It may be noticed that my figures for net income in 1900 and 1890 do not correspond very closely with the figures for the same years as independently estimated by King. My figure for 1900 is $12,900,000,000, where his is $17,965,000,000; for 1890, my figure is $9,300,000,000, where his is $12,082,000,000. I am inclined to the view that the figures in my tables come closer to the facts for these years than do his figures, assuming that his figure for 1910 is correct. It will be noticed that on his figures there was an increase of about 50% from 1890 to 1900, and an increase of only about 66% in the decade following. This seems to be an unlikely relation. One would expect a much greater rate of increase for the decade 1900-10, as compared with the preceding decade, than King's figures show. The period from 1890 to 1900 included the terrible panic of 1893 and the prolonged depression ensuing. The panic in 1907 was trifling in comparison, and recovery, as shown by our index numbers in the tables below, was very much quicker. Moreover, falling prices characterized much of the earlier decade. The highest prices of the whole ten years were in 1891. The period from 1900 to 1910 is a period of rapidly rising prices, on the whole. On the basis of our general knowledge of the two periods, one would expect a greater percentage gain by far for the second decade, and I therefore trust the results of the index of variation here chosen, which show that. Similar results are obtained by applying to the base figure for 1910 an index of variation derived from Kemmerer's and Fisher's figures for trade[306] and prices. My figure for 1890 may, moreover, be checked by comparison with the figure given by C. B. Spahr in The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States (p. 105) for the net income of the country for that year: $10,800,000,000. It may be that my figure for 1890 is too low, but I have not sought to "doctor" it by an arbitrary "correction factor" to make it correspond more closely than it does with the other estimates. It is striking enough that a figure derived from an index of variation, twenty years away from its base, should come as close as this to figures calculated from wholly different data.

One brief comment may be made on the significance of these figures. It may be questioned if figures showing the proportions of our industry devoted to supplying goods for the foreign market correctly indicate the importance of the foreign market to us. It may be urged that if we should lose our foreign market, we should merely turn to producing more for the domestic market, and that the loss would not be the whole of our receipts from foreign trade, but merely the cost of transition, and the loss that comes from shifting to production to which we are less suited. This is, doubtless, true. But the loss reckoned this way may well be greater than the loss reckoned on the basis of my figures! It is equally true, moreover, that our domestic trade is not important to the extent indicated by my figures, since if we lose part of our domestic trade, our producers will turn to supplying more for the foreign market. But one must not regard the cost of transition as a negligible matter! The cost may easily be prolonged depression. Certain parts of our foreign trade are really vital to us, both on the import and (to a less degree) on the export side. The most important practical use to which the figures here given may be put are in connection with short-run problems. Foreign trade is so important to us that any sudden alteration in its amount may bring great adversity or great prosperity—as the course of the present War abundantly testifies.[307]

An application of our method to the years 1850 and 1860 gives a percentage for foreign trade of 12.7 in 1850, and 16.0 in 1860.[308]

Certain other cautions are needed in presenting these figures. For one thing, variations in railway rates will make a given volume of gross earnings mean different things in different years as to the physical volume of traffic. In the writer's opinion, which is confirmed by Professor W. Z. Ripley, there is no possible way of making allowance for this, as the cross-currents affecting railway rates are altogether too numerous and obscure. Nor has any effort been made to allow for variations in the proportions of freight and passenger receipts, or of different classes of freight traffic.

Again, the proportions of railway traffic connected with foreign trade may vary greatly, and it may happen that a big increase in railway gross receipts is due to increasing foreign trade, primarily. There is reason to suppose that much of the increase of 1916 is to be explained that way. This makes our comparison for 1916 particularly adverse to foreign trade, since we count as domestic trade what is really foreign trade. The figures, however, are presented as they stand. Moreover, for 1916, the great increase in foreign trade is in exports. Merchandise imports are not much greater than in previous years.[309] Our exports have been chiefly paid for by "invisible items," gold and securities, and short term credits. These do not appear anywhere in our figures. A substantial source of error appears from this cause in our 1916 figure. I should think it safe to put the ratio for foreign trade to domestic trade for 1916 at above 20%, instead of the 17.9% our table shows.

The reader will wish to know for a given year how much of the increase or decrease is due to physical growth of business, as represented by railway gross receipts, and how much is due to changes in prices. To give this information, and to make it easy for a critic to check the results, a table showing the index numbers from which the figures for net income are computed is subjoined.[310]

TABLE I[311]

TABLE II. INDEX NUMBERS FROM WHICH THE FIGURES FOR NET INCOME ARE DERIVED

CHAPTER XIV

THE VOLUME OF TRADE AND THE VOLUME OF MONEY AND CREDIT

In the argument so far I have said nothing of the reverse relationship, the dependence of the volume of money and the volume of credit on trade. The two are indeed interdependent. Interdependence suggests circular theory, and is often a phrase to cover circular reasoning.[313] In the case of the relation under discussion, however, I have, I trust, already abundantly protected myself against the charge of circular reasoning by denying that either volume of money and credit on the one hand, or volume of trade on the other hand, is a true cause at all. Both are mere abstract names, designating highly heterogeneous individual occurrences, which, individually are cause or effect. In general, both volume of money and credit, on the one hand, and volume of trade on the other hand, are results of common causes, which are the veræ causæ of economic phenomena—values, psychological phenomena. The whole thing is to be explained immediately and primarily in terms of social relationships and mental processes,—in terms of social values.

To show that increasing trade tends to increase money and credit is not difficult. If one may venture a hypothetical illustration—and the sort of hypothetical illustrations, like the dodo-bone case, of which quantity theorists are fond make one hesitate to do so—let us assume a communistic community, isolated from other markets, with a developed system of production, including an extensive use of gold in the arts. Let the communistic régime gradually pass over to an individualistic régime. Assume that the inhabitants are acquainted with the use of gold as money, and that their government is willing to coin it freely. As individualism spreads, and trade grows, will not more and more gold be taken to the mints? I am not here concerned with the principles determining the apportionment of gold between the money employment and the arts. It is enough to show that expanding trade tends to increase the volume of money.

Assume that the money supply meets difficulties in its expansion. Is there not at once an incentive to extend credit? The seller finds his customers unwilling to buy for cash, in amounts as great as before. In order to sell as much as before (assuming that the use of credit is known, to avoid trouble with historical origins), he extends credit,—which, when practiced generally, lightens the strain on the money supply.

I have so far said nothing of the case where there are stocks of the money metal to be got from outside markets. But if a country is expanding its trade, does not money come in? The quantity theorists would, indeed, admit this, in general, though their reason is a bad one, namely: that expanding trade lowers prices, and lower prices make the market attractive to foreign buyers, who then send in money for the goods. I shall later discuss this aspect of the theory.[314] For the present, I merely interject the question as to the probability of an expansion of trade when prices are falling. Increasing stocks of particular goods may well mean lower prices for these goods and if they be articles of export the lower prices may well increase the export trade, and bring money in. But this increase in stocks of articles of export is very different from total trade within the country; and lower prices in articles of export are very different from a generally lower price-level.[315]

Will expanding trade in a country increase credit? I come here to one of the striking features of Fisher's doctrine—a feature in which I think he is fundamentally true to the quantity theory. He finds no way in which expanding trade can directly increase credit. Expanding trade can increase credit, (a) only by changing the habits of the people, so as to alter the ratio, M to M´, or (b) by reducing the price-level, and so bringing in money from abroad, whence, as M is now increased, M´ rises proportionately. "An increase in the volume of trade in any one country, say the United States, ultimately increases the money in circulation (M). In no other way could there be avoided a depression in the price-level in the United States as compared with foreign countries. [He should say, from the standpoint of his theory, that increasing trade will cause a fall in the price-level, and so bring in more money.] The increase in M brings about a proportionate increase in M´.[316] Besides this effect, the increase in trade undoubtedly has some effect in modifying the habits of the community with regard to the proportion of check and cash transactions, and so tends somewhat to increase M´ relatively to M; as a country grows more commercial the need for the use of checks is more strikingly felt."[317] In a footnote to this paragraph, he defines the issue still more sharply. "This is very far from asserting as Laughlin does that 'The limit to the increase in legitimate credit operations is always expansible with the increase in the actual movement of goods'; see Principles of Money,[318] New York (Scribner), 1903, p. 82. We have seen, in Chapter IV, that deposit currency is proportional to the amount of money; a change in trade may indirectly, i. e., by changing the habits of the community, influence the proportion, but, except for transition periods, it cannot influence it directly."[319]

My own explanation of the causal sequence whereby expanding trade brings money into a country would be radically different from that given by Fisher in the first quotation. I should expect, first, that rising prices would encourage rising trade; I should then expect the rising volume of trade, with higher prices, to lead borrowers to need, and secure, larger loans from the banks, with, as loans and deposits rise in proportion to reserves, some slight increase in "money-rates," just enough to draw to the country the extra gold which bankers felt desirable to add to their reserves. I should expect the causal sequence to be the exact reverse of that which Fisher indicates. With falling prices, or waning volume of trade—which would usually come together,[320]—I should expect loans to be reduced, deposits to be reduced, money-rates to fall, and gold then to leave the country again. I should expect this sort of thing to happen normally, and not infrequently, and I should expect gold to come in and go out many times in the course of a business cycle. This would seem to be the sort of explanation which our modern theory of elastic bank-credit would give in connection with this problem. I shall not here go into details with the theory of elastic bank-credit. The theory has been too well established in the debates between the "Currency School" and the "Banking School"[321] in regard to bank-notes to need elaboration and defence here, and the essential identity of deposits and elastic bank-notes from this angle is one of the commonplaces of the literature of banking. What I am here concerned with is the highly significant fact that Fisher's "normal" theory finds no place for this highly important phenomenon. The quantity theory has no explanation of elasticity to give. On the basis of the quantity theory, and for all that the quantity theory can say, the Currency School was right! Fisher offers us, virtually, a "currency theory" of deposits. "Suppose, as has actually been the case in recent years, that the ratio of M´ to M increases in the United States. If the magnitudes in the equations of exchange in other countries with which the United States is connected by trade are constant, the ultimate effect on M is to make it less than what it would otherwise have been, by increasing the exports of gold from the United States or reducing the imports. In no other way can the price-level of the United States be prevented from rising above that of other nations in which we have assumed this level and the other magnitudes in the equation of exchange to be quiescent." (P. 162.) If "bank-notes" be substituted for "M´", in this quotation, we have here a perfect statement of the position of the "Currency School" in that great debate. Must this old issue be fought all over again? And yet, I defy any consistent quantity theorist to find any flaw in Fisher's argument on this point. There is no place for a theory of elastic bank-credit within the confines of the quantity theory. Fisher's recognition of this seems full and complete. He relegates all mention of elastic bank-credit to "transitions." The footnote quoted above, in which Laughlin's (somewhat extreme) doctrine based on the theory of elasticity is stated, denies categorically that there is any validity in it, except for transition periods. There is nowhere in the book any explanation of the theory of elasticity.[322] The references to it are few and grudging, and always in connection with the notion of transitions. The most important statement regarding elasticity (less than a page long) is on page 161, where again transitional influences are under discussion. What is a theory of money worth which can offer no explanation of so fundamental, important, and notorious a feature of modern money and banking?

There is a further, related, feature of banking for which the quantity theory can find no explanation. Among the items in a bank's balance sheet, the quantity theorist seizes upon reserves on the assets side, and deposits on the liability side, and builds his theory on the supposed close relation between them. We have seen that this close relation does not, in fact, exist. The range of variation is enormous.[323] But there is one close relation in the balance sheet of the bank concerning which the quantity theory is silent, and that is the relation between deposits and loans. For individual banks and for banks in the aggregate, for long run periods and for short run periods, for reasons that are clear and inevitable, these two magnitudes (or for banks of issue on the Continent of Europe, notes and loans), vary closely together. The relationship between them is the only relationship which does stand out as clearly beyond dispute, among all the items in the banking balance sheet. No assumptions of a "static state" are needed for its demonstration! The relation varies, of course. As banks increase or reduce their capital, as their reserve-percentages rise or fall, as they increase or decrease their holdings of bonds, we find reasons which alter the proportion between deposits and loans. But, despite this, the variation, as shown by figures for the United States, is slight. Assume, for example, a statement showing "loans and discounts" of $1,000,000, deposits, $1,000,000, cash reserve, $200,000. Reserves are then 20% of deposits, and loans are 100% of deposits. If reserves be increased by $100,000 and loans and discounts reduced, to compensate, by $100,000, we have a 50% variation in the ratio of reserves to deposits, with only a 10% variation in the ratio of loans and discounts to deposits. Since cash reserve is much the smaller item, almost always, the same absolute variation in it will affect it, in percentage, vastly more than it will affect loans and discounts. It is strange that a theory should seize on this highly variable ratio of reserves to deposits, and ignore the much more constant ratio[324] of loans and discounts to deposits.

That this close relation between deposits and loans should obtain follows naturally from the theory of elastic bank-credit. The two are built up together. When there are expanding business and rising prices, men borrow more from the banks; as they borrow, they receive deposit credits; the individual who receives the deposit credit may check against it, but it is redeposited by another man, and so, while the deposits of one bank need not grow out of its loans, still, for banks in general, deposits are large because loans are large. For a given bank, the relation holds closely, because the bank lends, in general, to active business men, who will have income as well as outgo, and whose income will, on the average, at least balance their outgo. Thus, through loans, deposits are linked with volume of trade and prices. Trade and deposits wax and wane together.[325] On the other hand, in the absence of rising prices and increasing trade, reserves may increase greatly without forcing an increase in deposits. Loans cannot increase without an increase in deposits. The linkage between deposits and trade is definite, causal, positive, statistically demonstrable. The linkage between reserves and deposits is, at most, negative—if reserves get too low, deposits and loans may be checked in their expansion. But this—to the extent that it is true, which we leave, for detailed analysis, for Part III—gives a very much looser relation indeed than the direct relation between loans and deposits.

The quantity theory has offered no explanation of this relation between loans and deposits. What explanation could a theory offer, which rests in the notion that volume of trade on the one hand, and volume of money and bank-credit on the other hand, are independent magnitudes?[326] I do not mean that quantity theorists are silent regarding the relation of loans and deposits. I mean that they do not attempt, in any discussion I have found, to apply the quantity theory to the explanation of that relation. What shall we say of a theory which, ignoring these easily proved, easily explained, and vital facts regarding bank-credit, offers as its sole explanation of volume of bank-credit a theory so untenable as that of a fixed ratio between volume of bank-credit and volume of money in circulation, with causation running from money to deposits?

Professor Fisher says little about bills of exchange. Here, surely, we have a credit instrument which grows directly out of trade, in general, and whose volume expands and contracts with trade. When banks discount bills of exchange, and issue notes, or grant deposit credits, against such discounted bills, the connection of bank-credit and volume of trade is obvious. The same thing holds largely, however, when promissory notes are discounted. Such notes are usually given by those who plan to use the credits granted in commercial or speculative transactions. The bill of exchange differs from the promissory note in practice, however, in that it itself is often a medium of exchange, without going into the bank's portfolio. "The bill of exchange, therefore, before it gets to the bank usually[327] performs a series of monetary transfers, for the small dealer naturally prefers to pass on the bill, if possible, in making a payment, instead of handing it over to his bank, which would either deduct a certain percentage in the way of discount, or else accept the bill at its face value, crediting the customer with the amount on the date of maturity, while business men (other than bankers) are in the habit of taking bills of exchange as they would cash."[328] This quotation describes conditions in Germany. The same authorities (p. 176) give figures showing a rapid development in the volume of bills of exchange, rising from about 13 billions of marks in 1872 to about 31 billions in 1907. These figures show that bills of exchange are a big factor in German business life,—a conclusion that is strengthened when they are compared with the figures for giro-transfers on pp. 188-189 of the same article, or with the figures for note issue on p. 209.[329] In the United States, of course, the use of bills of exchange has become comparatively unimportant in domestic commerce,[330] though there is a movement to revive them, since the new Federal Reserve system has come in. Their chief importance is in connection with foreign trade. Is it possible that Professor Fisher's reason for wishing to minimize foreign trade[331] is the unconscious desire to get rid of the annoying bills of exchange, which so obviously tend to make bank-credit and volume of trade interdependent, and which further spoil the quantity theory by serving as a flexible substitute for both money and deposits?

I regret the necessity for this elementary exposition of familiar things. But Fisher's theory has no place for these familiar things—and Fisher has merely made very explicit the logic of the quantity theory!

As applied to modern conditions, the quantity theory is obliged to assert—and Fisher does assert:

Not yet, however, have we reached the least tenable aspect of the quantity theory. There remains the contention that prices are passive, that a change, originating in prices, and involving a change in the average price, or the general price-level, cannot maintain itself—that P is a passive function of the other five magnitudes of the equation of exchange. To this central fortress of the quantity theory we shall devote the next chapter.

CHAPTER XV

THE QUANTITY THEORY: THE "PASSIVENESS OF PRICES"

Is the price-level passive? Is it true that while change may occur from causes outside the equation of exchange in volume of money, volume of trade, and velocities of circulation, a change in the price-level from causes outside the equation is impossible? Must the average of prices be a passive function of M, the V's, M´ and T? Such is the general contention of the quantity theory, and such, very explicitly, is Fisher's contention. The price-level is always effect, and never cause (with slight modifications of the doctrine for transition periods) in its relations to the other magnitudes in the equation of exchange.

Now in one sense, it is my own contention that the price-level can never be a cause of anything. The price-level is an average. Averages may be indicia of causation, but they are not themselves causes. They are not, in reality, anything at all. Causation is a matter which pertains to the particulars of which the average is made. But this is not the doctrine of the quantity theory. The quantity theory does, in certain connections, assign causal influence to the level of prices, particularly in the theory of foreign exchange, where the explanation of international gold movements rests on the doctrine that a price-level in one country, higher than the price-level of another country, drives money away.[332] It will be seen, in a moment, that Fisher relies on this principle to prove that the price-level of a country cannot rise without an increase of money—if it did so rise, it would drive out the money, and so be forced down again. The point at issue may be stated in terms of particular prices. The quantity theory is that, while particular prices may rise from causes affecting them, as compared with other prices, without a change in money, velocities, etc., still there cannot be a rise in the general average, because other prices will be obliged to go down to compensate. The issue is as to the possibility of a rise in particular prices, uncompensated by a corresponding fall in other particular prices, without a prior increase in money, or velocities, or decrease in trade. I take up the issue in this form. I shall maintain that particular prices can, and do, rise, without a prior increase in money or bank-deposits, or change in the volume of trade, or in velocity of money or deposits and also without compensating fall in other particular prices. Putting it in terms of Fisher's equation, I shall maintain, as against Fisher, that P can rise through the direct action of factors outside the equation of exchange, that as a consequence of such rise the other factors readjust themselves, and that a new equilibrium is reached which, in the absence of new disturbances from causes outside the equation, tends to be as permanent and stable as the old equilibrium was.

In the argument which follows, I shall respect thoroughly the distinction between "normal" and "transitional" effects. I do not think that this distinction is properly drawn by Fisher. In my discussion of the relation between the volume of bank-credit and the volume of trade, and in other connections, I have shown that Fisher leaves out of his normal theory most of the concrete factors which do affect both the concrete magnitudes, and the long run averages, of the factors in his own equation. But for the present, I shall meet him on his own ground, give his distinctions their fullest weight, and carry my argument through the "transition" to a point where no further change among the factors in the equation can be expected as a consequence of the initial change assumed.

Fisher's argument to show the passiveness of prices takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum. "To show the untenability of such an idea let us grant for the sake of argument that—in some other way than as effect of changes in M, M´, V, V´, and the Q's—the prices in (say) the United States are changed to (say) double the original level, and let us see what effect this will produce on the other magnitudes in the equation."[333] Then, if the equation of exchange is to be maintained, either M or M´ or their velocities must be increased, or trade must be reduced. But he holds that none of these is possible. (1) Money will be reduced. High prices drive money away to other countries. Nor can gold come in via the mints. "No one will take bullion to the mints when he thereby loses half its value."[334] On the contrary, men will melt down coin. Nor will high prices stimulate mining. Rather, by raising the expenses of mining, they will discourage mining. (2) Bank-deposits cannot increase. Bank-deposits depend on the amount of money, and as that is reduced, they must be reduced, to keep their normal ratio to the volume of money. (3) The appeal to velocities is no more satisfactory. These have been already adjusted to individual convenience.[335] (4) Nor can trade be decreased. Since the average person will not only pay, but also receive, high prices, there is no reason why he should reduce his purchases. "The price-level is normally the one absolutely passive element in the equation of exchange."[336]

"But though it is a fallacy to think that the price-level in one community can, in the long run, affect the money in that community, it is true that the price-level in one community may affect the money in another community. This proposition has been repeatedly made use of in our discussion, and should be clearly distinguished from the fallacy above mentioned. The price-level in an outside community is an influence outside the equation of exchange of that community, and operates by affecting its money in circulation and not by directly affecting its price-level. The price-level outside New York City, for instance, affects the price-level in New York City only via changes in the money in New York City."[337]...

"Were it not for the fanatical refusal of some economists to admit that the price-level is in ultimate analysis effect and not cause, we should not be at so great pains to prove it beyond cavil." To explain this "fanatical refusal," Fisher alludes to the "fallacious idea" that the equation of exchange cannot determine the price-level, because the price-level has already been determined by other causes, usually alluded to as "supply and demand." He urges, however, that supply and demand, cost of production, etc., relate, not to the price-level, but only to particular prices: that the price-level is a factor prior to, and independent of, the particular prices, and is presupposed by theories like supply and demand, cost of production, etc.[338]

The reductio ad absurdum, at first blush, looks impressive. One obvious criticism suggests itself, however, and it will be found to give a clue to a much more fundamental criticism: is it reasonable to assume a doubling of all prices? Above all, must the assumption involve the doubling of the price of gold bullion? Part of the argument to show that gold bullion would not be minted rests on that assumption. But, more fundamental, for such an all round doubling of prices, no cause could be assigned. Of course the hypothesis of an increase in prices without any cause is absurd, and Fisher easily disposes of it. But suppose we assign some concrete causes, outside the equation of exchange, which might affect prices, and see how the thing works then!

Fisher states on p. 95 that "other elements in the equation of exchange than money and commodities[339] cannot be transported from one place to another." And in the passage quoted above he maintains that price-levels in one country can influence price-levels in another country, or even price-levels in one city can influence price-levels in another city, only via changes in money, in the second country or city. But other elements in the equation are directly transferable, in fact. Deposits, e. g., in London, to the credit of New York bankers, may be transferred to Paris, directly, by cable or by letter, and prices are constantly being directly passed from one country or market to another by the same media. Let us suppose a strong case, to put our principle in relief. Assume an island, which produces a staple widely used, whose chief centre of production is outside the island. Assume that this staple, an agricultural product, rises greatly in price, owing to a blight, which promises to be permanent, in the main producing region. The blight does not affect the island, however. Let this product be the main product of our island, which we shall assume to be small. Let the island have communication with the outside world by boat only once in three months. Let it be, however, in constant communication by cable. Word comes by cable of the rise in the price in the staple. The staple at once rises in the island. No new money has come in to cause it. Will this be a rise in the price-level? Will there be compensating reductions in the prices of other things to leave the price-level unchanged? What prices can fall? Not the prices of goods that have been imported to the island, surely. They will rather tend to rise, because everybody on the island will feel richer than before, and will be disposed to buy more freely. Meanwhile, merchants and bankers on the island will be more ready to extend credit than before, so that they will be able to buy more freely. What else can fall? Not the prices of the land! Rather, the land will rise in price greatly, because the increased price of the staple, expected to be permanent, will promise bigger rents, and the price of the land, being a capitalization of the annual rental, will rise very much more than anything else—it will rise to the extent of the capitalized price of the increase in the rents. Wages, likewise, will rise, since the price of the product of labor has risen. And the capital instruments in use in producing the staple will also rise, though not so much as land and wages, inasmuch as they can be brought in from outside at the end of three months. What is there that can fall—except, perhaps, such goods as are exclusively designed for the construction of poorhouses! A significant particular price rises—that is the first step; then, from causes familiar to all students of economics, other related prices rise; there is a general sympathetic rise in prices, the price-level has risen independently, from causes outside the equation of exchange. But now, can this rise sustain itself? Well, what can bring it down? When the ship comes, at the end of three months, it will bring in additional supplies of the articles of import, and they will go down to their old level. Will they go any lower than the old level? What is there to cause them to do so? The outside price-level should be higher now, rather than lower, since the stock of the staple in question is reduced, and nothing else increased to compensate. Nor can any reason be assigned why other prices on the island: the staple in question, lands, wages, etc., should fall at all from the level they reached when the news first came.

Incidentally, our ship may also bring in more gold. The bankers, finding their deposits expanding, may feel it well to cable orders for more gold to increase their reserves, especially as they have been subject to somewhat unusual calls for cash for hand to hand circulation—though this last need they might well have been meeting by expanding their note issue.

Is there anything else to be said? Is not the new equilibrium stable? And is not the causal sequence precisely the reverse of that assigned by the quantity theory? First. a rise in prices; second, an expansion of credit, book-credit, notes and deposits; third, money comes in. If anyone is particularly anxious about the equation of exchange in this process, he may add to my expansion of credit an increase in velocities to keep it straight!

I may add that I see nothing in the "transition" I have described to cause trade to be reduced. Rather, I should expect the rising prices to make trade more active—or better, I should expect the rising values of goods, etc., of which rising prices are the symptom, to make trade more active, particularly as there would be an increase in speculation to bring about readjustments, and to "discount" the prosperity. Nor can I find any reason why trade should be reduced below the old level in the new normal equilibrium. It would make no difference, however, if trade were reduced either transitionally or normally, since the point at issue is the possibility of a rise in prices originating from causes outside the equation of exchange, and compelling a readjustment of a permanent character in the other factors of the equation. The quantity theorist is at liberty to make this readjustment in any way he pleases. My point is made if he has to make the readjustment, and if the price-level stays up!

I have put my illustration in an extreme form to throw the whole thing in relief, and to make the demonstration free from a host of complexities. But is not the causal process essentially the same if we substitute, say, the Southern States for our island, and cotton for our staple? So long as the telegraph bringing news of the ruin of cotton production in India and Egypt, with the higher price of cotton, can come in ahead of the money that the quantity theorist might imagine rushing in a race with it on the train to be offered for the cotton, my point is made. In point of fact, there would be a general rise in prices and wages in the South, which, leading to an expansion of credit, would only gradually and in no definite ratio lead to an increase in money drawn from outside. Buyers outside would pay, not with money, but with checks drawn on New York, and Southern bankers would use their discretion as to how much actual cash they would bring in. With the elastic note issue of our Federal Reserve system, I see no reason to anticipate that money would be drawn to the South in an amount proportionate to the increase in prices. Even if it were, the causation would not run from money to prices, and that is the point at issue. If rising prices can cause increasing money, the whole quantity theory is upset, whatever the proportions involved.

It will be noted that my illustration might be put partly in the form of the supply and demand argument. Increasing demand for cotton in the South leads to higher price of cotton; higher price of cotton makes cotton-growers richer, and enables them to increase their demand for imported goods, for land, and for labor. Supply and demand comes into conflict with the quantity theory, and does not suffer in the conflict! Supply and demand determine particular prices, and particular prices determine the price-level!

Now I wish to generalize this point. I shall show that the quantity theory conflicts with most of our doctrines of prices, as worked out in our systems of economics. I shall show that, in important cases, the quantity theory conflicts with the law of supply and demand, with the doctrine of cost of production, with the capitalization theory, and with the doctrine of imputation as worked out by the Austrians, whereby the prices of labor, land, and other agents of production rise or fall with the prices of the consumption goods which they produce. I shall show the conflict in important cases, and shall show also, in those cases, that it is not the quantity theory which can be sustained.

The general form of the conflict may be stated for all these theories. They are theories of the relations of particular prices, concerned with showing that individual prices are so related that they tend to vary together. A rise in one price, according to these theories, tends to bring about rises in others, and vice versa. The quantity theory, on the other hand, asserts a relation among individual prices such that a rise in one tends to bring about a fall in others—it requires a compensatory fall at one point, if there has been a rise somewhere else.

Let us take some cases. I shall take, first, the conflict between the quantity theory and the capitalization theory, as I can use the illustration just given in connection with it. I have, in a preceding chapter, given a statement of the capitalization theory. It is a theory concerned with the prices of long-time goods and income-bearers, as lands, houses, capital goods of various sorts that give forth their services through a series of years, stocks, bonds, etc. The prices of things of this sort, according to the capitalization[340] theory, depend on two factors: one, the money income expected from the income-bearer, the other, the prevailing rate of interest. This money income, except in the case of bonds, commonly depends on the prices of the products of the income-bearer, or (in the case of stocks) of the products of the concrete capital-goods to which the income-bearer gives title. If we may follow the Austrian division of goods into higher and lower "orders," or "ranks," we may say that the prices of the goods of higher ranks are the capitalizations of the prices of the goods of lower ranks specifically produced by them. Thus, concretely, if the price of wheat rises, we may expect the prices of land to rise, if the rate of interest remains the same. If the price of steel rises, we may expect the stocks of the U. S. Steel corporation to rise, also. If the prices of smokeless powder, and other war munitions soar, we may expect the prices of the stocks of the corporations involved to do precisely what they have done in the recent course of the stock market. All this, on the assumption that the rate of interest does not change, and that the risk factor remains constant. If these factors vary, the results will not present the mathematical exactitude that the formula calls for, but the general tendency will remain the same. On the other hand, if the incomes remain unchanged, but the rate of interest rises, then we may expect the capitalized prices to fall, and if the rate of interest falls, we may expect the capitalized prices to rise. From the standpoint of the present discussion, I suppose it might be fairest and best to state the capitalization theory on this point as Fisher himself states it. In his Elementary Principles of Economics (ed. 1912) after giving a table showing in figures the difference made in different capital prices by different rates of interest (p. 125) he states (126): "If the value of the benefits derivable from these various articles continues in each case uniform, but the rate of interest is suddenly cut down from 5% to 2½%, there will result a general increase in the capital values, but a very different increase for the different articles. The more enduring ones will be affected the most." And in his book, The Rate of Interest: "The orchard whose yield of apples should increase from $1,000 worth to $2,000 worth would itself correspondingly increase in value from, say, $20,000 to something like $40,000 and the ratio of the income to the capital value, would remain about as before, namely, 5%." (P. 15.) On the next page, he generalizes his notion: "One cannot escape this conclusion (as has sometimes been attempted) by supposing the increasing productivity to be universal. It has been asserted, in substance, that though an increase in the productivity of one orchard would not affect the total productivity of capital, and hence would not appreciably affect the rate of interest, yet, if the productivity of all the capital in the world could be doubled, the rate of interest would be doubled. It is true that doubling the productivity of the world's capital would not be entirely without effect upon the rate of interest; but this effect would not be in the simple direct ratio supposed. Indeed, an increase of the productivity of capital would probably result in a decrease, instead of an increase, of the rate of interest. To double the productivity of capital might more than double the value of the capital." (Rate of Interest, p. 16.)[341] Fisher reiterates this doctrine in his reply to Seager, in the American Economic Review, Sept. 1913, pp. 614-615.

Now my concern here is not with the points at issue as between Fisher and Seager: the "impatience" vs. the "productivity" theories of interest. For the present, I shall accept Fisher's doctrine on that point as true.[342] I am here interested in Fisher's doctrine that a doubling of the general productivity of capital would double, or more than double, the prices of capital instruments, including land. How is such a general rise in prices possible, if the quantity theory be true? Is not this a rise in general prices from causes outside the equation of exchange? That Fisher means the money-prices of capital goods when he speaks of capital-values is perfectly clear. In the second quotation, he speaks of "capital-value of $40,000", and in general, his definition of value runs in terms of price (e. g., Purchasing Power of Money, pp. 3-4, and Elementary Principles, p. 17). Fisher has no absolute value concept in his system. We have in the passages cited two doctrines, both of which contradict the quantity theory: (1) that a reduction in the rate of interest will raise capital-prices (which are the largest factor by far in the price-level), and (2) that an increase in the product of capital goods means, not only more money paid for the products, but also more money paid for the production-goods. Incidentally, the general imputation theory would call for more money paid to laborers as well. How can all this be, on the quantity theory? And what can the poor equation of exchange do in such a case, if money does not increase, if bank-credit is limited by money, if velocities of circulation are fixed by individual habits and convenience, if trade increases as a consequence of the increased number of goods produced, and if prices rise? It will not help much to assume that the productivity of gold mines is doubled also. The quantity of money does not depend very much on the annual production of gold. Besides, money need not, from the standpoint of the quantity theory, be made of gold. It might be irredeemable Greenbacks, fixed in quantity by law, or even dodo-bones! Would not the capitalization theory apply in the Greenback Period? I shall not try to solve the riddle. I am not responsible for it!

The conflict between the capitalization theory and the quantity theory may be more simply stated. Assume that the prices of consumers' goods and services rise, quantity of money and volume of exchanges remaining unchanged. On the quantity theory, other prices, the prices of producers' goods and services, lands, and securities, would have to come down enough to compensate, in order that the price-level might remain unchanged. For the capitalization theory, however, the prices of lands, securities, and long time capital goods in general would have to rise, since the incomes on which they are based have risen. Wages of labor engaged in making consumers' goods would also have to rise, on the general imputation theory.

The quantity theory conflicts with the capitalization theory. The quantity theory as presented by Fisher conflicts with the capitalization theory as presented by Fisher. Which theory is true? Would prices rise thus, or would they be held down in some way by the limitations on the quantity of money? I hold that I have already proved, in the reasoning given in connection with my hypothetical island, and in the case of the South with its cotton, that the capitalization theory tendency would prevail. The prices of products rise, and then the prices of the labor, land, and other capital goods which have produced them, rise, the rise in the prices of the capital goods behaving in accordance with the laws of the capitalization theory, and all of the rises after the initial rise in products being in accordance with the imputation theory of the Austrians.

This conflict suggests an interesting point. Various elements in our economic theory, added from time to time by different writers, have necessarily come from different philosophical and sociological view-points, and have behind them different philosophical, psychological, and sociological assumptions. The quantity theory, developing, as shown in the chapter on "Supply and Demand and the Value of Money," largely in isolation from the general body of economic theory, has a background of psychological and sociological assumptions quite different from that of many other doctrines. In the chapter on "Dodo-Bones," I stated these assumptions. The quantity theory rests in a psychology of blind habit. It assumes a rigidity in the social system such that it might be likened to a machine, with a hopper into which money is poured, which grinds out prices at the other end. I set this in contrast with the psychological assumptions underlying the commodity theory of money. That theory rests on the "banker's psychology." It assumes a highly reflective and calculating attitude on the part of economic men, with the disposition to look behind appearances for the security, to test things out, to get to bedrock in business affairs. Now the capitalization theory likewise assumes this banker's psychology. In its refinements, as represented by the mathematical formulæ in the appendices of Fisher's Rate of Interest, it assumes a degree of precision in business calculation which few experts in bond departments apply, and which the highly fluid and alert dealers in Wall Street certainly have not time for, even if they had that degree of mathematical knowledge! In practice, it need not be said, particularly in the case of the prices of lands, the capitalization theory finds its predictions very imperfectly realized! But the two theories, resting in such divergent psychological assumptions, may be expected, a priori, to conflict. That they do conflict is not remarkable.

I shall show a similar conflict between the quantity theory and the law of costs. In general, the quantity theorist thinks that he has reconciled his theory with cost theory by pointing out that reduced costs manifest themselves in increasing production, which means increasing trade, which should, on the quantity theory, mean lower prices.[343] I need not, for my purposes, analyze this doctrine in detail, though I am disposed to consider it an accident that the two theories converge at this point. For the present, I shall analyze a case where reducing costs actually come as a consequence of the reduction in the volume of trade, and inquire whether such a case will lead, as the cost theory would assert, to lowered general prices, or, as the quantity theory would assert, to higher general prices. The case is that where by improved methods of handling goods, it is possible to dispense with middlemen. Concretely, assume that retailers of milk get in direct touch with dairymen, so that middlemen are eliminated, and that as a consequence the price of milk is reduced two cents a quart. What of the general price-level? T (trade) is reduced. There are less exchanges. Volume of trade does not mean volume of goods produced, but volume of exchanges. With a reduced trade, the quantity theory must assert that prices of commodities other than milk must, on the average, rise, not merely enough to compensate for the fall in milk, but more than that, enough to compensate for the reduced trade as well. But how can the other prices rise? Well, a point comes up obviously: the buyers of milk save two cents a quart. They can spend it for something else. This will raise the prices of other things. But, on the other hand, the middlemen now have less to spend. They have exactly as much less as the others have more, the extra money that milk buyers have being, in fact, the money that the middlemen would otherwise have had. The one offsets the other. There is, then, no reason for the average of other prices to rise. Suppose we carry the process one step further. After a while, the middleman will find other work to do. Then they will have incomes again to spend. But in going to work again, they will be engaged in production, and so will, in general, be increasing the volume of trade. The quantity theorist could not expect a rise in prices from this!

And here we are given a clue to a fundamental confusion in the quantity theory, a confusion which, accepted by the reader, gives the quantity theory much of its plausibility. I refer to the confusion between volume of money, and volume of money-income.[344] The two need not be the same. The two generally are not the same. In the case I have described, the one has changed without a change in the other. Now if one wishes to view the process of price-causation from the standpoint of money offered for goods,—an essentially superficial,[345] but frequently useful, view-point—it is clearly money-income, rather than mere quantity of money in the country that is important. Into the determination of volume of money-income, however, come factors of a high degree of complexity, among them, prices for which there is no possible place within the confines of so simple and mechanical a doctrine as the quantity theory.

In passing, I notice a point to which I called attention in discussing Fisher's factors in the equation of exchange. I refer to his definition of velocity of circulation as the average of "person-turnovers" of money.[346] In the illustration given, there is no reason to suppose that this average is changed. The middlemen simply drop out of the average. They have no money to turn over! But velocity of circulation, defined as "coin-transfer," (cf. supra, p. 204) has clearly changed. The course of money has been short-circuited. It goes through fewer hands in the course of a given period. This last concept of velocity of circulation is clearly the one that must be used, if the equation of exchange is to be kept straight. But this fact should make it clear that velocity of circulation, instead of being the inflexible thing that Fisher has described, resting in individual habits and practices, a true causal factor in the price making process, is really a highly flexible thing, in large degree a passive function of trade and prices.

With this distinction between volume of money and volume of money-income[347] clearly held, we are prepared to go further in our attack on the quantity theory, granting the quantity theorist all his most rigorous assumptions, and still demonstrating that prices can vary independently, without prior change in quantity of money, volume of trade, or velocity of money. Let us assume the extreme case of the quantity theory: a closed market; no credit; no barter; a fixed supply of money; a fixed volume of trade; a fixed set of habits affecting velocity, namely, that everyone spends, in the course of the month, all that he has accumulated by the first of the month. The quantity theorist could not ask a more iron-clad set of assumptions than this! If the quantity theory is not valid here, if the price-level is not absolutely fixed, helpless to change, with these assumptions, then the quantity theory, even as a minor tendency, must be surrendered, and the quantity theorist must admit that the whole line of thought has been fallacious. But is the price-level passive? Suppose we assume a combination of employers of maid-servants, which forces down the wages of maid-servants from $20 to $10 per month. Assume further that there is no alternative employment for the maid-servants, so that they all remain at work.[348] So far, we have made a change in one price, the price of domestic service. What of the general average of prices, the price-level? Well, so far, the price-level is down. If nothing else takes place, we have reduced the price-level by reducing one price. What else can take place? Two things: (1) the masters now have $10 per month each more to spend for other things than before. That tends to raise prices in their other channels of expenditure. (2) The maid-servants now have $10 each less to spend,—the same ten dollars! That lessens prices in the lines of their expenditure. These last two changes exactly neutralize one another. The first change, in the price of domestic service, remains unneutralized. The general price-level is, then, lowered—by a cause acting from outside the equation of exchange, directly on prices. The first change comes in one price. In the final adjustment, that change remains unneutralized. How is this possible? Is the equation of exchange still valid? As a mathematical formula, yes. As expressing a causal theory, in which prices are effect, and money, trade, and velocity causes, no. The equation is kept straight by a reduction in velocity. Because the wages of maid-servants are reduced, less money goes through their hands; $10 per month per maid are short-circuited. But the cause is with the prices. The price-level, even under these absolutely rigorous assumptions, is not passive.

In general, I conclude that the price-level, under the laws governing particular prices, supply and demand, cost of production, the capitalization theory, the imputation theory, etc., can vary of its own initiative, independently of prior changes in the quantity of money, or of volume of trade, or other factors that the quantity theory stresses; and that these changes in the price-level (or in the particular prices which govern the price-level) can maintain themselves, and compel a readjustment in trade, credit, money and velocities, to correspond. This conclusion strikes at the very heart of the quantity theory, and, if valid, leaves the quantity theory disproved. More fundamentally, I should put it, prices can change because of changes in the psychological values of goods. These values are social values, and are to be explained only by a social psychology. But for the present it has seemed best to me, as a means of attracting sympathetic attention from a wider circle of economists, to make use of the less debated doctrines of the science in attacking the quantity theory. It is not necessary to rest the case on my own special theory of value. Supply and demand, cost of production, the capitalization theory, the imputation theory—the general laws of the concatenations and interrelations of prices—are quite adequate for the confutation of the quantity theory. They are laws concerned with particular prices, and the price-level is nothing but the average of particular prices. Whatever explains, really explains, the particular prices, also explains the price-level.