|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 5
"Awful depreciation," isn't it? "Debased money," and all that sort of
thing. But hold on. Let us see how it is with other things. For prices in
the first half of 1873 we will take the United States Abstract, and for
present prices to-day's issue of the New York _Tribune_. Wheat then was
$1.40 in New York city, so our silver bar would have brought ten and
four-sevenths bushels; to-day wheat is "unsteady" in the near neighborhood
of 64 cents, and our silver bar would buy ten and five-sixths bushels. No.
2 red is the standard in both cases.
Going through a long list in the same manner, we find that the ten-ounce
bar of uncoined silver would buy in '73, in New York city, twenty-three
and a half bushels of corn, to-day twenty-four bushels; of cotton then
eighty pounds, to-day eighty-six pounds--and there is "a great speculative
boom in cotton," and has been for some time, but on the average price of
this year silver would buy much more. Of rye, then about fifteen bushels
(grading not well settled), to-day thirteen bushels; of bar iron then 310
pounds, to-day 460 pounds, and so on through the market. In the Central
West in 1873 it would have taken ten such silver bars to buy a standard
farm horse, Clydesdale or Percheron-Norman.
Will it take anymore bars to-day at $6.90 each?
There is another way to calculate the decline, and that is by taking the
average farm value instead of the export or New York city price, and
including all roots and garden products not exported, and this makes the
showing far more favorable to silver. The Agricultural Department at
Washington has recently issued a pamphlet showing the crops of every year
since 1870, and the average home or farm price, together with the total
for which the whole crop was sold. Send for it and contrast the prices
given in it with those known to you to-day, and you will find that in rye,
barley, oats, potatoes, and many other things the decline has been very
much greater than is given above. In short, it takes more farm produce to
buy an ounce of silver than it did in 1873, and twice as much to buy an
ounce of gold. Of Ohio medium scoured wool, for instance--and that is the
standard wool of the market--it would have taken in 1873 two and a half
pounds to have bought an ounce of silver, while to-day it will take
considerably over three pounds. The monometallists habitually talk, and
have talked it so long that they believe it themselves, as if silver had
become so cheap that the farmer ought to rank it with tin, lead, or
spelter; but if the farmer will try the experiment he will find that it
takes a good deal more of his product to buy a given amount of silver than
it did in 1873.
The plain truth of the matter is that the time has come for both gold and
silver to increase in purchasing power; but by reason of demonetization
almost the entire increase has been concentrated in gold, leaving silver
almost stationary as to commodities in general, but somewhat enhanced as
to farm products. In the name of common, honesty, is it not a high-handed
outrage to make the old debts of that period payable in the rapidly
appreciating metal, instead of one that has merely retained its value? and
is it not hypocrisy to speak of such a system as "honest money," and
affect to deplore the dishonesty of those who insist upon their right to
pay in the least variable metal, which was constitutional and the unit of
our money from the very start?
=We certainly do want to pay our debts in honest money.=
Gospel truth! And there is but one kind of perfectly honest money--that
which will give the creditor an equivalent in commodities for what he
could have bought with the money he loaned. Surely no honest man will
pretend that gold to-day does that. At this point we must admit the
painful truth that, in that sense, there is no perfectly honest money,
that is, no money that does not change somewhat in purchasing power; and
how to remedy this has been the great problem with the greatest minds
among financiers--with all financiers, in fact, who are more anxious for
justice than greedy of gain. But surely there should not be added to an
innate variability that much greater variability due to the mischievous
interference of interested parties, through the power of the government.
And herein is made manifest the reckless folly of the gold men in fighting
against the soundest conclusions of science and honesty, in striving for a
standard of one metal allowing the greatest variation, instead of two
which by varying in different directions might counteract each other.
Gold alone has varied in production in this century from $15,000,000 to
$150,000,000 per year, or tenfold; but gold and silver combined have never
varied more than sixfold. It is self evident, therefore, that the two
combined form a much more stable mass than gold alone, and it cannot be
too often repeated that the great desideratum in money, the one quality
more important than all others, is stability in value, to the end that a
dollar or pound or franc may command as nearly as possible the same amount
of commodities when a contract is completed as when it is made. Economists
dispute about almost everything else, but they are unanimous in this: That
a money which changes rapidly in purchasing power is destructive of all
stability and even of commercial morality. Will anybody pretend that gold
has not changed rapidly in purchasing power within the last twenty years?
Has not the universal experience shown that the variation has been very
much greater in one metal than it ever was when the two metals were
treated equally at the mint? The very least that could be asked on the
score of honesty would be free coinage of both, with a proviso that debts
should be paid with one-half of each. Back of all that, however, comes in
the great principle of compensatory action, the variation of one metal
counteracting that of the other; and from the standpoint of pure science
and honesty it is greatly to be regretted that, instead of two precious
metals, we have not at least five.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|