Читать книгу Readings in Money and Banking - Chester Arthur Phillips - Страница 76

[28] … Is it desirable that we should have more money? Does the maintenance of the gold standard involve injustice or hardship to debtors, or to any class in the community? Does it have any ill effects in hampering industry or checking the advance of production? Is the free coinage of silver, or any measure leading ultimately to a silver basis, fairly open to the objections commonly urged against it on the grounds of dishonesty and injustice? …

In considering these questions, we must look to the ultimate and permanent results of the silver standard. The details … as to the mode in which the silver issues circulate and the degree of promptness with which they will affect prices, are here of no great importance. Under a silver standard the rise in prices will take place in the end; and we are concerned with the social consequences of such an eventual result. …

I propose here to take up chiefly one set of serious arguments—those which rest on the changes in general prices which have taken place throughout the civilised world in the last twenty years. The conclusions in favor of a wider use of silver, drawn from such changes, have been maintained by distinguished economists. It is true that the particular plans for the use of silver which are now in vogue in the United States have generally been opposed by these economists. They have urged international agreements for the wider use of silver, and have deprecated independent action by any one nation. But the more thoroughgoing advocates of free silver in the United States say, certainly with much force, that an international agreement has proved to be simply impracticable, and that if the wider use of silver is to be deferred until there is concerted action by the great nations, it will never come. If anything in this direction is to be done, some one country must be courageous enough to take the lead, trusting that others will follow in due time. And certainly it is true that the scheme for international bimetallism has practically no prospect of adoption; while, on the other hand, the serious arguments urged by its advocates tell, in some degree, in favor of any scheme for enlarging the use of silver as money. These arguments, moreover, are of weight, and deserve a more painstaking consideration than is often admitted by those who oppose the silver legislation of the United States.

The serious and important arguments, then, among those who, both in this country and in Europe, advocate a greater use of silver as money, are derived from the general fall in prices which has been so conspicuous among the economic phenomena of the last twenty years. To that fall they ascribe two evils: first, an unjust increase in the burdens of debtors; and, second, a check to enterprise and to the efficient working of the productive machinery of the community. The increase in the burdens of debtors is one which all economists have pointed to as the result of a general fall in prices, or rise in the value of the circulating medium. The debtor who borrows a hundred dollars now, and repays them five years hence, when all prices have fallen, gives back more than he received. On debts running for short periods of time, changes in general prices are not likely to be great enough to cause serious hardship; but on debts running over long periods the loss to debtors and the gain to creditors will be great and continuing. But such a steady and continuous fall, it is urged, has taken place since 1873; and the fall is likely to continue further, and to renew its hardships on each new act of borrowing, because its cause is a permanent one. That cause is found in the growing scarcity of gold, which has been selected as the sole standard of value among civilised countries. The production of gold, after having increased with great rapidity in the twenty years following the Californian and Australian discoveries in 1850, has gone on but slowly since 1870. Meanwhile, the population of the civilized countries, their wealth, their production of commodities to be exchanged, have increased with extraordinary rapidity; while the adoption of the gold standard by Germany in 1873, and the resumption of specie payments by the United States in 1879 and by Italy in 1883, have added to the demands for which the scanty annual supply of gold must suffice. Hence the general fall in prices; in other words, the appreciation of gold.

The second effect of the appreciation of gold, in checking industrial progress and promoting industrial depression, has been less insisted on in the United States than in European countries. The classic economists had generally reasoned that a general rise or fall in prices was indifferent, except in regard to the relations of debtor and creditor. If money became scarce, if its value rose and all prices fell, every producer, to be sure, would receive a smaller money income than before, and would have a smaller money capital. But he would be able to buy as many commodities and as much labor as before, and would be in reality just as rich and prosperous. In the middle of the eighteenth century, when economic thought was just beginning to assume its modern form, David Hume had argued that though a fall in prices is at bottom indifferent to everybody (except as debtor or creditor), it would yet, in its effects on men's spirits and expectations, which are all connected with money and with terms of money, exert a depressing influence on industry, and would so be harmful; while rising prices, though also really indifferent to all, would stimulate hope and confidence, and so arouse to more active exertion and more plentiful production. The younger Mill, in his Political Economy, thought it worth while to enter on a careful refutation of Hume's reasoning. But the bimetallists of our time are disposed to agree with the shrewd Scotchman. They say that the active manager of industry, the business man or entrepreneur, in the first place is always more or less in debt; in the second place, is always buying labor, or materials, or goods, with the intention of selling a product at a later date at an advance in price. He habitually measures his gains in terms of money, and not in terms of the commodities he can buy with the money. In times when prices are falling, he finds it harder to meet his debts, and to dispose of his goods in hand at a money advance over what they cost him. But the business man, or entrepreneur, in our day is the director and initiator of industry. He employs labor, borrows capital, sets the wheels of industry in motion; it is his expectations and fears and hopes which determine primarily whether the investment of capital shall take place in large or small amount, and whether the machinery of production shall move smoothly and effectively, or slowly, hesitatingly, inefficiently. The argument certainly does not lack plausibility; nor can it be said to have often been squarely met. No doubt it takes the form, in the United States, more frequently of confused encomiums on the inspiriting effects of plentiful money, than of direct reasoning as to the ill effects of too little money, such as I have endeavored to state with fairness in the preceding sentences. Yet it does not lack weighty backing. So eminent an economist as President Francis A. Walker has … insisted on the evils of a deficient supply of money as strangling the arteries of industrial life.

On the whole, however, the other argument, bearing on the increase in the burdens of debtors under falling prices, has been more often heard in the United States, and certainly has been of more effect. Prosperity, activity, general industrial advance, have been in this country so great and so obvious that the argument as to any check to industry could take serious hold only in occasional periods of depression or slackened advance. The burden on American debtors from falling prices has therefore been much more steadily complained of, chiefly in regard to the debts of the farmers and other borrowers on a comparatively small scale. No doubt there are other debtors whose burdens are affected at least as much, notably the railways, among whom the practice of borrowing heavily on long time has sometimes had its serious effects. But it is the farmer whose case has received most attention, and in some ways doubtless has deserved it most.

The discussion of the relations of debtors and creditors under the gold standard has led to some further conclusions as to the "honesty" of the gold and silver standards. Those who oppose a silver basis speak of the silver dollar as a "dishonest" coin. But those who attack the gold standard retort that the really dishonest dollar is that of gold. It is pointed out by them that the fall in the price of silver which has taken place since 1873 has not been greater than that in the prices of commodities generally. As compared with commodities, therefore, silver has been more steady in value than gold. The fall in the gold price of silver, which is adduced by the mono-metallists to show that silver is not a good standard of value, is said to be the very thing which proves it to be a good standard of value; for a given amount of silver will buy the same amount of commodities, roughly, as it would twenty years ago, while a given amount of gold will buy more. If debts had been expressed in terms of silver, the debtor would have had to repay the creditor the same amount of commodities that he received—not more commodities, as he has had to do, with debts measured and repaid in terms of gold. So far as the attainment of the closest possible approach to ideal justice is concerned, a silver standard would have served the purpose better than a gold one.