PART IV. THE RECONCILIATION OF STATICS AND DYNAMICS

PART I. THE VALUE OF MONEY AND THE
GENERAL THEORY OF VALUE

THE VALUE OF MONEY

CHAPTER I

ECONOMIC VALUE

The problem of the value of money is a special case of the general problem of economic value. The present chapter is concerned with the general theory of value, while the rest of the book will consider the numerous peculiarities and complications which make money a special case. The main proof of the theory here presented is to be found in a previous book[1] by the present writer. A number of periodical articles by several writers which have since appeared, in criticism or in further development of the theory, have at various points led to shifting emphasis and clearer understanding on the author's part, and the present exposition, without seeking explicitly to meet many of these criticisms, or to embody the new developments, will none the less be different because of them. To one writer in particular, Professor C. H. Cooley, the theory is indebted for restatement, amplification, and important additions.[2] On the whole, however, the theory presented in this chapter is substantially the theory presented in the earlier book. The theory is set forth in the present chapter with sufficient fullness to make the present volume independent of the earlier book.

Value has long been recognized as the fundamental economic concept. There have been many and divergent definitions of value, and many different theories as to its origin. It is the belief of the present writer—not shared by all his critics!—that the definition of value which follows, and the conception of the function of value in economic theory involved in it, conform to the actual use of the term in the main body of economic literature. The theory of the causes of value here advanced is new, but the definition of value, and the conception of the relation of value to wealth, to price, to exchange, and to other economic ideas, seem to the present writer to conform to what is implied, and often expressed, in the general usage of economists.[3]

It is important to separate sharply two questions: one, the theory of the causes of value, and the other, the definition of value, or the question of the formal and logical aspects of the value concept. The two questions cannot be wholly divorced, but clarity is promoted by considering them separately. We shall take up the formal and logical aspects of the matter first.

Value is the common quality of wealth. Wealth in most of its aspects is highly heterogeneous: hay and milk, iron and corn-land, cows and calico, human services and gold watches, dollars and doughnuts, pig-pens and pearls—all these things, diverse though they be in their physical attributes, have one quality in common: Economic Value.[4] By virtue of this common or generic quality, it is possible to add wealth together to get a sum, to compare items of wealth with one another, to see which is greater, to get ratios of exchange between items of wealth, to speak of one item of wealth, say a crop of wheat, as being a percentage of another, say the land which produced it, etc. This common quality, value, is also a quantity. It belongs to that class of qualities which can be greater or less, can mount or descend a scale, without ceasing to be the same quality,—like heat or weight or length. Such qualities are quantities. There is nothing novel in the statement that a quality is also a quantity. It is implied in every day speech. We say that a man is tall, or heavy, or that the room is hot—qualitative statements; or we may say exactly how tall, or how heavy, or how hot—quantitative statements. The distinction between qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis in chemistry implies the same idea. Thus we may speak of a piece of wealth as having a definite quantity of value, or say that the value of the piece of wealth is a definite quantity. We may then work out mathematical relations among the different quantities of value, sums, ratios, percentages, etc.

Ratios of Exchange are ratios between two quantities of value, the values of the units of the two kinds of wealth exchanged.[5] A good many economists, particularly in their chapters on definition, have defined value as a ratio of exchange. This is inaccurate. The ratio of exchange presupposes two values, which are the terms of the ratio. The ratio is not between milk and wheat in all their attributes. It is between milk and wheat with respect to one particular attribute. Compare them on the basis of weight, or cubic contents, and you would get ratios quite different from the ratio which actually is the ratio of exchange. The ratio is between their values.

In the diagram above, something of what is to follow is anticipated, since the cause of value is indicated. Wheat is shown to be exerting an influence on milk, and milk exerts an influence on wheat. The comparative strength of these two influences determines the ratio of exchange between them. But these two influences are not ultimate. The ratio of exchange is a relation, a reciprocal relation. It works both ways. But behind this relativity, this scheme of relations between values, there lie two values which are absolute. These values rest in the pull exerted on wheat and on milk by the human factor which is fundamental, which in our diagram we have called the "social mind." Values lie behind ratios of exchange, and causally determine them. The important thing for present purposes is merely to note that value is prior to exchange relations, that it is an absolute quantity, and not, as many economists have put it, purely relative. The ratio of exchange is relative, but there must be absolutes behind relations.

A price is merely one particular kind of ratio of exchange, namely, a ratio of exchange in which one of the terms is the value of the money unit.[6] In modern life, prices are the chief form of ratio of exchange, but it is important for some purposes to remember that they are not the only form.

Values may simultaneously rise and fall. There may be an increase or decrease in the sum total of values. Ratios of exchange cannot all rise or fall. A rise in the ratio of the value of wheat to the value of milk means a fall in the ratio of the value of milk to the value of wheat. Both may have fallen in absolute value, but both cannot simultaneously rise or fall with reference to one another. This is the truism regarding ratios of exchange which many economists have inaccurately applied to value itself in the doctrine that there cannot be a simultaneous rise or fall of values. There can be a simultaneous rise or fall of values, but not a simultaneous rise or fall of ratios of exchange.

There can be a general rise or fall of prices. Goods in general, other than money, may rise in value, while money remains constant in value. This would mean a rise in prices. Or, money may fall in value while goods in general are stationary in value. This would also mean a rise in prices. In either case, more money would be given for other goods, and the ratio between the value of the money unit and the value of other goods would have altered adversely to money. There are writers to whom the term, value of money, means merely the average of prices (or the reciprocal of the average of prices). For them, a rise in the average of prices is, ipso facto, a fall in the value of money. This view will receive repeated attention in later chapters. The view maintained in the present book is that the value of money is a quality of money, that quality which money shares with other forms of wealth, which lies behind, and causally explains, the exchange relations into which money enters. Every price implies two values, the value of the money-unit and the value of the unit of the good in question.

Value is prior to exchange. Value is not to be defined as "power in exchange." Certain writers[7] who see the need of a quantitative value, which can be attributed to goods as a quality, still cling to the notion that value is relative, that two goods must exist before one value can exist, and that value is "power in exchange," or "purchasing power." The power is conceived of as something more than the fact of exchange, and as a cause of the exchange relations, but is, none the less, defined in terms of exchange. This position, however, does not really advance the analysis. It is a verbal solution of difficulties merely. To say that goods command a price because they have power in exchange is like saying that opium puts men to sleep because it has a dormitive power. Physicians now recognize that this is no solution of difficulties, that it is merely a repetition of the problem in other words. If we wish to explain exchange, we must seek the explanation in something anterior to exchange. If value is to be distinguished from ratio of exchange at all, it cannot be defined as "power in exchange."

To seek to confine value to exchange relations, moreover, makes it impossible to speak of the value of such things as the Capitol at Washington City, or the value of an entailed estate, or of values as existing between exchanges. Nor can we make the price which a good would command at a given moment the test of its value, except in the case of the highly organized, fluid market. Land, at forced sale, notoriously often brings prices which do not correctly express its value. Moreover, even for wheat in the grain pit, the exchange test is valid only on the assumption that a comparatively small amount is to be sold. If very much is put on the market, the situation is changed, and the value falls. In other words, if "bulls" cease to be "bulls," and shift to the other side of the market, the very elements which were sustaining the value of the wheat have been weakened, and of course its value falls. "Power in exchange" is a function of two factors, (1) value and (2) saleability. A copper cent has high saleability, with little value, while land has high value with little saleability.[8] Some things have value with no saleability at all. In a socialistic community, where all lands, houses, tools, machines, etc., are owned by the state, and where such "prices" as exist are authoritatively prescribed, value and exchange would have no necessary connection. Values would remain, however, guiding the economic activity of the socialistic community, directing labor now here, now there, determining the employment of lands now in this sort of production, now in that. Exchange is only one of the manifestations of value. More fundamental, and more general, including "power in exchange," but not exhausted by it, is the power which objects of value have over the economic activities of men. This is the fundamental function of values. The entailed estate, which cannot be sold, still has power over the actions of men. The care which is taken of it, the amount of insurance which an insurance company will write on it, etc., are manifestations and measures of its value. The same may be said of the Capitol at Washington.[9]

In the fluid market, prices correctly express values. Assuming that the money-unit is fixed in value, variations in prices in the fluid market correctly indicate variations in values. The great bulk of our economic theory, the laws of supply and demand, cost of production, the capitalization theory, etc., do assume the fluid market, and a fixed value of the dollar.[10] Our economic theory is static theory, in general, and abstracts from the time factor and from "friction." In fact, values change first, and then, more or less rapidly, and more or less completely, prices respond. In the active wholesale and speculative markets, where the overwhelming bulk of exchanging takes place, the prices respond quickly. Static theory is thus adequate for the explanation of these prices, for most practical purposes, so long as the changes in prices are due to changing values of goods, rather than to changing value of the money-unit. Moreover, the distinction between value and price is, in a fluid market, where the value of money is changing slowly, often not important. In the assumption of money, and of a fixed value of money, the absolute value concept is already assumed. No harm is done, however, if the economist does not explicitly refer to this, but goes on merely talking about money-prices. Very many economic problems indeed may be solved that way. This is why the inadequate character of the conceptions of value as "ratio of exchange" or "purchasing power" has not prevented these notions from being serviceable tools in the hands of many writers. But there are many problems for which these conceptions are not adequate, because the implicit assumption of a fixed value of money cannot be made. Among these problems is the problem of the value of money itself, which constitutes the subject of this book. For that problem, an absolute value concept is vital.

If, in our diagram above, we substitute for "social mind" the more general expression, "human factor," we should find that our value concept is the common property of many writers. We should find it fitting in with the absolute value notion of Adam Smith and of Ricardo.[11] The "human factor" which explains the absolute value is, for them, labor. We should find it fitting in with the "socially necessary labor time" of Marx: the value of a bushel of wheat is the amount of labor time which, on the average, is required to produce a bushel of wheat. It is an absolute value. It is a causal coefficient with the absolute value, similarly explained, of the bushel of corn, in explaining the wheat-price of corn. Our concept will fit in exactly with the "social use-value" of Carl Knies, according to whom the economic value of a good in society is an average of its varying use-values to different individuals in the market. This average is an absolute quantity. The absolute values of units of two goods, thus explained, causally fix the exchange ratio between the goods. Knies' value-theory, it may be noticed, is explicitly modeled on that of Marx, to whom he refers, the difference being that Knies takes an average of individual use-values, while Marx takes an average of individual labor-times, as the causal explanation.[12] Our value concept will fit perfectly with Professor J. B. Clark's "social marginal utility" theory of value. Indeed, the present writer gratefully acknowledges that the concept is Professor Clark's rather than his own, and that all that is necessary for its explanation has been set forth by Professor Clark.[13] Professor Clark's causal theory of value, his explanation of this absolute quantity of value as a sum of individual marginal utilities, we have elsewhere[14] criticised as involving circular reasoning, like all marginal utility theories, in so far as they offer causal explanations. But his statement of the logical character of value, of the relation of value to wealth, of value to price, of value to exchange, of the functions of the value concept in economic theory, and of the functions of value in economic life,—Clark's doctrines on these points we have accepted bodily, and in so far as the present writer has added anything to them it has been by way of elaboration and defence.

The concept of value here developed is explicitly adopted by T. S. Adams, David Kinley, W. A. Scott, W. G. L. Taylor, L. S. Merriam, and A. S. Johnson, among American writers, to name no others. All of these writers would concur in the formal and logical considerations[15] as to the nature of value here presented, whatever differences might appear among them as to the causal explanation of value.

The value concept here presented performs the same logical functions as the "inner objective value" of Karl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Karl Helfferich, discussed in our chapter on "Marginal Utility," below, and is, in its formal and logical aspects, to be identified with that notion. It is essentially like Wieser's "public economic value," discussed in the same chapter.[16] That there should remain critics[17] who consider the present writer a daring innovator, who is thrusting a personal idiosyncracy in terminology upon economic theory, is striking evidence that men often talk about books which they have not read! The reader who accepts, provisionally, the doctrine so far presented, as a tool of thought which will aid us in the further progress of the argument, may do so with the full assurance that he is accepting a tried and tested concept, which has seemed necessary to very many indeed of the great masters of the science.[18]

So far, the writer feels himself in accord with the main current of economic thought. When we come to a causal explanation of the value quantity, however, earlier theories appear unsatisfactory. The labor theory of value has long since broken down, and has been generally abandoned. The reasons for this will appear in the chapter on "Cost of Production." The effort to explain value by marginal utility, by the satisfactions which individuals derive from the last increment consumed of a commodity, has likewise broken down, as will appear in the chapter on "Marginal Utility." In general, it may be said that the effort to pick out feeling magnitudes,[19] either of pleasure or pain, in the minds of individuals, and combine them into a social quantity, leads to circular reasoning. Thus, the utility theory: It is not alone the intensity of a man's marginal desire for a good which determines his influence on the market. If he has no money, he may desire a thing ever so intensely without giving it value. If he is rich, a slight desire counts for a great deal. In other words, utility, backed by value, gives a commodity value. But this is to explain value by value, which is circular. So with the theory of average labor time. How shall we average labor time? The problem is easy if we confine ourselves, say, to wheat. If one bushel of wheat is produced with ten hours' labor, a second with eight hours' labor and a third with six hours' labor, the average is eight hours, and we may fix the value of the bushel of wheat according. But suppose we wish to compare the labor engaged in making hats with the labor engaged in raising wheat. How can such labor be compared? Hats are, in their physical aspects, incommensurable with wheat. The one quality which they have in common, relevant to the present interest, is value. Given the value of the wheat and the value of the hats, you may compare and average out the labor engaged in producing them. But if value must be employed as a means of averaging labor, it is clear that average labor can be no explanation of value. This is not the only flaw in the labor-time theory, but it illustrates a vice which it has in common with all those theories which start with individual elements, and seek to combine them into a social quantity. The whole method of approach is wrong. It makes two abstractions, neither of which is legitimate: first, it abstracts the individual from his vital and organic connections with his fellows, and then, second, it takes from the individual, thus abstracted, only a small part, that part immediately concerned with the consumption or production of wealth. In this process of abstraction, very much of the explanation of value is left out. The whole man, in his social relations, must be taken into account before we can get an adequate theory of value. We turn, then, to a brief discussion of society and the individual, and to a discussion of those individual activities and social relations which are most significant in the explanation of economic value.

All mental processes are in the minds of individual men. There is no social "oversoul" which transcends individual minds, and there is no social "consciousness" which stands outside of and above the consciousnesses of individuals. So much by way of emphatic concurrence with those critics of the social value theory[20] who persist in foisting upon the theory the notion that there is a social oversoul, or that the "social organism" is some so far unclassified biological specimen. To say that economic value is a social value, the product of many minds in organic interplay, is not to say that economic value is independent of processes in the minds of individual men, or that it results from any mysterious behavior of a social oversoul.

The human animal is born with certain innate instincts and capacities. Human animals of different races and different strains are in highly important points different in their instincts and capacities. But the human animal is not born with a human mind. Nor could the human animal, apart from association with his fellows, ever develop a human mind. "The human mind is what happens to the human animal in a social situation."[21] Of course, without the care of adults, the infant would, in general, promptly perish. But, more fundamental for our purposes, is the fact that all the important stimuli which play upon the child during his first two years, when the human mind is being developed, are social stimuli. So true is this, that the child's commerce with physical things runs in social terms. The child interprets the physical objects about him personally, attributes life and human attributes to them, holds conversation with them, praises and blames them, makes companions of them. This animism of the child, so puzzling to an old-fashioned psychology, is readily explained by social psychology. It is a social interpretation of the universe. It follows naturally from the principle of apperception: the interpretation of the unknown in terms of the known; the extension of accumulated experience to the interpretation of new experiences. The first experiences of the human animal are social experiences.

In the history of human society, a similar generalization is possible. The human individual is found, not in primitive life, but late in the scale of social evolution. Individuality is a social product. The savage is not a free, self-conscious person, who can set himself off against the group, and feel himself an isolated centre of power. His life is wrapped up in the group life. In the great barbarian states like Ancient Egypt or China, the life of the individual was so controlled by social tradition, and innovation was so ruthlessly crushed out that individuality had little scope. Greece and Judea gave larger scope to individual variation, but the individual still felt himself bound up with his group, and was stoned, given hemlock, or crucified if he challenged the existing social order too seriously. The break-up of the Greek city states, as independent sovereignties, and their subjection to the universal sway of Rome, made it possible for the cultured Greek to set himself up in opposition to the State; the coming of Christianity, substituting personal relations with deity, for the communal worship which had preceded it, gave the individual a vital interest apart from the life of the group about him, so that he could still further feel independent of his immediate social environment. The development by the Roman lawyers of the Jus Gentium, the law which is common to all nations as distinguished from the particular law of a given group, emphasized the doctrine of the Christian religion and of the Stoic philosophy of a humanity which transcends the limits of a given state,[22]—a notion which tended to free the individual from dependence on his immediate associates. But note that in all this we have merely a widening and multiplying of social relationships, and that the individual gains freedom from one set of social relationships only by coming into others. The Christian gains freedom from his immediate surroundings because he feels himself in communion with "angels and archangels and all the glorious company of Heaven." Francis Bacon could survive his degradation in the England of his day because he could leave his "name and memory ... to foreign nations and to the next age."

Bagehot, in his Physics and Politics, Tarde, and Baldwin, to name no others,[23] have shown how tremendously responsive human beings are to suggestion, how wide is the sway of imitation in human life, how fashion, mode, custom, etc., make and mold the individual. Cooley,[24] with an improved psychology, has amplified the analysis, tracing the development of the individual mind in interaction with the minds of those about him, making still clearer the sweep and pervasiveness of social factors in framing the very self of the individual. In what follows, I assume the results of these investigations. They constitute the starting point from which we set out on the quest of a theory of economic value.

So much for the individual. He is a social product. But what of society? Objective, external, constraining and impelling forces, which are not physical, which are seemingly not the products of the will of other individuals with whom the individual holds converse, meet the individual on every hand. There is the Moral Law, sacred and majestic, which stands above him, demanding the sacrifice of many of his impulses and desires. There is the Law, external to him and to his fellows, in seeming, failure to obey which may ruin his life. There is Public Opinion, which presents itself to him as an opaque, impersonal force, before which he must bow, and which he feels quite powerless to change. There are Economic Values ruling in the market place, directing industry in its changing from one sort of production to another, bringing prosperity to one individual and bankruptcy to another, not with the caprice of an individual will, but with the remorseless impersonality of wind and tide. He who conforms to them, who anticipates their mutations, gains great wealth—but no business man dare set his personal values against them. There are great Institutions, Church and State and Courts and Professions and giant Corporations and Political Parties, and multitudinous other less formal or smaller institutions, which go on in continuous life, though the men who act within them pass and change. Their Life seems an independent life, and the individual who tries to change their course finds that his efforts mean little indeed, as a rule. There is a realm of Social Objectivity, a realm of organization, activity, purpose and power, not physical in character, not mechanical in nature, which is set in opposition to individual will, purpose, power, and activity. How is the individual related to this objective social world?

Three main types of theory have sought to answer this question. On the one hand, there is a type of theory, doubtless the oldest type, a type which arises easily in a period when social changes are slow, which sees in the objective social world something really separate and distinct from individual life, having a non-human origin, and deriving its power from something other than the human will. On the other hand, there is an extreme individualism, which emphasizes individual separateness, which posits as a datum the individuality which we have seen to be a social product, and thinks of the objective social realm as a mere mechanical, mathematical summing up of individual factors, or as a something which individuals have consciously made, by contract or agreement, or what not. Finally, there is a type of theory, to which the present writer would adhere, which finds a false antithesis in the contrast thus sharply made between society and individual, which holds that the individual is not, in his psychological activity, so much set off from the activities of his fellows as the contrast would indicate, but rather shares in the give and take of a larger mental life. This larger mental life is completely accounted for when all the individuals are completely accounted for, but it cannot be accounted for by considering the individuals separately. No individual is completely, or primarily, accounted for until his relations to the rest of the group are analyzed. Thinkers who start out with the individuals separately conceived, and then seek to combine them in some arithmetical way, abstract from those organic social relations which constitute the very heart of the phenomenon we are seeking to explain. The parts are in the whole, but the whole is not the sum of the parts. The relationships are not arithmetical, additive, mechanical, but are vital and organic. Men's minds function together, in an organic unity.[25]

The first two of these types of theory (perhaps because individuals are physically sharply marked off from one another, and go on in biological functioning in obvious separateness) have falsely accentuated the self-dependence and separateness of individual minds. The second type of theory, which has sought to work out the whole thing on the basis of this false conception of the individual, has largely failed to see the objective social realities, or has, with methodological rigor, denied their existence. This second type of thinking has especially characterized a good deal of economic theory, which rests on the philosophy and psychology of David Hume.[26] We will set our doctrine in clearer light if we contrast three parallel types of theory which have appeared with reference to the nature of morality, of law, and of economic value. For each of these phenomena, we have theories which represent all three of the types of social thinking to which we have referred.

In the theory of morals, we have, at one extreme, doctrines like those of Kant and Fichte, according to whom morality is a matter of obligation, independent of the human will, independent of consequences, inherent in the nature of things. Man's mind can find out what the moral law is, but man's mind has nothing to do with the making of the moral law. The same notion is involved in the ideas of "natural rights," "justice though the heavens fall," and the like. The conception is strikingly brought out in the question about which old theologians sometimes debated: is Right right because God enjoins it, or does God enjoin Right because it is Right? Whether or not Right is supreme over God, these old theologians never questioned that Right is supreme over all human wishes and desires, and in no sense an outcome of them. At the other extreme, we have the moral doctrine of the Sophists, for whom each man's will was right for him—a doctrine which reappears in every individualistic and anarchistic age. For this doctrine, there are no valid social standards of right and wrong. There is nothing binding on the moral agent but his own will. In between, is the moral doctrine of such thinkers as Friedrich Paulsen, or John Dewey, who represent the reigning type of moral theory to-day. For them, morality is a purely human matter. It grows out of the needs and interests of men. What is good at one time and place is not necessarily good at another time and place. There are no immutable moral principles, valid throughout the ages. None the less, morality is not a private matter, about which men may do as they please. Morality is the product of an organic society, the product of the interplay of many minds. To a given individual, the moral law is, indeed, an external constraining and impelling force. It is the will of the rest of the group. It may be his own will too, but if it is not, it overrides his personal preference, He, on the other hand, is part of the group which constrains and guides every other individual. There are, in fact, many sets of moral values: on the one hand, the social moral values par excellence, which the group will enforce in various ways; and then, for each individual, his own moral values, which may correspond qualitatively more or less with the group values, or may antagonize them. But the Moral Law is the will of the group. It is no simple composite of the moral values of individuals. It has its organic interrelations with all phases of social life. Economic changes modify it, legal changes modify it, religious values modify it, all phases of social life are expressed in it.

In legal theory, we find these three types of doctrine also. The first type is clearly indicated in the general attitude of American and English courts, especially toward the common law, though it influences their interpretation of all law. The law is something which the mind of man may find out, but may not make. If a new situation arises, the court "finds" the law—in theory the principle "discovered" by the court was in the common law at the beginning. Of course, we know that the judge invents the rule he makes, to fit a novel case, but the judge himself will not admit it. The theory of the law and the theory of morality have developed in close connection, and the notion of "natural right" is a juristic as well as a moral idea. At the other extreme, we have from certain recent students of law the doctrine that "The Law" is a myth, that there is nothing but the particular opinion of a particular judge at a particular time. Individualism cannot go so far in legal theory as to give every individual in society a chance to put his oar in, and have a separate law for himself! The social and institutional character of law is too obvious to permit that. But individualism has gone so far in legal theory as to deny all objectivity to law except in a given decision in a particular case. In between these two extreme views, appear the views of writers like Savigny, or Professor Munroe Smith, for whom the law is a changing product of social psychology, volitional[27] rather than intellectual in character, objective enough to the individual who violates it, or the judge who seeks to pervert it, but none the less not outside the minds and interests of men. In Professor Munroe Smith's phrase, law is "that part of the social order which by virtue of the social will may be supported by physical force."[28] I venture to describe this type of legal theory as the "social value" theory of the law. In the chapter on "The Reconciliation of Statics and Dynamics," infra, I have cited certain opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes which apply it, and even bring into it the notions of the marginal analysis.

There are, similarly, three types of economic theory. At the one extreme we have theories of "intrinsic" value, which would place economic value outside the wills of men. The mediæval discussions of "just price" often illustrate this notion. It creeps not infrequently into judicial opinions,—to which such notions are essentially congenial! The working economist of our own day has found little use for it, but in periods when economic change was slow it suggested itself not unnaturally to men, as an explanation of the seeming impersonality of market phenomena, and as a practical idea for combatting extortion and injustice. Something of the idea is involved in a sentence of Shakspere's:[29]