At the opposite extreme would be those economists, as Professor Davenport and Jevons, who find no value for a good except in the minds of individual men, so that there may be as many different values as there are different men. That something social and objective exists in the market place can hardly be denied, but when pressed for an account of it, these writers reduce it to a bare, abstract, mathematical ratio.[30] Each individual mind is shut up within its own limits, inscrutable to other minds, and there can be no psychological phenomena which include activities in many minds, for this view. In between these two extremes, is the social value theory of the present writer. Economic value is not intrinsic in goods, independent of the minds of men. But it is a fact which is in large degree independent of the mind of any given man. To a given individual in the market, the economic value of a good is a fact as external, as objective, as opaque and stubborn, as is the weight of the object, or the law against murder. There are individual values, marginal utilities, of goods which may differ in magnitude and in quality from man to man, but there is, over and above these, influenced by them in part, influencing them much more than they influence it, a social value for each commodity, a product of a complex social psychology, which includes the individual values, but includes very much more as well. Our theory puts law, moral values, and economic values in the same general class, species of the genus, social value, alike in their psychological "stuff" and character, to be explained by the same general principles, even though differentiated in their functions, and in the extent to which they depend on various factors in the social situation. They are parts of a social system of motivation and control. They are the social forces, which govern, in a social scheme, the actions of men.

It may be well to suggest rough differentiæ which mark off these values from one another. Legal values are social values which will be enforced, if need be, by the organized physical force of the group, through the government. Moral values are social values which the group enforces by approbation and disapprobation, by cold shoulders and ostracism or by honor and praise. Economic values are values which the group enforces under a system of free enterprise, by means of profits and losses, by riches or bankruptcy. The group may, under a communistic or socialistic system, rely in whole or in part upon the machinery of the law; in which case economic values appear not in their own form as immediately guiding production, but as "presuppositions" of some of the legal values.

The differentiation of these types of social value may also run in terms of their functions,[31] though it is not so easy to mark them off here, since their functions overlap. The function of economic values is to guide and control the economic activities of men, to send labor from one industry to another, to cause one sort of thing to be produced or another, to supply the motive force which impels industry. Legal and moral values also directly affect industry, often working to check the results which the economic values alone would lead to—as when the law forbids the production and sale of liquor, or checks child labor, etc. The law, on the other hand, does not, primarily, in its influence on industry, seek positively to determine its direction. The law forbids the production of liquor, but does not decree the production of bread. The law may seek to affect industry positively, by protective tariffs, for example, which aim at the building up of certain industries, but its effects are here indirect, reached through modifications in the economic values. Economic values, on the other hand, do not primarily aim at the regulation of the conduct of men outside the market place, or the shop or the farm, etc. Economic values are not primarily concerned with making men be good husbands or good neighbors, or brave soldiers. Economic values may be used, in part, for these purposes, as when a father-in-law uses his wealth as a lever to make his son-in-law behave—or, indeed, as a bait to get a son-in-law! It is hard to find a phase of social life which is not touched by all types of social values, but it is possible, roughly, to mark off those phases of social life which are subject to primary regulation by one or the other sort of social value.

The differentiation is easier when we look at the social institutions which have to do primarily with the one or the other sort of value. Courts and legislatures are easily marked off from stock exchanges and banking houses. There is not so clearly an institutional nucleus for moral values, since the church has lost its control over the moral situation.

When we view the matter from the standpoint of the objects of value, differentiæ also appear. The main type of object of moral value is modes of conduct; the "type object" of economic value is physical things which men eat, wear, drink, etc., even though quantitatively the major part of the sum total of economic values attach to other things, instrumental goods, lands, labor, and social relations, like franchise rights, good will, which in the main reflect the values of consumers' goods;[32] objects of legal value are in large degree the same as objects of moral value, namely, modes of conduct, but moral values attach to a wider group of objects, and legal values attach to certain forms of conduct which are morally indifferent.

It is not so easy to make the differentiation when we view the thing from the standpoint of the consciousness of men who are at the centre of the situation, to whose consciousness the social values are presented. We may put at the very forefront of the economic value of oranges the gustatory feelings or desires of those who consume them; at the forefront of the moral value of a heroic rescue by a fireman the thrill that runs through the onlookers. Qualitatively, these psychological states are different, as those who have experienced both will know. But it is difficult indeed to put the difference into words. When it comes to a legal value, say the legal value of a given contract right which a man seeks to enforce in court, it is not easy to find any particular emotion or state of consciousness which is peculiar or appropriate to it. The value is so highly institutionalized and impersonal, that it seems to the court and lawyers and even the litigants to be merely a question of fact to be intellectually analyzed. Its roots are deep in human emotions, but not in the emotions, primarily, of those who are handling the transaction. Perhaps the jurist has states of consciousness we know not of. There may be a distinctively legal emotion. It seems to crop out at times when one questions, in conversation with a judge or lawyer, the infallibility of the courts. But the law does not derive its power therefrom! Rather, the law derives its power from the general consent and acquiescence and support of the mass of men, who turn over to experts the details of administering it, and who support The Law in general, rather than the rule of the corpus delicti, with their emotional sanction.

I think that we have here a clue to a vital point for our theory. We need not expect to find the major part of the explanation of any of these social values in the conscious emotions of those who are moved by them. In the case of the orange or the heroic act, we are, indeed, close to pretty simple human feelings and desires. In general, in the case of moral values, the individual emotion and the social value are qualitatively comparable, since moral values rarely take on a highly institutional character. They are more free from class or institutional control than other social values. This need not be true. Thus, the plantation negro need not feel any personal shame in the moral delinquency which he none the less hides from the "white folks" whose values he must more or less conform to. But, on the whole, moral values are much more "participation values,"[33] shared by the whole group in common, than are economic values or legal values. When we pass beyond the simple case of a consumption good, and get into the realm of the more institutional economic values, we lose all guidance from the clue of satisfactions in consumption. Just what emotion, for example, is appropriate in the presence of the four and a half per cent convertible bond of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co.? If it be answered that ultimately that bond represents satisfactions in consumption, since the owner of it may spend the income for consumers' goods, or since the railroad in question carries coal which goes to Italy to be used in a cruiser which will sink an Austrian warship, thereby giving consumers' satisfactions to individuals in Italy, so that the value of the bond is ultimately reducible to specific satisfactions of given individuals, we may still hold that those satisfactions do not constitute the value of the bond, as such. Moreover, the same is true of the legal values. Ultimately, very specific human emotions are affected by the rule of the corpus delicti, or the rule governing pleas in estoppel. Both in legal and in economic values we have an elaborate and complex system of social psychological character, which can by no means be reduced to elementary desires or feelings of individuals, even though when the whole story is told, no part of the system will be found outside the minds of individual men. The point has been well put by Professor C. H. Cooley: "It would be as reasonable to attempt to explain the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, or the Institutes of Calvin, by the immediate working of religious instinct as to explain the market values of the present time by the immediate working of natural wants."[34] I think that any attempt to differentiate the various kinds of social value on the basis of the type of emotion in the minds of those who have most immediately to do with them, or to explain them primarily by those emotions, is foredoomed. The law does not get its power from the emotion of the judge who gives a decision, nor does the value of a rare painting rest chiefly in the intensity of desire of the few rich connoisseurs who compete for it. Back of the judge, giving validity to his decision, stands the will of the group; back of the rich connoisseurs stand the legal and other social values concerned with the distribution of wealth, by virtue of which they are able to make their wants felt in the market. Both judge and connoisseur are focal points, through which stream the social forces affecting the values in question. Both are important. But the emotions and ideas of neither exhaust the psychological causation involved in the values.

This is very much more apparent when we consider the values that arise in the great speculative markets, say in the wheat pit, or the stock exchange. Those who buy and sell are primarily interpreters, students, of impersonal, social forces, seeking to adjust themselves to them, to forecast them, in such a way as to derive profit from them. Their choices and decisions are also factors. Indeed, it is possible to view the matter in such a way as to make their decisions the whole story. In the same way, it is possible to make the mind of the judge the final explanation of the legal value. But the speculators themselves are under no such illusion. They know very well that if they run counter to the facts they will lose money. And the judge knows very well that the range of arbitrary choice which he can exercise without impeachment, or at least without reversal by a higher court, is very limited. Nor is even a Supreme Court of the United States free to do its arbitrary will. Just because it is so conspicuous, and because its doings are so important, it has manifested more respect for judicial tradition, and more responsiveness to the tides of public sentiment, than any other court in the Federal Judiciary.[35]

The head of a great banking house makes a decision regarding an underwriting operation. On his decision depends the question of whether or not the securities are issued. On the issue of the new securities depends, in part, the values of the existing securities of the corporation in question, and the nature of the future employment of thousands of men and great quantities of land and capital. Tremendous power is concentrated in the hands of this banker. But it is not his power! He cannot exercise it in an arbitrary or capricious way. He approaches his problem in much the same spirit that the judge approaches a disputed question of law. He analyzes the factors involved. He considers the condition of the money-market, the question of the probable ease or difficulty of marketing the new securities to investors, the prospects of the business of the corporation in question, the probable future demand for its products, the stability of that demand, the personnel of the management of the corporation, the attitude of the government toward it, the nature of its other outstanding securities, with special reference to the proportion of bonds to stocks, and the amount of "fixed charges" against its earnings. He may also take into account other enterprises of similar character which he has connections with, and the question of whether or not building up the corporation in question may injure other corporations to which he has responsibilities. He looks far into the future, seeking to conserve his prestige, and unwilling to assume responsibility for an issue which investors will later lose faith in. Proximately, his decision is tremendously important, and his thoughts and feelings are of immense significance, but ultimately, they are determined by all manner of social considerations, and always, the degree to which they count in determining values depends on his weight in the economic situation, which rests (1) on his prestige, i. e., the massing of beliefs and hopes of many men, (2) on his wealth, which rests in the legal and moral values governing distribution, and (3) on his institutional relationships, which again are psychological facts, partly legal in character. He is as much a social instrument as is the judge. Both may abuse their power. Both do at times abuse their power. But the significant point is that the power both have is social power, and is in no sense proportional to the intensity of their own emotions. It arises from the emotional power in the minds of many men.

It would be easy to elaborate the points in which morals, laws, and economic values are alike, and to show in detail that the theory of economic value is merely a special case of the general theory of social value. For our present purposes, however, it is enough to have illustrated the general doctrine, and to have set up the economic values as true social forces. It may be noticed that the effort to differentiate the different kinds of value is not altogether successful. They are not in watertight compartments in social life. It is a commonplace among students of ethics that moral values grow, in greater or less degree, out of economic factors. Indeed, the "economic interpretation of history" has as its central theme the doctrine that morality, law, and ideal values in general are governed by the economic situation. This is a one-sided view. Moral and legal values are influenced and modified by economic forces. Legal and moral values do, in part, derive their power from economic values. But on the other hand, economic values likewise derive part of their power from legal and moral values. The "social mind" is an organic whole, in which no factors exist "pure," and in which there is constant give and take. The effort to explain moral values by a single principle, as sympathy, legal values by another simple principle, as fear, and economic values by a different simple principle, as utility, is foredoomed. It has been given up by the students of law and morals, and should be abandoned by the students of economics.

Let us consider more narrowly the main factors affecting and explaining economic social values. Let us take, first, the simplest case, that of goods and services which minister directly to human wants, goods and services "of the first order." Goods of this sort would be oranges, bread, clothing, jewels. Services of this sort would be the services of the barber, the valet, the physician, the preacher, the teacher, the actor. I abstract, in discussing these values, from the complications that grow out of the friction in retail trade, and the existence of many customary prices, and prices fixed by other than economic values, in the case of teachers, or preachers. I shall concentrate attention upon such things as oranges, bread, clothing, and jewels. The focus of the values of these things, and an essential condition of their existence, is their utility, that is to say, their power to satisfy human wants. Utility as used in economics does not mean usefulness in any moral sense. From the standpoint of the economist, whiskey and opium are as useful as bread, if they satisfy wants equally intense. And the economist is not concerned with the general utility of things considered in their totality. Air is more useful than jewels, but a carat of air is not as useful as a one-carat diamond. Air exists in such abundance that it does not need to be economized. Scarcity with reference to the extent of the wants involved is also essential to economic value. A combination of the ideas of utility and scarcity gives us the simple notion for which the formidable name of "marginal utility" has been devised. The marginal utility of a good to a man is the power the last, or "marginal," unit of the good which the man consumes has to give him satisfaction, or, viewed from the standpoint of the man, is the intensity of his desire[36] for, or of his satisfaction in, the final unit consumed. So far, our account of the value of the orange will seem perfectly acceptable to those accustomed to traditional discussions of the problem in the text-books. The difference is that many text-books stop at this point, leaving the impression that with the definition of marginal utility the whole value problem has been solved. For the social value theory, the conception of marginal utility is barely a starting point. Indeed, it is not even a starting point. We shall have to look both in front of it and behind it. Recognizing that marginal utilities to individuals are essential to economic values of consumption goods, we shall have to point out other things which are also essential, and we shall have to explain the factors determining these marginal utilities themselves.

The last point may be considered first. Men's desires are socially determined. Even the simplest, most instinctive, wants of human nature are, in their concrete manifestations, the product of social culture in overwhelming degree. Consider sex and hunger. We do not enjoy our food when our neighbors pick their teeth with their forks. This would not trouble a chimpanzee, whose instinctive equipment in the matter of hunger is vastly more like that of a man than is the actual hunger impulse of a highly civilized man like that of a savage. Civilized men will often starve rather than eat human flesh. Even when moral scruples are overcome, actual physical revulsion may prevent it. Men of different times and places wish food of special sorts, served in special ways. They wish to eat in the company of their fellows, but only of those fellows who can know and obey the ritual that is appropriate to the time and place. This is true of humble folk as of those who "dress for dinner." The ritual differs for the two sorts of people. But there is a spirit, a type of conversation, a code of etiquette, which prevails at the mealtime of virtually all men, and too serious digressions therefrom will take away the appetites of all. About the mealtime and the festal board have gathered a great host of traditions, ideals, and social activities, till they have become in verity an institution, and not the least important, by any means, of social institutions. Out of the simple instinct of sex, we have evolved many of the most precious things of our civilization, and between the sex impulse of the animal and the sex impulse of the gentleman who is seeking to marry the one woman in all the world, there is a difference so great that comparison between the two is difficult.

Here we have wants which grow out of the most elementary things in human nature, wants which are intense and universal, but which vary, in their concrete manifestations, enormously from age to age and from place to place. When we come to the wants which change more quickly, the fact that social factors dominate needs no arguing. Fashion, mode, custom, obviously account for the concrete wants that exist in clothing, ornamentation, amusement, housing, etc. If we wish to know what women will be wanting to wear six months hence, we do not go to women individually and ask them. We could not find out that way. They would not know. We go rather to the theatre, and study the stage and the boxes, to the famous designers of women's dress, to the metropolitan centres of various sorts, to the "radiant points of social control"[37] from which emanate the suggestions which pass in imitative waves through the women of the country in the next few months. The laws of imitation have been elaborately developed by Bagehot, Tarde, Baldwin, Ross, LeBon, Cooley, and others, and I content myself here with referring to their writings. The wants of women—and men—are socially given, grow out of a give and take, a social process. And in this social process, it is not true that each man counts one! Rather, a few lead, and many follow. There are centres of prestige which count overwhelmingly.

Certain wants are competitive.[38] Where social status depends on having as good a house as one's neighbors, and where social leadership depends on having a better house than one's neighbors, there is no limit to men's desires for better houses. With each improvement which one introduces, each feels the desire to improve, however contented he might have been had the other not made the improvement. To this we shall recur in our discussion of the origin of money, in explaining the value of gold.

So much for the human wants which stand as the focus of economic values in the case of articles of immediate consumption.

But, given these wants, and given their marginal intensities, we are only at the beginning of our explanation of the economic values of the consumption goods. It is again not a case of each want counting one, to the extent of its intensity. There are again, by virtue of the legal and moral values governing the distribution of wealth, centres of power. The wants of some men count for nothing, however intense they may be. The pauper, the prisoner, the beggar—popular proverb about "beggars and horses" understands them, however much the "marginal utilitarian" may forget that their wants count for nothing.[39] The slightest whim, on the other hand, of the man who has inherited millions may count heavily in giving values to goods. For the explanation of the values of consumption goods, then, we need both the socially determined marginal utilities of individuals, and the socially determined weight which these individuals have in our economic system. This weight would involve a very elaborate explanation. Many factors affect it. We call attention here, however, especially to the fact that it rests in large part on the legal and moral values and institutions concerned with the distribution of wealth. Changes in the distribution of wealth are as important as changes in the wants themselves in giving the explanation of changes in values. The economic social values of consumption goods include not merely the values of those goods to the individuals who consume them, but also the values of the individuals themselves in the social scheme of things.

What of the values of instrumental goods, of goods of "higher orders," of labor, of stocks and bonds, of lands, of franchise rights and good will?

It is the one great contribution of the Austrian economists to have shown that the causation in value runs, primarily, from consumption goods to the goods of higher "orders" which are concerned with their production, and that these values of instrumental goods, etc., are derived and secondary values. The value of wheat is based on the value of bread, the value of land on the value of wheat. The value of the stock of United States Steel rests in part on the value of iron lands, which rests on the value of ore, which rests on the value of pig iron, which rests on the value of steel rails, which rests on the value of the service of transporting building materials, which rests on the value of a building, which rests on the value of the services which a dentist performs in an office in the building. This is the main line of causation. This is the first approximation which gives us a clue, without which we should find problems insoluble. But is it not clear that this cannot be the whole story? At every step complications enter. The whole thing cannot be got out of the value of the dentist's services, and the other consumers' goods and services, which are indirectly aided by the property to which title is given by ownership of U.S. Steel stock; nor is the value of the stock to be fully explained by the value of the property to which it gives title.

At every step, we meet the complication that men must estimate and calculate, for one thing. And rarely indeed can men see all the steps, the end from the beginning. Take first a very simple case, wheat land. The value of the wheat land of to-day rests on the value of wheat, but it is the wheat of to-morrow and for many years to come; the wheat of to-morrow rests for its value on the value of the bread of the day after to-morrow. Sometimes the differential between goods at two consecutive steps in the productive process is pretty constant. Wheat and flour vary pretty closely together. The differential is not strictly fixed even there. But bread and wheat land have a much looser connection in their variations. If land could produce no wheat or corn or other good that would satisfy human wants, and if it could not itself satisfy human wants, it would ordinarily have no value.[40] But the connection between the value of the bread and the value of the land is loose and uncertain, while the connection between the value of the land and the intensity of the wants actually satisfied by the bread produced from it, is absolutely nil. Whether the bread saves a starving man or feeds the pet pigeons of a millionaire, is a matter of indifference so far as the value of the land (or of the bread) is concerned.

We take the values of consumption goods, and break them up, attributing part to the labor that immediately produced them, part to the raw materials that entered into them, part to the machine that fashioned them, and so on. We then break up the value attributed to the raw material, attributing part to the labor that worked in producing it immediately, part to the machine that fashioned it, part to the rawer material of which it was made. And so with the values of the machines. Ultimately we get back to the values of labor, or of land, or of securities giving title to complexes of lands, machines, etc.—values which we do not further break up. But at every step, we find additional factors. We find these derived values becoming independent, substantial, standing in their own right. Moral and legal values affect them directly, as in the case of patriotic support of government securities, moral antagonism to the securities of the Distillers' Securities Corporation, or the influence of court decisions, legislation and elections on security values. Such values rest, in large degree, on the massing of beliefs and hopes, not concerned with specific satisfactions of wants, but with the existence of future economic values. These beliefs and hopes again have their social explanation. It is not a case where each man counts one. There are centres of prestige and power, bankers and financial magnates, whose opinions and decisions count heavily, and waves of optimism and pessimism, which affect the whole group. We shall discuss these matters more fully in connection with the analysis of credit, at a later point of our study. For the present, it is enough to point out that the whole thing cannot be explained on the basis of the values of consumers' goods, and that the values of consumers' goods are only in small part explained by the intensities of the wants they serve.

In summary: Economic value is the common quality of wealth, by virtue of which it is possible to compare divers kinds of wealth, and treat wealth quantitatively, getting ratios of exchange, sums of wealth, etc. Value is a quantity, i. e., a quality which has degrees of intensity. Ratios of exchange are ratios between values. Price is a particular sort of ratio of exchange, namely, a ratio in which one of the terms is the value of the money-unit. Prices correctly express values on the assumption of the fluid market, and on the assumption that the value of the money-unit does not vary.

The value quality is psychological in character. It rests in human minds. But not in the minds of individuals thought of separately. It is a complex of many individual mental activities, highly institutionalized, and including legal and moral values, hopes and beliefs and expectations, as well as the immediate intensities of men's wants for consumption goods.

The ultimate test of scientific theory must be practice. If a theory aids in manipulating facts, if it leads to the discovery of ways of doing things which are better than old ways, if it solves problems which have hitherto remained unsolved, or carries the solution of problems farther than has hitherto been the case, it is a good theory. It need not be the best possible theory. It need not be a final theory. The chief claim for the present theory of value is that it not only unlocks all the doors that earlier theories have unlocked, but also others which have resisted the old keys. The man who goes into the modern stock market armed with marginal utility and the quantity theory is like the man who would fight Hindenburg with bows and arrows. Bows and arrows are effective in the hands of expert archers, and the great figures in the history of economics have done wonderful things with marginal utility, "real costs," and the quantity theory. But the social value theory is offered as a better weapon.

The writer believes that the problem of the value of money has not been solved by the older theories of value. He believes that the social value theory will solve it. He proposes on the basis of the social value theory to make clearer the nature of credit phenomena, and to assimilate the laws of credit to the general laws of value. He proposes with the social value theory to bring together in a higher synthesis two divergent types of economic theory, the "static" and the "dynamic." He thinks that a rigorous and consistent application of the absolute concept of value will clarify confusions at various points in the general body of price theory, as the laws of supply and demand, etc.

He offers the social value theory as the only way of giving a psychological explanation to the demand-curve, and a marginal value explanation of marginal demand-price. Demand-curves are social value curves, on the assumption of the fixed social value of the dollar. The utility theory, as will appear in the chapter on "Marginal Utility," has failed to give psychological magnitudes corresponding to any point on the demand-curve. In general, he offers the social value notion as the justification for the assumption of a quantitative value which, as we shall see, underlies the whole of our current price analysis.

The theory here outlined has been, as stated, developed and defended more fully in a previous book. For the rest, the author would have it judged by its usefulness or failure as a tool of thought in the investigations which follow.

CHAPTER II

SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND THE VALUE OF MONEY

The theory of the value of money is a special case of the general theory of economic value. To the layman, this would seem to go without saying. To the student of the literature of the subject, however, who has noticed the wide divergence between the method of approach to the general problem of value and the method of approach to the problem of the value of money, in most treatises which include both these topics, the proposition will sound unusual if not heretical. Most text-books in English to-day will offer the marginal utility theory as the general theory of value. The same books commonly present the quantity theory of the value of money. Whether or not the two theories are consistent may wait for later discussion, but that the quantity theory of money is a deduction from the utility theory of value, and a special case of the utility theory of value, will not, I believe, be contended by anyone. Certainly in its origin, the quantity theory is much the older theory. The same is true for those writers who seek to explain value in general on the basis of cost of production, and who at the same time offer the quantity theory to explain the value of money. The two theories may or may not be consistent, but in any case, they are logically and historically independent, neither being a deduction from the other. Older writers (as Walker and Mill), whose treatment of the general theory of value runs in terms of "supply and demand," have stated that the quantity theory is merely a special case of the law of supply and demand, and the statement is occasionally met in present-day writings, though one of the most recent and best known of the expositions of the quantity theory, Professor Fisher's Purchasing Power of Money, very explicitly repudiates this doctrine.[41] But it may be easily shown, and will be shown later, that the quantity theory, and the present-day formulation of the law of supply and demand, are in no way logically dependent upon each other. This lack of connection between two bodies of doctrine which should be in a most intimate and essential way related to each other, may well throw suspicion on the current treatments of both topics. In any case the lack of connection raises a problem, and calls for explanation.

Part of the explanation may be sought in the fact that the writers who have developed the general theory of value have not been, in general, the writers who have most elaborated the theory of the value of money. The theory of money has been for a long time a more or less isolated discipline. In Ricardo, we have an elaboration of the labor theory of value, and we also have the quantity theory of money. But it is not clear that Ricardo added anything to the quantity theory. He found it, in much the form in which he used it, in the writings of predecessors, among them Locke and Hume. Ricardo makes large use of the quantity theory as a premise, but apparently feels the theory to be so self-evident that it needs little exposition or defence at his hands. John Stuart Mill is a clear exception to the general statement. Cairnes, likewise, did treat both topics in considerable detail, but while his interest in the general theory of value was that of the theorist, his treatment of money was primarily in the spirit of the publicist, and his interest was less in the justification of the theory—which he again seems to feel needs little defence—as in its application. A similar statement may be made with reference to Jevons. He worked out his general theory of value for its own sake; his utterances on the theory of the value of money must be sought scattered through his practical writings on money. Alfred Marshall's Principles (Vol. I) says almost nothing about the theory of money; his opinions on that subject are to be found in some ex cathedra replies to questions from a Parliamentary Commission. The most important discussions in England of the value of money are to be found in the long polemic between the Currency and the Banking Schools, by writers who would not be listed among the makers of the general theory of value. In the United States to-day, with the exceptions of Professors Fisher and Taussig, the writers who have been interested in the general field of economic theory have done comparatively little with the value of money (e. g., Professors Clark and Fetter), and the writers who have been most interested in the value of money have usually not written largely on the general theory of value (e. g., Professors Laughlin, Scott, Kinley). Professor Kemmerer might well be included as an illustration of this last statement. His primary interest is in money, rather than general theory, even though he does precede his theory of the value of money with an exposition of the utility theory of value. In German, a similar situation obtains. Böhm-Bawerk has touched the theory of money scarcely at all. Menger has written an important article on "Geld" in the Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, but the important thing about this article is the theory of the origin of money, and the reader will find little on the problem of the value of money. Wieser has recently taken up the value of money (in articles published in 1904 and 1909), but no trace of his views has as yet manifested itself in the English literature on money, and the writer may here express the opinion that Wieser's contributions to the theory of money are not likely to be very influential, or to add to his reputation.[42] Austrian writers on the value of money, as Wieser and von Mises, have recognized more clearly than anyone in America or England, the essential dependence of the theory of the value of money on the general theory of value. The German writer on money who has attracted most attention recently, however, G. F. Knapp, troubles himself about the general theory of value not at all.

But the main explanation of the hiatus between the two bodies of literature and doctrine is to be sought in something more fundamental. Neither utility nor costs nor supply and demand furnishes an adequate basis from which the quantity theory, or any other theory of the value of money can be deduced. The cost theory, and the supply and demand theory, in their present-day formulation, are really not theories of value at all, but are theories of prices, theories which presuppose value, and money, and a fixed value of money. And the utility theory, as usually presented, is either a theory of barter relations, or else (more commonly) speedily settles down into the grooves of supply and demand, leaping by means of a confusion of utility curves and demand-curves (or sometimes by a deliberate identification of them, e. g., Flux and Taussig[43]) to the treatment of market prices. I shall take up these points in order.

A historical summary of the development of the notions of supply and demand will aid the exposition. It may be noticed, first of all, that supply and demand is really a very superficial formula even though an exceedingly useful one. By virtue of its superficial character, it antagonizes few other theories, and it has been the common property of almost all schools of value theory. Cost theories and utility theories, labor theories, or social value theories, all find use for it, in one form or another. It is really quite neutral and colorless, so far as the ultimate questions of value-causation are concerned. The more fundamental causal factors offered by one theory or another are commonly supposed to operate through supply or demand, in price-determination. Adam Smith seems to see this more clearly than does Ricardo. Ricardo, indeed, sometimes thought of demand and supply as forces antithetical to the forces of labor-costs which he was considering. In ch. xxx of his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (ed. McCulloch, pp. 232ff.) he holds that his natural value ultimately rules, except (p. 234) in the case of monopolized articles. Supply and demand govern the prices of monopolized articles and of all articles in the short run. I do not find in Ricardo any clear statement to the effect that cost of production operates through influence on supply. Neither Adam Smith nor Ricardo felt the need of very much precision in the definition of supply and demand. Smith does, indeed, distinguish "effectual" from "absolute" demand, in a well-known passage (ed. Cannan, I, p. 58), defining effectual demand as the demand of the effectual demanders, i. e., these who are willing to pay the "natural price" of the commodity. The term "supply" he does not use in this passage, but speaks of the "quantity which is actually brought to market," and gives as the law of market price that it is determined by the "proportion" between this quantity and the effectual demand. That much is wanting in this analysis will be sufficiently clear when the views of J. S. Mill and Cairnes are considered. Ricardo offers even less than Smith in the way of definition. The reader may compare the pages in Ricardo's Works cited above, and the discussion of the demand for labor on p. 241 in the same volume.

In J.S. Mill, a clean-cut notion first appears. The doctrine that price is determined by a ratio between effectual demand (i. e., the wish to possess combined with the power to purchase) and supply (i. e., the quantity available in the market), is sharply criticised. How have a ratio between two things not of the same denomination? "What ratio can there be between a quantity and a desire, or even a desire combined with a power?" To make supply and demand comparable, demand must be defined as "quantity demanded," and then the difficulty arises that the quantity demanded will vary with the price, which seems to present a case of circular reasoning if demand is to be a determinant of price. The solution which Mill develops for this difficulty really gives us our modern conception, virtually complete except that Mill does not present it in the useful diagrammatic form and does not whisper the magic word, "margin." There is a demand-schedule, which, plotted, would give a demand-curve. At such and such prices, such and such quantities are demanded, or will be purchased. There is a supply schedule, presenting a supply situation of similar character (though not so clearly indicated). The price reached is that price which equalizes amount demanded and amount supplied. A higher price will lead to competition among sellers, forcing down the price, a lower price will lead to competition among buyers, forcing up the price. The notion of a ratio between supply and demand is replaced by the notion of an equation between them. The present writer wishes to remark, in this connection, that Böhm-Bawerk's elaborate analysis, with his "marginal pairs," etc., has not advanced one step beyond this conception of Mill's, that it is really less satisfactory than Mill's analysis, because of the impedimenta of pseudo-psychology it has to carry, and because of its confusion of utility schedules with demand schedules.[44] In our present-day expositions, as presented in the diagrams, we are accustomed to say that price is fixed when marginal supply-price and marginal demand-price are equal, putting the stress on the ordinate, rather than on the abscissa, on the identity of the dollars paid or received, rather than on the identity of the goods given or received. But this is merely another way of stating the same equilibrium which Mill perceived—when marginal demand and supply prices are equal, amount supplied and amount demanded will be equal, and conversely.

One point is to be added, making explicit what is implicit in the modern theory of supply and demand. Supply and demand doctrine assumes money, and a fixed value of money. That there should be a given schedule of money-prices for varying quantities of a good, is possible only if there be a given value of the money-unit.

That the modern doctrine of supply and demand necessarily involves the assumptions of value, of money, and of a fixed value of money, may be proved by the following considerations:

Supply-situation, represented by the supply-curve, and demand-situation, represented by the demand-curve, are conceived of as antithetical and independent causal forces, whose equilibrium determines both "supply and demand" (in the sense of quantities supplied and demanded) and price. Mill's doctrine that supply and demand determine price gets out of the circle that demand (amount demanded) is itself dependent on price, only by making both demand in this sense and price results, rather than causes, and by putting the causation back into the more complex factors which I call "supply-situation" and "demand-situation." The two independent causes, then, are summed up in the supply-curve and the demand-curve. But, first, these curves are expressed in money. And second, a change in the value of money would affect both of them proportionately. But a theory which is concerned with supply and demand as independent and antithetical must abstract from factors which give them a common movement, without modifying their relation to each other. A change in the value of money would lead the supply-curve to move to the right, and the demand-curve to move to the left, the change in each being proportionate, and the amount supplied, and amount demanded, would remain unchanged. Changes in the value of money must, therefore, be abstracted from.

Again, we must precise the notion of an increase in demand, or of supply. Increase in demand may mean mere increase in amount demanded, consequent upon a lower price, consequent, i. e., upon a lowering of the supply schedule. In this sense, increase in demand is a passive fact, a result rather than a cause. On the other hand, if the increase in demand is an increase in the amount demanded at the same price, if it means a change in the demand-situation, represented by the moving to the right of the demand-curve, we have a causal factor in increase in demand, a factor which raises the price and compels new supply to come into the market. We may distinguish these two meanings as increase in demand in the active and in the passive senses. Mutatis mutandis, we may speak of increase of supply in the active and passive senses. These distinctions have been made before, but it has not been clearly seen that these distinctions, and the connected doctrines, involve the assumption of a fixed value of money. But consider: it is the current doctrine that increase in demand in the active sense, the demanding of a greater amount at the same price, the moving of the demand-curve to the right, not only raises the price, but also tends to increase the supply. But this is true only if the cause of the increase in demand is not a cause which simultaneously works on supply, neutralizing that tendency. If the increase in amount demanded at a given price be due to a lowered value of money, then the same lowered value of money will reduce the supply available at that price pro tanto, and the new equilibrium, cæteris paribus, will be at a higher price, to be sure, but with the same amount supplied and demanded. "Demand" is a term which carries the connotation of motivating power in economic theory. Through demand run the forces which regulate production and supply. The function of increased demand is to induce increased supply. But the value concept, and the assumption of a fixed value of money, are needed to preserve this part of the doctrine. Without them we have no way of distinguishing a real increase in demand in the active sense, which does modify the adjustments in production, and alter the proportions of different supplies, from a nominal increase in demand in the active sense, which merely raises a money-price, without affecting supply.[45]

Another approach will lead to the same conclusion. Demand and supply-curves are not to be understood merely in terms of brute, physical quantities. They are rather curves expressing economic significances, manifesting psychological forces which lie behind them. No considerations of mere physical quantity will explain why one demand-curve should be "elastic" and another inelastic,—each curve has its own peculiarities, which are not mechanical in their nature. Demand-curves express the diminishing economic significance of goods as their quantity is increased. How economic significance is to be interpreted need not be argued here. I have elsewhere undertaken to show that the utility theory of value does not explain the economic significance which demand-curves express—that demand-curves are not utility curves. My own theory is that demand-curves are to be explained only in terms of a social psychology, that demand-curves are social-value curves. But my argument at this point does not rest on the particular type of causal theory of value one chooses. It is enough that the demand-curve be recognized as expressing economic significance, and diminishing economic significance.[46] But for the demand-curve to express variation in economic significance of a good, there is need for a unit in which to express that variation. That unit is the economic significance of the dollar, itself assumed to be invariable—as all measures must be assumed to be invariable if measurement is to mean anything. If the unit chosen vary in the course of a given investigation, the curve tells you nothing at all.

Another way of reaching the same conclusion is to say that an increase in demand in the active sense will lead to an increase in supply only if there be no corresponding increase in demand for the alternative employments of the sources of that supply, that, e. g., an increased demand for wheat will lead to increased production of wheat only if there be not a corresponding increase in the demands for corn and other crops which can be raised on land and with labor and capital that would otherwise produce wheat. This is only another phase of the argument that went before, that an increase in demand due to a falling value of money would lead to a corresponding shift in the supply-curve. It is not quite the same argument, however, because that was an argument concerned with short run tendencies, resting on the assumption that the holders of supply would immediately react to a change in the value of money, whereas the argument just presented rests on the longer adjustments, based on the law of costs, as worked out by the Austrians. This point will be made clearer in the next chapter.

Yet another, and perhaps simpler, approach to the same conclusion is by pointing out that an individual, deciding to buy, must take account of the prices of other things in his budget—that individual demand-schedules would be different if market prices of other things—which depend on the value of money—were different.

The doctrine that supply and demand (and cost of production, the capitalization theory, and other elements in the current price-analysis) presuppose a fixed value of money, must be sharply distinguished from the doctrine of Professor Fisher (Purchasing Power of Money, ch. 8), and others, that a fixed general price level is assumed by supply and demand, etc. I should deny that a fixed general price level is assumed. The point rests in the distinction between value as absolute and value as relative. For my theory, it is perfectly possible for the general price level to rise, with the value of money constant, because of a rise in the values of goods. In a later chapter, on "The Passiveness of Prices," I shall examine the doctrine of Professor Fisher more closely, and set these two views in clearer contrast. For the present, it is enough to point out one vital difference between a rise in prices due to a fall in the value of money and a rise in prices due to a rise in the values of goods, with the absolute value of money unchanged: in the latter case, there is an increase in the psychological stimulus to industry, an increase in economic power in motivation, which energizes and increases production. In the latter case, especially when the fall in the value of money is rapid, and the rise in prices is clearly due to that cause (as in the case of Confederate paper, or the French Assignats), we find a reverse effect on industry. Intermediate cases, where money is falling in value, but where goods are also rising, give us intermediate results.

In what follows, I shall from time to time refer to this distinction. In my own exposition, I shall always use "value of money" in the absolute sense, as distinguished from the mere "reciprocal of the price level,"—a practice which I have sought to justify in the chapter on "Value," and in other places there referred to.[47]

The modern theory of supply and demand, then, assumes money, and a fixed value of money. It is, therefore, obviously unfitted as an instrument to solve the problem of the value of money. If supply and demand concepts are to be applied to this problem, they must be of a different sort. This was pointed out by Cairnes[48] who criticised Mill's formulation, and pointed out that Mill departed from it in three capital doctrines: in the theory of the value of money, in the theory of wages, and in the theory of international values. By the demand for money, Mill means, not the amount of money demanded, but the quantity of goods offered against money—a very different conception. (Mill, Principles, Bk. III, ch. viii, par. 2.) In what sense a quantity of goods can equal a quantity of money, or in what sense there can be a ratio between goods and money, (to recur to Mill's former problem as to the ratio between things not of the same denomination) Mill does not make clear, nor is it defensible to speak of either a ratio or an equation on the basis of Mill's system, since Mill had no absolute value concept. Cairnes seeks to reconstruct the notion of supply and demand, in such fashion as to make it possible to apply it universally, and takes up the question of the comparability of supply conceived as a quantity of goods, and demand, conceived, not as a quantity of goods, but as desire combined with the ability to pay. He concludes that in both supply and demand there is a physical, as well as a mental, element. Demand he defines as the desire for a commodity backed by general purchasing power; supply as the desire for general purchasing power, backed by the offer of a commodity. Thus he thinks he has made the two of the same denomination, so that comparison may be instituted between them, and the ideas of equation, ratio, and proportion made legitimate. By "general purchasing power," Cairnes seems to mean money and the representatives of money. It is not an abstract power, since it is the "physical" element in demand, comparable with, and of the same denomination with, the physical element in supply, a commodity. Cairnes' solution of Mill's difficulty seems to me to be merely verbal, however. First, in what way is the desire for general purchasing power in the mind of one man comparable with the desire for a commodity in the mind of another man? I pass over the supposed difficulty that knowledge of other men's emotions is impossible,[49] and emphasize simply the point that price offer, either by demander or supplier, is no test of the intensity of desire where there are inequalities in the distribution of wealth. But second: in what sense is general purchasing power, money and money-funds, of the same denomination as a commodity? Cairnes emphasizes the physical character of both. But surely they are not comparable on the basis of any physical attributes—weight, bulk, etc. Certainly if we look at the concept of demand here given, the physical aspect is simply irrelevant—gold money goes by weight, but what of paper money and credit instruments? And in what sense is even gold money physically of the same denomination with, say, wheat, or hay or base-ball tickets? Not physical quantities, but economic quantities, are relevant here; not weight or bulk, but value. By means of a concept of value, as the homogeneous quality of wealth, present in each piece of wealth in definite, quantitative degree, could Cairnes bring about comparability between the "physical" elements in supply and demand. But not otherwise. Only significances, values, are relevant here. Supply and demand presuppose value.

It will be interesting to consider the effort to solve the problem of the value of money by means of supply and demand on the lines employed by Mill, where demand for money is defined as quantity of goods to be exchanged, and supply of money as quantity of money times rapidity of circulation, and where physical quantities are treated as the relevant factor, no value concept of the sort here contended for being presupposed. This is, essentially, Mill's method. There is, in this conception, first the difficulty that "quantity of goods to be exchanged" is not a true quantity at all, but is a mere collection of things of different denominations, dozens of eggs, pounds of butter, gallons of milk, etc., incapable of being funded into a quantity.[50] There is, second, the difficulty that increasing the amount of any one of the items in this heterogeneous composite need not increase the "demand" for money, in the sense that it increases the "pull" on money, or tends to increase the supply of money. Yet, under the general doctrine of supply and demand, an increase in demand should be a stimulus to increase in supply. Indeed, it is easy to construct a case where an increase in the quantity of one of the items in this composite, the others remaining unchanged, would actually tend to repel money, to reduce the supply of money. Suppose that one item in America's stock of goods, say cotton, is much increased in quantity, and suppose that cotton has a highly inelastic demand-curve, so that the increased quantity sells for less money than the original quantity.[51] Suppose, too, that cotton is our chief article of export, and that the bulk of our cotton is exported. Would not the "balance of trade" tend to turn against us, so that gold would tend to leave the country, and the supply of money be reduced? There is nothing in the situation assumed to raise the prices of other goods,[52] so that they could exert a counteracting "pull" on money. Europeans, to be sure, having less to pay for cotton, could demand more of other things, and Americans paying less for cotton could demand more of other things. But, on the other hand, American producers of cotton, receiving less for their cotton—receiving precisely as much less as the others had more—could then demand less of other things, exactly as much less as the others are able to demand more. The original tendency for gold to leave the country, and the tendency for gold to leave the money-form and be used in the arts, would remain unneutralized. An "increase of demand for money," in Mill's sense, would in this case present the remarkable phenomenon of driving money away. Physical quantities are irrelevant. Psychological significances are what count.

It is interesting to note, in this connection, that some striking contradictions in quantity theory reasoning on any formulation, whether connected with the notions of supply and demand or not, are involved in this hypothesis. The illustration above gives a case where a lowered price level leads money to flow away from your country. But, on the quantity theory explanation of foreign exchange, it is rising price levels which drive gold away, and falling price levels which attract gold![53]

Mill's effort to apply the notion of demand and supply to the value of money is, then, (1) not an application of his formal doctrine of supply and demand, and (2), is a failure, leads to results contradictory to the general law of supply and demand, as soon as we take account of the peculiarities of individual commodities, and cease to look at commodities in one huge lump. Psychological forces, rather than physical quantities, are what count. Whether or not the supply and demand notion of Cairnes, reinterpreted by putting a quantitative value concept into it, could serve as a means of approach to the value of money, I shall not here argue. No one so far as I know has attempted to do the thing that way, and my own theory is best developed by another method. It is interesting to note, however, another somewhat different effort to apply the supply and demand formula. General Walker does so, including among the factors determining the demand for money, not only the quantity of goods to be exchanged, but also the prices[54] prevailing. Since by value of money Walker means merely the reciprocal of the price-level, this is the clearest possible case of a vicious circle. It would be a circle even if he were trying to explain the absolute value of money, as distinguished from the reciprocal of the price-level, since the former is one of the determinants of the latter. Value of money and values of goods determine prices; prices and quantity of goods determine demand for money; demand and supply of money determine value of money,—a hopeless circle.

I know no sense in which the terms, demand and supply of money, can have relevance to the problem of the value of money. There is one sense in which the terms can be used which fits in with the modern supply and demand-curves, and that is the sense in which they are used in the money market. Demand for money comes from borrowers; supply of money from lenders. The price paid is a money-price, the curves express the short time money-rates, the rental of money, in terms of money, for stated periods of time. There is a relation, later to be investigated, between the rental of money, the money-rate, and the value of money, but the two are in no sense the same. It should be noted, too, that we are here concerned with "money-funds" rather than with money in the strict sense,—distinctions and relations in this connection properly belong at another stage of our inquiry. Whenever the terms, demand and supply of money, appear in the following pages, they will be used in the sense developed in this paragraph.

Demand and supply are superficial formulæ. They cannot touch a problem so fundamental as that of the value of money.