case it might be used in its uncoined form as a substitute for money more freely than in the other. In any case, it would form no part of the quantity of money. Its whole value would come from its commodity significance. The value of the paper money, however, would be tied absolutely to the value of gold. As gold rose in value, the paper money would rise in value, and vice versa. The quantity of money would be absolutely irrelevant as affecting its value. The quantity of silver would be likewise irrelevant. The causation as between quantity of money and value of money would be exactly the reverse of that asserted by the quantity theory. A high value of money would mean lower prices. With lower prices, less money would be needed to carry on the business of the country. Paper would then be superabundant. But in that case, paper would rapidly be sent in for redemption, and the quantity of money would be reduced.[128] The value of money would control the quantity of money. The standard of value, which was not the medium of exchange, would control the value of money, and so the level of prices, in so far as the level of prices is controlled from the money side.
In this hypothetical illustration, we have the extreme case of what the Commodity or Metallist School seems to assert. In this case, barring temporary emergencies too acute to admit of increasing the money-supply by the method described, their theory that the value of money comes wholly from the commodity value of the standard, would offer a complete explanation. I offer this illustration as the antithesis of the dodo-bone illustration of Nicholson. That illustration sets forth the extreme claims of the quantity theory, and purports to be a case in which the quantity theory would work perfectly. The case illustrative of the commodity theory clearly brings out the fact that that theory rests on exclusive attention to the standard of value function of money. The dodo-bone theory gives exclusive attention to, but very imperfect analysis of, the medium of exchange function. But I submit that the extreme case of the commodity theory, in the illustration I have given, is a thinkable and consistent system. It would work—even though not conveniently. Indeed, it resembles in essentials the plan actually proposed by Aneurin Williams, and later by Professor Irving Fisher[129] for stabilizing the value of money. Substitute a composite commodity for gold, and gold for silver, in the illustration, and you have the essentials of that plan. The dodo-bone hypothesis, however, as I have been at elaborate pains to show in the foregoing, is unthinkable. It would not work. It is, thus, possible to construct a system for which the commodity theory would offer a complete explanation. It is not possible to do this for the quantity theory.
But the limiting case for the commodity theory is not the actual case. Standard money is also commonly a medium of exchange. Standard money is particularly desirable in bank and government reserves. Its employment in these and other ways is a valuable employment, and adds directly to its value both as money and in the arts. There is a marginal equilibrium between its values in the two employments. The notion that the only way in which the money employment adds to the value of money is an indirect one, by withdrawing gold from the arts, so lessening its supply and raising its value there, may be proved erroneous by this consideration: what, in that case, would determine the margin between the two employments? What force would there be to withdraw gold from the arts at all? Why should more rather than less be withdrawn? There must be ascending curves on both sides of the margin. Gold money in small amount has a high significance per unit in the money employment. A greater amount has a smaller significance per unit. The marginal amount of gold put to work as money has a comparatively low significance in that employment—a significance just great enough to secure it from the competing employments in the arts.