The Value of Money

The question as to how long a time is required, in Fisher's view, for a transition to occur, and for his normal tendencies to dominate, is nowhere made clear. The quantity theory, in the hands of some writers, is a very long run theory, for others, it is a short run theory. Thus, Taussig would make the "run" exceedingly long.[190] Mill makes it a short run theory. "It is not, however, with ultimate or average, but with immediate and temporary prices, that we are now concerned. These, as we have seen, may deviate widely from the standard of cost of production. Among other causes of fluctuation, one we have found to be, the quantity of money in circulation. Other things being the same, an increase of the money in circulation raises prices, a diminution lowers them. If more money is thrown into circulation than the quantity which can circulate at a value conformable to its cost of production, the value of money, so long as the excess lasts, will remain below the standard of cost of production, and general prices will be sustained above the natural rate."[191] I pause to note that it is really strange that a single name should describe theories so different, resting on such essentially different logic. Long run or short run theories, all are "quantity theories," whether "money" be defined as gold, or as all manner of media of exchange, or as only those media of exchange which pass from hand to hand without endorsement. Fisher would doubtless call his theory a long run theory. From the standpoint of the notion that "prices ... lag behind their full adjustment and have to be pushed up, so to speak, by increased purchases,"[192] however, we get a short run quantity theory doctrine. The logic of these two is very different. The short run doctrine seeks to explain the actual process of price-making in the market. Money is offered against goods, and the actual quantities on each side determine the momentary price-level, concretely. Or, when credit is considered, money and credit offered against goods, at a given time, or in a given short period, determine the actual price-level reached. This is the logic of the equation of exchange—actual money paid is necessarily equal to actual money received. The long run doctrine is fundamentally based on a different notion. Surrendering the actual or average of price-levels to other causes, in part, it still asserts that, given time enough, and barring new disturbing tendencies, a price-level will ultimately be reached which will bear it out. I find no recognition, on Fisher's part, of the fact that these two doctrines are different, and, in fact, I find them blended and confused in the course of his argument. He would doubtless maintain that his is a long run doctrine. But how long is the "run"? Sometimes it seems to be, as already shown, a whole business cycle. Sometimes a passing season, as the fall. When he undertakes to apply his theory to a practical proposal for regulating the value of money, he relies on the quantity theory tendency to bring about adjustments so quickly that it is worth while to make monthly adjustments in anticipation of it.[193] When discussing the changes in gold premium on the Greenbacks during the exciting times of the Civil War, he relies so thoroughly on his theory that he will not allow even the rapid change of four per cent in a single day following Chickamauga to occur except in conformity with the quantity theory. This last statement is so remarkable that I must quote Fisher himself: "It would be a grave mistake to reason, because the losses at Chickamauga caused greenbacks to fall 4% in a single day, that their value had no relation to their volume. This fall indicated a slight acceleration in the velocity of circulation, and a slight retardation in the volume of trade" (263). It would be indeed remarkable if the changes in the gold market, which got war news before the newspapers got it, and where changes in gold premium occurred before the rest of the country could possibly react to the war news, should be controlled by V and T! I had not supposed that the most rigorous of short run quantity theorists would make any such demands on his theory as that. Indeed, I had not supposed that the quantity theory would feel called on to explain the gold premium, as such, except in so far as the gold premium is an index of general prices.

Finding it impossible to limit Fisher to any single statement of the quantitative importance of his normal theory as compared with the other tendencies at work, but concluding that, on the whole, he considers it of high importance, I shall now proceed to an analysis of the reasoning by which he seeks to justify it as a qualitative tendency. I shall maintain that, however long or short the period required, however strong or weak the tendency he defends, the reasoning by which he seeks to justify it is unsound, and that even as a qualitative tendency, the quantity theory is invalid. At a later part of the book, as in an earlier part,[194] I shall undertake to find the modicum of truth which the quantity theory contains, and shall show that no quantity theory is needed to exhibit this modicum of truth.

CHAPTER XI

BARTER

In the statement of the quantity theory, the proviso is commonly made that all exchanges must be made by means of money, or of money and bank-credit. Barter is excluded by hypothesis. If resort to barter were possible, then people might avert the fall in prices due to scarcity of money, or increase in trade, by dispensing with money in part of their transactions, and the proportional decrease in prices which the quantity theory calls for would be lacking. Is this assumption true? Is barter banished from the modern world, or does it remain reasonably possible, and, to a considerable degree, actual?

Fisher maintains the thesis—the failure of which he admits would spoil the quantity theory[195]—that barter is practically impossible, and negligible in modern business life. "Practically, however, in the world to-day, even such temporary resort to barter is trifling. The convenience of exchange by money is so much greater than the convenience of barter, that the price adjustment would be made almost at once. If barter needs to be seriously considered as a relief from money stringency, we shall be doing it full justice if we picture it as a safety valve, working against a resistance so great as almost never to come into operation, and then only for brief transition intervals. For all practical purposes and all normal cases, we may assume that money and checks are necessities for modern trade."[196]

This contention seems to me untenable. I think it can easily be shown that barter remains an important factor in modern business life, especially if one extends the term barter, a little, to cover various flexible substitutes for the use of money and checks in effecting exchanges. Clearly from the standpoint of the present issue, such an extension of the meaning of barter is legitimate, as any such substitutes would equally spoil the proportionality in the supposed relation between prices and money, or prices and trade.

Where does one find barter? Well, not to be ignored would be the advertisements which fill many columns of such a paper as the New York Telegram in the course of a week; "Wanted: to trade a well-trained parrot for a violin"—a trade that might, or might not, be a wise one! There is a good deal of such simple barter among the people. Then, perhaps more important, is the regular practice of sewing machine, piano, automobile, and other similar companies of taking part of the payment for a new machine, piano,[197] or automobile in the similar thing which the owner is discarding. The old machine, piano, etc., are then repaired, repainted, and sold again. This is a very extensive practice. Again, there are companies which combine the business of wrecking old houses and building new ones, who regularly take the old materials as part of their pay. This is a highly important feature of the organized building trade in great cities, and is frequently done in small towns. The building trade is no negligible matter. The "horse-trade" still thrives in rural regions, and barter of various kinds, of live stock, of grain and hay, of fresh and cured meat, and of labor, is an important feature in rural life in many sections. Much of agricultural rent in the South is still paid in kind, under the "share system." Much labor, especially farm and domestic labor, is still paid for partly in kind. Where payments for labor are made in orders on company stores, we have again what is virtually barter, from the standpoint of the point at issue. Real estate transactions make large use of barter. Farms are exchanged for one another, with some cash (or more usually, a promissory note) "to boot." The writer has repeatedly heard real estate men say to customers: "I can't sell it for you very easily, but I can trade it off, and maybe you can sell what you trade it for." This is perhaps more frequent in rural real estate transactions, and in the smaller cities, than in large cities, but it is very extensive in New York City.[198]

Again, when corporations are to be combined, various plans are possible. There may be a merger; there may be a holding corporation; there may be a lease. If the money market is easy, one of the former methods will be used,—most frequently, for legal reasons, the holding corporation, if there are any valuable franchises involved. But mergers and holding corporations commonly involve buying out the interests which are to be absorbed, and call for the use of checks. If the money market is tight, therefore, the promoter of the combination may frequently find the lease the more advantageous form of consolidation.[199] The great advantage of the lease is that, when the money market is tight, it involves no financial plan, no underwriting, no outlay of "cash." This is, therefore, an equivalent of barter, so far as the point at issue is concerned. Even where a holding corporation is formed, however, there may be considerable barter: the stockholders of the corporation which is absorbed may receive payment for their stocks, in whole or in part, in the securities of the holding company, rather than in checks. An era of financial consolidation, such as we have been passing through, and through which we have not by any means gone, though the movement toward monopoly has been in great degree checked, presents a great deal of this sort of barter, or equivalents of barter.[200] A striking thing to notice here, moreover, is the flexible margin between use of bank-credit and barter, a margin depending primarily upon the condition of the money market, and particularly upon the money-rates.

Not yet has the most important element in modern barter been mentioned. I refer to the "clearing-house" arrangements of the stock and produce exchanges. Under these arrangements, brokers who have sold ten thousand shares of Westinghouse El. and M. Common during the day, and bought seven thousand shares, buying and selling being in smaller lots, with a number of different houses, no longer are obliged to deliver ten thousand shares, receiving therefor $700,000, and to receive seven thousand shares, paying therefor $490,000. Instead, they deliver three thousand shares only to the clearing house, and receive from the clearing house only $210,000 when the transaction is, from the standpoint of the particular broker involved, completed. This is a far remove, in technical perfection, from primitive barter, but it is barter, and it saves the using of a vast deal of bank-credit as between brokers. How important it is, from the standpoint of the stock exchange, may be judged from the following statement in Sprague's Crises Under the National Banking System: "A much more fundamental change in the organization in the New York money market came with the establishment of the stock exchange clearing house in May, 1892. It led to a very considerable reduction in the clearing-house exchanges of the banks and also, and more important, in the volume of certified checks. [Italics mine.] Overcertification of checks ceased to be a factor of the first magnitude in the banking methods of the city. Had not this arrangement for stock-exchange dealings been set up, it is probable that it would have been necessary to close the stock exchange in 1893 and in 1907, and it is also probable that the volume of business transacted in the years after 1897 could not have been handled." (P. 152.)

The same arrangements have been widely introduced in other stock exchanges, and in the produce exchanges.[201]

In general, with reference to barter, this point is significant. The money economy has made barter easier rather than harder. It has made possible a host of refinements in barter, which make it at many points more convenient and cheaper than check or money exchanges. It is common to find our present methods of conducting foreign trade described as a "system of refined barter," which indeed, from the standpoint of the present issue, it is: bills of exchange are neither money nor bank-credit! Where bills of exchange are used in internal trade extensively—as in Germany, where they pass from hand to hand in several transactions before being discounted at banks[202]—we have a highly important substitute for money and deposits, which functions as barter,—flexibility of substitutes for money and deposits is strikingly evident. The feature of the money economy which has thus refined and improved barter is the standard of value (common measure of value) function of money.[203] This standard of value function, be it noted, makes no call on money itself, necessarily. The medium of exchange and "bearer of options" functions of money are the chief sources of such additions to the value of money as come from the money-use. But the fact that goods have money-prices, which can be compared with one another easily, in objective terms, makes barter, and barter-equivalents, a highly convenient and very important feature of the most developed commercial system. And so we reject another essential assumption of the quantity theory.[204]

CHAPTER XII

VELOCITY OF CIRCULATION

For the quantity theory, it is important to treat velocity of circulation of money and of deposits, as self-contained entities, really independent factors. This is true of Fisher's theory. It is particularly necessary that V and V´ should vary from causes unconnected with M and M´. The V's are to be a sort of inflexible channel, through which M and M´ run in their influence on the passive P, which is to rise or fall proportionately with them. If an increase of M or M´ should lead to a reduction in the V's, if people, having more money available, should be less assiduous in using every bit of it in effecting exchanges, then P would not rise in proportion to the increase in M. Complete demonstration of Fisher's thesis, therefore, requires the proof of the negative proposition that V does not change as a consequence of changes in M or M´. This proof Fisher finds in the contention that the V's are fixed by the habits and conveniences of individuals, whence they are not influenced by such a cause as a change in the amount of money.[205]

V is defined,[206] not as the number of times a given dollar is exchanged in a given year (the "coin-transfer" notion), but as a social average based on the average number of coins which pass through each man's hands, divided by the average amount held by him (the "person-turnover" concept of velocity.) V´ is similarly defined. Fisher asserts that both concepts, if correctly employed, lead to the same result. I would point out one important difference between them here: if money is short-circuited, if, i. e., a part of the economic community loses its incomes, or finds its incomes reduced, then the "velocity of money," on the "coin-transfer" basis is reduced, provided the "person-turnover" average remains the same, while on the "person-turnover" basis the velocity will remain unchanged. It is clearly the "coin-transfer" concept which is fundamental, from the standpoint of the equation of exchange, and Fisher feels justified in using the other method only because he considers it an equivalent of the "coin-transfer" concept. I shall later show cases where the distinction between the two concepts is all-important, particularly in the case where T is reduced by the elimination of middlemen.[207]

The conception of velocity of circulation as a real, unitary entity, a cause, in the process of price-determination, is, I suppose, almost as old as the quantity theory itself. It is an essential part of the quantity theory. To me "velocity of circulation" seems to be a mere name, denoting, not any simple cause or small set of causes, which can exert a specific influence, but rather a meaningless abstract number, which is the non-essential by-product of a highly heterogeneous lot of activities of men, some of which work one way, and others of which work in another way, in affecting prices. It is at best a passive resultant of conflicting and divergent tendencies, and has, to my mind, no more causal significance than the average of the abstract numbers of yards gained by both sides, heights and weights of players, kick-offs, and minutes taken out for injuries, would have on the result of the Yale-Harvard game. The real causes of changes in prices lie deeper! I should expect V and V´ to be the most highly flexible factors in the equation of exchange, and should expect to be able to keep the equation straight, in a great variety of situations, by allowing the V's to vary.

Before undertaking detailed analysis of the causes governing V, I shall discuss Fisher's specific argument, typical of the quantity theory, that an increase of money cannot change the V's. "As a matter of fact, the velocities of circulation of money and deposits depend, as we have seen, on technical conditions, and bear no discoverable relation to the quantity of money in circulation. Velocity of circulation is the average rate of 'turnover,' and depends on countless individual rates of turnover. These, as we have seen, depend on individual habits. Each person regulates his turnover to suit his individual convenience.... In the long run, and for a large number of people, the average rate of turnover, or what amounts to the same thing, the average time money remains in the same hands, will be closely determined. It will depend on density of population, commercial customs, rapidity of transport, and other technical conditions, but not on the quantity of money and deposits nor on the price-level." (Italics mine.[208]) He proceeds to assume that money is doubled with a halving of the V's, instead of a doubling of P. Everybody now has on hand twice as much money and deposits as his convenience has taught him to keep on hand. He will then try to get rid of this surplus, and he can only do it by buying goods. But this will increase somebody else's surplus, and he will likewise try to get rid of it. This will raise prices. "Obviously this tendency will continue until there if found another adjustment of quantities to expenditures, and the V's are the same as originally."[209] The foregoing argument rests in part, it will be seen, on the assumption that a fixed ratio between M and M´ obtains, else the increase of money in everybody's hands would not mean a corresponding increase in their deposits. I have already criticised this doctrine. For the contention that the V's will finally be just the same as before, I find no specific argument at all—"obviously" presumably making that unnecessary.

As the point immediately at issue is that V's will be unchanged by the increase in M (otherwise P would not increase proportionately—let us see if considerations can be adduced which will make this a little less "obvious." First, it will be noticed that Fisher, in the foregoing, in one sentence speaks of the matter as resting on habit, and in the next sentence, on convenience. He speaks, also, of business custom. Now it is important to note that habit and custom, on the one hand, and considerations of convenience on the other, do not necessarily coincide. Many habits and customs are highly inconvenient. And it is not at all likely that habit and custom should govern so highly complex a thing as the ratio between cash on hand and the price-level. Rather, in so far as custom and habit rule, one would expect them to relate to a simpler matter, namely, the amount of cash on hand. If the amount of cash kept on hand should remain controlled by habit, while the amount of money is increased, then V, instead of remaining unchanged, would actually be increased, unless the habits should be broken in on. I shall show in a moment that considerations of convenience would probably lead to a reduced V, in so far as individual turnover is concerned. But which tendency will prevail? Well, that will depend on the degree to which custom and habit rule as compared with considerations of convenience—i. e., there would be no rule valid for all communities. That convenience would lead to a larger amount of money on hand—and I am following Fisher's temporary hypothesis that there has been no rise in prices prior to the movement to restore the V's to their old magnitudes—will appear from considerations like these. Few men have as much on hand as they would like to have, including both their cash in hand and their deposit balances. Most people have the tendency to hoard, though it is usually held in check by necessity. If money on hand be increased suddenly, without prices being increased, and without any prospect of increased incomes in the future—and there is nothing in Fisher's provisional hypothesis to call for increased incomes, as they could, in fact, come only from an increase in prices—why might not there be a considerable saving of money, with a corresponding reduction in V? If it be objected that people, in saving their money, will in considerable degree put it into the banks, and that the banks, with larger reserves, will increase loans and deposits, I would urge, that it is on the part of banks that this tendency to increase hoards in times of abundant money is particularly marked, and for proof would point to the figures quoted from Keynes[210] for the great banks and treasuries of Europe in the last fifteen years. It is not necessary for my purpose at this point to do more than show that there is reason to expect an increase in money to change the V's. Fisher's argument rests on the contention that the V's will be neither increased or reduced—otherwise an increase in money will not proportionately raise prices. The appeal to habit and custom in the matter is particularly unsatisfactory. Custom and habit could not possibly regulate things so complex as velocities of money and bank-deposits.

Whatever be the ultimate effect of an increase in money, the immediate effect is commonly to reduce the money-rates. Banks have less inducement to pay interest on deposits, and charge lower rates for loans. Now merchants, especially small merchants, are often embarrassed in making change for customers. The man who has tried to make payment with a ten dollar bill in a country store has not infrequently put the storekeeper to much inconvenience. To offer a ten dollar bill, or even a five dollar bill, to a storekeeper on Amsterdam Avenue in New York City may well mean that the one clerk in the establishment, or the proprietor's wife will run out with the bill to three or four neighboring stores before finding change with which to break it. If money is more abundant, if money-rates are easier, for a time, it may easily happen that many small merchants will experience the superior convenience of having a more adequate amount of change in the till, and will, even after the money-rates have risen—if they do rise again to the old figure—find a new reason for keeping more cash on hand. There is a marginal equilibrium between the interest on the capital invested in cash in the till, and the wages of the clerk,[211] whose active legs assist the velocity of money. Not only banks and small dealers, however, find it advantageous to increase their supply of ready funds, held idle for special occasions. The United States Steel Corporation has kept as much as $50,000,000.00 to $75,000,000.00 in idle cash or idle deposits, as a means of being independent of banks in times of emergency.[212] The motive for accumulating reserves and hoards, either of cash or deposit accounts, is at all times strong. In times of financial ease, it may easily find the difficulties which ordinarily repress it give way, and, by being gratified, grow stronger.

I conclude that there is positive reason for expecting an increase of money to reduce the velocity of money.

Horace White, in his Money and Banking, in the earlier editions, speaks of the velocity of money, "alias the state of trade." Is not this the truth? Is not money circulating rapidly, when business is active, and slowly when business is dull? Is not the velocity of circulation a highly flexible and variable average, a cause of nothing, and an index of business activity? Or, better, perhaps, are not the V's and T both governed, in large degree, by more fundamental causes which are largely the same for both? Fisher would admit something of this for transition periods. Even for normal adjustments, he admits that an increase in T, unaccompanied by an increase in M, leads to some increase in the V's, though he doesn't say how much.[213] He denies, however, that an increase in the V's will increase T.[214] In general, it is clear that he regards the V's and T as governed by different causes. The control of the V's by T is not the only or the chief control of the V's. The V's can increase greatly without an increase of T, in his scheme. That this is so, will appear from a comparison of the list of causes which he gives as governing the V's and T respectively:

Causes governing V's:

Compare this list with the causes governing T:[215]

These two lists are quite different, and indicate that in Fisher's mind the magnitudes, T and the V's, in general obey different laws. The only factor in both lists is facilities for transportation ("rapidity of transportation," in the first list). Strangely enough, T, though later recognized as having influence on the V's[216] is not included in these lists in ch. 5. The "character of the monetary and banking systems" in the second list is evidently not the same as "use of checks" in the second list, though it will doubtless affect that factor, as also the "habits as to thrift and hoarding," in some degree. "Business confidence," which is, in the view I am maintaining, as in the view, I should take it, of Horace White, the great variable affecting both T and the V's, does not appear in the first list. Indeed, one wonders why business confidence appears in either list, if only "normal," and not merely "transitional" causes are to be considered, but it appears from the fuller discussion on p. 78 that Fisher is not thinking of business confidence as a variable at all—his normal theory has nothing to do with variables—but as a thing which either is or is not present, a sort of Mendelian unit, not a thing of degrees.[217] It will be noted, further, that most of the causes which Fisher lists as affecting T are really causes affecting production—they would be just as important under a socialistic as under an exchange economy.

Now I propose to show, on the basis of Fisher's own list of causes, that most, if not all, of the factors affecting the V's, will also affect T, and in the same direction. He admits this as to transportation facilities. It is surely true of thrift and hoarding. The miser neither circulates money nor buys goods. It is emphatically true—though Fisher's theory, as will later appear, is obliged to deny it,—of both book credit and banking facilities. Without the use of credit, much of the business now done simply would not be done at all. For Fisher, and the quantity theory in general, the contention would be simply that the same business would be done on a lower price-level. I reserve a full discussion of this fundamental point till later, noting here, in passing, that the function of banks is to assist in effecting transfers, that that is why, from the social standpoint, banks are encouraged, and that the extension of banking would be folly if they did not, in fact, do this. As to book credit, let us suppose that, for example, in the great cotton section of the South the stores should cease to give advances of supplies on credit to negroes and small white farmers, pending the "making" of the crop. The outcome would be starvation for many of them, and no cotton crop at all. Under a system of private enterprise, the very division of labor itself, including the specialization of the capitalist, involves credit, and it is difficult to conceive a form of credit which does not either dispense with the use of money, or increase its "velocity." Admittedly, the division of labor increases trade.

The three factors listed under "Systems of payment in the community" also affect trade. To the extent that receipts are frequent, regular, and synchronous with outgo, we have a smoothly working economic system, which facilitates commerce.

Finally, density of population enormously increases trade. The concentration of men in cities is essential for modern factory production, and the great cities have necessarily grown up about good harbors, or at strategic points for connecting lines of railroads. It seems almost trivial to insist on so obvious a point, but Fisher seems totally to ignore it, for he says: "We conclude, then, that density of population and rapidity of transportation have tended to increase prices by raising velocities. Historically this concentration of population in cities has been an important factor in raising prices in the United States."[218] (P. 88. Italics mine.)

This is an astounding proposition. It is not merely that the concentration of population in cities has tended to raise prices through raising velocities. It is a statement that this has been an important historical cause of the actual increase in prices. For Fisher's own theory, if the same cause had tended to increase T,[219] that would have offset the rising V's on the other side of the equation, and left prices little affected. But he sees in the V's an independent cause here, divorces them from their connection with T, and follows his logic fearlessly where it leads. I do not see how one could more strikingly illustrate the essential vice of erecting the V's into causal entities.

In concluding the discussion of the rôle of velocity of circulation, I think it worth while to mention Fisher's own efforts to measure them. I examine his statistics in a later chapter. I do not regard the points at issue as points which can properly be handled by inductive methods, primarily. I do not accept his conclusions with reference to the magnitudes of V, the velocity of money, partly because I do not accept his doctrine that "banks are the home of money" (p. 287).[220] He finds for V a fairly constant magnitude during the thirteen years from 1896 to 1909, the range being from 19 to 22, the figures for all the years except 1896 and 1909 being interpolations.[221] For V, however, which is much the more important magnitude, from the standpoint of his equation of exchange for the United States, since deposits do so much more exchanging than does money, he finds a wide range of variation, from 36 to 54, and he states: "We note that the velocity of circulation has increased 50% in thirteen years and that it has been subject to great variation from year to year. In 1899 and 1906 it reached maxima, immediately preceding crises" (285). I think Fisher's own statistical results show that V´, at least, is a child of the "state of trade."[222] Critical analysis of these statistics show that they greatly underestimate the variability of the V's.[223]

In summary: V and V´ are not, as Fisher contends, independent of the quantity of money. Instead of resting on "technical conditions," and having large elements of constancy and rigidity, they are highly flexible, and vary, on the whole, with the same highly complex and divergent sets of causes which govern the volume of trade. The biggest factor affecting the variations of the V's on the one hand, and volume of trade on the other is business confidence—a factor which Fisher's normal theory is not concerned with, so far as it is considered as a variable, but which, more than anything else, does affect the concrete figures which go into the equation of exchange, either for a single year, or for an average of a good many years. The V's are not true causal entities, but merely abstract summaries of a host of heterogeneous facts. I have indicated before, and shall later demonstrate more fully, that the same is true of T. Even the "normal" causes governing the V's, however, are factors which likewise affect T, and in the same direction.

Among the factors affecting both V and T, there is one which sometimes makes them move in opposite directions, and that is the value of money itself. This is so well stated in Wicksteed's interesting criticism of the quantity theory that I content myself with a quotation:[224] "Again, the history of paper money abounds in instances of sudden changes, within the country itself, in the value of paper currency, caused by reports unfavorable to the country's credit. The value of the currency was lowered in these cases by a doubt as to whether the Government would be permanently stable and would be in a position to honor its drafts, that is to say, whether this day three months, the persons who have the power to take my goods for public purposes will accept a draft of the present Government in lieu of payment. It is not easy to see how, on the theory of the quantity law, such a report could affect very rapidly the magnitudes on which the value of the note is supposed to depend, viz., the quantity of business to be transacted, and the amount of the currency. Nor is it easy to see why we should suppose that the frequency with which the notes pass from hand to hand, is independently fixed. On the other hand, the quantity of business done by the notes, as distinct from the quantity of business done altogether, and the rapidity of the circulation of the notes may obviously be affected by sinister rumors. Two of the quantities, then, supposed to determine the value of the unit of circulation, are themselves liable to be determined by it."

CHAPTER XIII

THE VOLUME OF MONEY AND THE VOLUME OF TRADE—TRADE AND SPECULATION

In proving that an increase of money must proportionately increase prices, it is necessary to prove that the volume of trade is independent of the quantity of money and credit instruments by means of which trade is carried on. Money on the one hand, and quantity of goods to be exchanged on the other, are the two great independent magnitudes, whose equilibration mechanically fixes the average of prices. This notion, as to the essence of the quantity theory, finds expression in Taussig,[225] "The statement of a quantity theory in relation to prices assumes two independent variables: total money or purchasing power on the one hand, total supply of goods or volume of transactions on the other." Taussig, though he would maintain that this independence holds, so far as money and trade are concerned, admits that it breaks down so far as trade and elastic bank credit, bank-notes and deposits, are concerned. Trade and elastic bank-credit are largely interdependent.[226] This concession on Taussig's part means virtually giving up the quantity theory for Western Europe and the United States and Canada, though Taussig still sees something left of the quantity theory tendency in view of the "irregular and uncertain" connection which he finds between money and bank-credit.[227] Fisher, however, makes no such surrender. He is quite as uncompromising as to the independence of deposits and trade as he is with reference to the independence of money and trade. He does, indeed, make the concession that increasing trade tends to increase deposits indirectly, by increasing the ratio of M´ to M, by modifying the habits of the people as to the use of checks as compared with cash (p. 165),[228] but he denies stoutly that there is any direct relation between them. (P. 168.) Trade acts only via a modification of the ratio between M and M´, and M still remains controlled, not by trade, but by quantity of money. As to any control over T by M´, he repudiates it explicitly, (P. 163.) Increasing M´, either through an increase of M, or through an increase in the normal ratio between M and M´, will have no effect on T,—or, for that matter, on the V's. The introduction of credit, therefore, leaves the quantity theory intact: an increase of M, increasing M´ proportionately, leaving the V's unchanged, and having no effect on T, must exhaust its influence on P, raising P proportionately, if the equation of exchange is to remain valid.

The argument set forth to prove that T is not influenced by M or M´ is as follows: "An inflation of the currency cannot increase the products of farms or factories, nor the speed of freight trains or ships. The stream of business depends on natural resources and technical conditions, not on the quantity of money. The whole machinery of production, transportation and sale is a matter of physical capacities and technique, none of which depend on the quantity of money. The only way in which quantities of trade appear to be affected by the quantity of money is by influencing trades accessory to the creation of money and to the money metal.... From a practical or statistical point of view they amount to nothing, for they could not add to nor subtract one-tenth of 1% from the general aggregate of trade." (Loc. cit. p. 155. Italics mine.) Something similar is said on p. 62, where "transitional" influences of M on T are being discussed: "But the amount of trade is dependent, almost entirely, on other things than the quantity of currency, so that an increase of currency cannot, even temporarily, very greatly increase trade. In ordinarily good times practically the whole community is engaged in labor, producing, transporting, and exchanging goods. The increase of currency of a "boom" period cannot, of itself, increase the population, extend invention, or increase the efficiency of labor.[229] These factors pretty definitely limit the amount of trade that can reasonably be carried on. So, although the gains of the enterpriser-borrower may exert a psychological stimulus on trade, though a few unemployed may be employed, and some others in a few lines induced to work overtime, and although there may be some additional buying and selling which is speculative, yet almost the entire effect of an increase in deposits must be seen in a change in prices. Normally the entire effect would so express itself, but transitionally there will be also some increase in the Q's." (Pp. 62-63. Italics mine.)

Fisher is here exceedingly uncompromising, even where transitional periods are concerned, and it is not necessary, in order to do his position full justice, to make much distinction between "normal" and "transitional" effects in my counter-argument. I shall, however, take account of the distinction as I proceed, in justice to other, more moderate, quantity theorists.

It is a familiar doctrine that the quantity of money is irrelevant, that things go on in much the same way whether money is abundant or scarce, the only difference being that in the one case prices are high and in the other, low; that, in particular, it is a gross fallacy to connect the rate of interest with the amount of money, since (as many writers would put it) the rate of interest depends on the amount of capital rather than money. At the opposite extreme, we have writers like Brooks Adams (Law of Civilization and Decay), who see the fate of nations and the progress of civilization resting on the abundance or scarcity of money. Fisher takes the first position in its extremest form.[230]

The truth, I think, is intermediate. The effects of the New World discoveries of gold and silver after the voyage of Columbus on trade and industry were tremendous. Trade was enormously increased. Walker, in his International Bimetallism,[231] asking, from the standpoint of a quantity theorist, why prices only increased 200% while money increased 470%, admits that the chief reason was the increase in trade, due in large part to the very increase in money itself. Sombart, in his Der Moderne Kapitalismus,[232] finds in this influx of money a tremendous source of capitalistic accumulations, (a) for the Conquistadores, (b) for the handicraftsmen whose prices rose faster than their costs, (c) for tenants whose rents were fixed in money, (d) for landowners, whose rents were fixed in kind [a point not obviously true], and (e) for bankers, as the Fugger. An increase of capital, savings that would otherwise not have been made, must have profoundly modified the whole industrial system, and greatly increased both industry and commerce. If it be objected that effects of this sort are not usual, that they came in a world which had been starved for money, and which, by means of the enormous increase in money was able to pass from a "natural" to a money economy, I reply that the difference between such a case and the usual effects of an increase of money are in degree rather than in kind. The world of Columbus' day was in part on a money economy, and the world to-day, despite Professor Fisher's emphatic denial,[233] still employs a great deal of barter, or equivalents of barter. I shall revert to this point later. But even this consideration would not rob Sombart's points of their significance for modern conditions. Further, we have an even more striking case, on Walker's own showing, in the effects of the Californian and Australian[234] gold discoveries in the 19th Century on trade, industry, and speculation.[235]

Nor is the tremendous agitation over bimetallism, involving a literature so great that no man could dream of reading it all, involving great political movements, Presidential campaigns, great Congressional debates, repeated legislation, international conferences, etc., for twenty years, to be explained on any other ground than that the world felt practical, important, and unpleasant effects on industry and trade from the inadequacy of the money supply.

The view of Hartley Withers[236] is interesting here. He says: "any such great addition to currency and credit would have a great effect in stimulating production, and so would lead to a great addition to the number of real goods which humanity desires and consumes when it can get them.... Trade would be more active." On p. 23 he speaks of the enormous expansion of trade made possible by paper representatives of gold. On p. 83 he speaks of the attitude of the money-market toward gold, which the orthodox economist is apt to think of as a survival of Mercantilism. Withers thinks that the money market is right in a large degree.

As illustrating Withers' statement about the views of "practical men" on this point, the following extract from a recent address by Theodore Price, quoted with approval in a "market letter," written by Byron W. Holt,[237] is interesting: "The fact seems to be that the exigencies of war in Europe are leading to an extension of credit such as would not have been possible in peace, because the hesitant conservatism of bankers would have then prevented it, and we are finding that instead of working harm it is doing good, because huge masses of fixed capital are thereby made productive, and are circulating with the increased velocity that always quickens enterprise and accelerates the wheels of industry.... All the precedents of history indicate that accelerated activity will come with peace and continue until the exuberance of success has led men to build faster than the world has grown and to demand credit upon the basis of future rather than of present values."

What is the essential causation in the matter? Well, viewed merely as a matter of mechanical equilibration, the quantity theory view is not strictly true, by any means. For a given country—and Fisher's quantity theory is always a theory for a given country, and, indeed, for any separate market, even a single city[238]—an increase of banking credit means an increase in non-monetary capital, because, to a greater or less extent it dispenses with the use of gold, which goes abroad, bringing back wealth in other forms in exchange. Adam Smith saw this clearly, and phrased it strikingly, likening gold and silver coins to the wagon-roads of Scotland, which are necessary for transportation, but which none the less prevent the use of the roadways for raising grain; whereas bank credit is like a wagon-road through the air, which restores the roadbeds to cultivation. Increased non-monetary capital, other things equal, should mean increased trade.

But, more fundamentally, an increase in gold itself within the country, if not bought by the export of an equivalent amount of other goods, is an increase of capital. Not all capital is money, but standard coin is capital. Money is a tool of exchange, and exchange is part of the productive process. More money means more exchanging. That is what money is for. Part of the mechanism is in the money rates, which go down as money becomes more abundant, making it profitable to effect exchanges which would not have been profitable had the money rates been higher. Granted that the money-rates and the general rate of interest tend, in the long run, to keep—I will not say at the same figure[239]—a certain fairly definite relation to one another, it still does not follow that the new "normal" equilibrium will give us an interest rate which is the same as the general rate of interest was before the influx of gold. On the strictest static theory, this is not to be expected. Because the total amount of capital in the country is increased, and this means a lowered interest rate all around, in the marginal employment of capital. The margin of the use of capital will be lowered everywhere, including the margin for the use of money. This means permanently lowered money rates in the country, even though the permanent level be higher than the initial money rates immediately following the access of new gold. I have put the argument in terms that suggest the productivity theory of interest, because it is more simply stated that way. I do not accept the productivity theory, as a fundamental explanation of interest, but for many purposes, the results to be obtained by it coincide with the psychological time theories,—which also, in their present form, seem to me imperfectly developed. I need not try to construct a theory of interest here, however, as the familiar theories lead to no trouble at this point. It is enough to point out that the increased amount of capital, meaning better provision for present wants—wants concerned with gold in the arts and with money for productive exchanges, as well as goods generally since part of the new gold will be exported for other things—will lessen the pressure of present as compared with future wants, and so lessen the rate of interest on the time-preference theory. The final outcome will be an extension of the marginal use of money, and a greater volume of exchanges. Of course, the increase in the supply of any kind of capital good, apart from a prior increase in the demand for its services, will, on the mechanical view of economic causation, necessarily lead to some fall in its capital value. Gold money will be no exception to this rule. As to how much the increase in its quantity will lead its capital value to fall, however, we are unable to say. For the quantity theory, the fall will be in proportion to the increase. For the theory just outlined, the fall will depend on the elasticity of demand for gold in the arts, and on the elasticity of "demand" for money, meaning by demand for money simply the demand for the short-time use of money as a tool of exchange, a demand which governs directly, not the capital value of money, but rather the "money-rates." The relation between the money rates and the capital value of money will best be discussed at another point.[240] We have no reason at all to suppose that either of these demands[241] exhibits the tendency to obey the law of proportional variation which the quantity theory requires of money.

It is further important to note that as a country gets more abundant capital, there seems to be a tendency to extend the use of money rather more than the use of many other capital goods. Where the interest rate is 10 and 12%, as in Arizona and New Mexico, money, even when brought in, tends to leave in large degree to bring in other forms of capital which the situation calls for more imperatively. The early American colonies, needing money pressingly, and making shift with a great variety of substitutes for good metallic money, thoroughly acquainted with the advantages of a money-economy from their European experience, and having "habits" as to the carrying and using of money which they had brought with them from Europe, still found it impossible to keep a great deal of metallic money, in view of the still greater importance of other forms of capital. It is in the most highly developed commercial communities, commercial centres, and par excellence, in the speculative centres, that the demand for the money-service is most elastic.[242] A country where the rate of interest is low, loses other forms of capital, and gains money, in the process of reëquilibration, as compared with a new and undeveloped section, although the new section also extends the margin of the money service, in effecting a greater number of exchanges, when money is increased.

And this leads to a vital distinction, which quantity theorists almost always lose: the distinction between the volume of production, and the volume of trade. Even in the mechanical system of causation which they describe, it is true only of production and transportation that technical and physical[243] factors are of primary significance, and that money is of minor significance. For trade and commerce, money is always highly important. To the extent that a region is primarily given over to the primary productive activities, mining, and agriculture, such trading as is necessary can be done by means of a small amount of money, supplemented by barter and long-time book-credit. A region or a city whose chief business is commerce, however, needs a large part of its capital in the form of money, and of banking capital, which is largely invested in money for banking reserves. Trade, as distinguished from industry (and it is after all trade that is under discussion), is helped or hindered as its tools are more or less abundant. These considerations would suggest that the elasticity of the demand for the use of money is greater than the elasticity of demand for the use of capital in almost any other form. Production is, indeed, limited by labor supply and natural resources, in considerable degree. Trade,[244] however, even from the standpoint of mechanical causation, is limited chiefly by the relation between the profits to be made in commercial transactions, and the "price" that must be paid for the money and credit that are required to put them through. There are enormous numbers of transfers that could be made to advantage if there were no cost at all involved. They are not made, because exchanging requires pecuniary capital. Let the pecuniary capital increase, however, and sub-marginal exchanges become worth while, the general margin is lowered. Commerce is the most highly flexible and elastic portion of the whole productive process. The elasticity of demand for commercial capital is, thus, greater than the elasticity of demand for any other form of capital.

How widely the volume of trade differs from the volume of production, and how great is the element of speculative transactions in trade, will best appear, I think, from an analysis of the figures which Fisher gives[245] for the volume of trade in the United States. His figure for the volume of trade in the year 1909 is $387,000,000,000.00, three hundred and eighty-seven billions of dollars! This figure is reached by equating the figures he has reached for MV plus M´V´ to PT, and assuming P to be one dollar, by making the "unit" of T, arbitrarily, a dollar's worth of each sort of commodity, at the prices of 1909. I have already commented on the legitimacy of this method of summarizing T,[246] and need not say more here, beyond calling attention to the fact that "volume of trade," as commonly used, does in fact mean, not T alone, but PT. Fisher for years other than 1909, however, makes use of a different method of getting at T: he takes certain indicia of relative amounts of trade, compares them with the same indicia for 1909, and estimates the trade for other years as being such a percentage of the trade for 1909 as their indicia are of the indicia of 1909. The indicia chosen are: (1) quantities of certain commodities, cotton, fruit, cattle, etc., received at principal cities of the United States, taken as typical of the variations of the internal commerce of the United States; (2) quantities of 23 articles of import and 25 articles of export, for each year, taken as typical of variations in the foreign trade of the United States; (3) sales of stocks. These three indicia, weighted in a manner to be described in a moment, are then averaged. There is a second element in the index, made up by taking the figures for railroad tonnage, and the figures for receipts on first class mail, which are averaged. The first average and the second average are then combined into a third average, which is the final index. The relation between this index for every year other than 1909 and the same index for the year 1909 determines the amount of T for each year—the two indicia, together with the figure, $387,000,000,000.00, giving the required amount by the "rule of three." I shall not go into details with the method of constructing these averages, but I wish to make clear the comparative weight given to each element in the final index: The first three elements count twice as heavily as the last two, and so constitute the biggest factor. In the first average, based on the first three elements, the item taken as typical of internal trade is weighted by 20, the item taken as typical of foreign trade is weighted by 3, and sale of stocks by 1. It appears from Fisher's figures (p. 479), that the one really big variable among all the indicia is the sale of stocks, but the weight given it is so small that it makes virtually no difference in the final result. Thus, as between 1898 and 1899, stock sales increased over 50%, but total trade, as shown by Fisher, increased only 5%. In the following year, stock sales decreased over 21%, but total trade, on Fisher's figures, increased. The following year, 1901, stock sales virtually doubled, but Fisher's final figure shows only an increase around 13%. Two years later, in 1903, stock sales fell off about 40%, from the figures for 1901, but again, as compared with 1901, total trade on Fisher's figures shows an appreciable gain. The influence of stock sales on Fisher's index is, virtually, negligible. The dominating factor is the receipts of selected staples, cattle, cotton, rice, pig iron, etc., in the principal cities of the United States. There is not a single year in which his final figure for T does not move in harmony with this factor (p. 479). He gets, thus, for the volume of trade through the fourteen years under consideration, a surprising steadiness, and a pretty uniform progressive development.

In defence[247] of his method of weighting, Fisher says, simply: "These weights are, of course, merely matters of opinion, but, as is well known, wide differences in systems of weighting make only slight differences in the final averages." (Italics mine.)[248]

Are these figures valid? Well, first one is struck with the absolute magnitude assigned to T. The figures seem vastly greater than would have been anticipated. The method of calculating it, for 1909, I shall discuss in detail in the chapter on "Statistical Demonstrations of the Quantity Theory." For the present, it is enough to note that the absolute magnitude is derived from figures collected by Dean David Kinley for the National Monetary Commission,[249] of deposits, exclusive of deposits made by one bank in another, made in about 12,000 banks (out of 25,000) on March 16, 1909. These deposits were classified as (1) money (with subdivisions) and (2) checks and other credit instruments. A cross-classification divided them into (1) retail deposits; (2) wholesale deposits; (3) all other deposits. Kinley's object was to determine the extent to which checks are used, as compared with money, in payments, particularly in wholesale and retail business. Fisher's total, briefly, was obtained as follows: Kinley's figures, for the one day, were increased to make an allowance for the non-reporting banks; they were further increased on the assumption that March 16 was below the average for the year; the figure finally obtained for the day was then multiplied by 303, assumed as the number of banking days in the year, and the product, 399 billions, was taken as representing the total circulation of money and checks in trade. For some reason not made clear, this total was subsequently reduced to 387 billions. Counting the average price, P, as $1, T was considered to be 387 billions.[250]

In the statistical chapter to follow, it will be shown that this estimate is a very decided exaggeration. Deposits made in banks greatly overcount trade. Very many payments represent duplications, loans and repayments, taxes, etc., and are in no sense trade. This is true of all classes of deposits, wholesale and retail, as well as "all other." But for the present, I am concerned with the question, not of the absolute magnitude of the volume of trade, but rather, the questions of its character, of the elements that enter into it, and, above all, of the extent to which it is physically determined by technical conditions of production, and the extent to which it is flexible, a matter of speculation, etc.

We may approach this question from the angle of several bodies of statistical information. First, the question may be raised: what is there in the country which could be bought and sold enough in the course of a year to give us anything like so great a total? The subtractions which we shall find it necessary to make will still leave us an enormous total.

The United States Census Bureau[251] in 1904 reached the conclusion that the total wealth of the country was only $107,000,000,000. Of this, over $62,000,000,000 was in real estate; $11,000,000,000 in railroads; street railways, over $2,000,000,000; telephone, telegraph, water and light, and similar enterprises total nearly $3,000,000,000 more. None of these things enter into ordinary wholesale and retail trade. The items that one would ordinarily think of are agricultural products, $1,900,000,000; manufactured products, $7,400,000,000; mining products, $400,000,000. Can these things be exchanged often enough in the course of a year to account for $387,000,000,000!

These figures are for 1904,[252] whereas Fisher's figures are for 1909. If the Census Bureau had taken an inventory in 1909, the figures would doubtless be larger. The inventory for 1912 made by the Census Bureau does show a very considerable increase, the largest item being due to a rise in real estate values. The figures for agricultural, manufacturing, and mining products are, also, figures for a given time rather than for total production through the year. But, making all the allowance one pleases, it is quite incredible that one should reach a figure of $387,000,000,000 by taking only the exchanges necessary to bring raw materials through the various stages of production to the consumer. The greater part of the $387,000,000,000 is to be explained in another way!

A detailed analysis of Kinley's figures, on which the estimate of total trade is based, leads clearly to the same conclusion. Kinley's figures for the banks that reported on March 16, 1909, are as follows: