Читать книгу The Principles of Economics, with Applications to Practical Problems - Frank A. Fetter - Страница 74

Various points of view of the students regarding money

1. The use of money prevails in very different degrees in various parts of the United States. The members of this class, representing nearly every state and territory in the Union, have lived amid very diverse industrial conditions. Some know best the country where conditions are similar to those of a hundred years ago; some, the villages where may be seen the handicrafts and the small general store. Others know better the cities with their varied industries; while doubtless still others, through family relations, know of the methods of great wholesale business, perhaps even of the larger commerce and foreign trade. Methods differ in the different lines of business, and according as a man is a farmer, a merchant, or a banker, he has different ideas as to the use of money and of the part it plays in modern industry. You come to this study with different experiences and preconceptions; as a result every statement produces a somewhat different impression on each of you. This is true in general of the statements made in political economy; but it is most strikingly true in the discussions of money. A city boy rarely sees a case of barter; whereas in many parts of the West and Southwest, and in the mountainous districts of the East, a large part of the business is carried on in this way. Town and city in New York state differ in this respect, but hardly more than do the rural districts of the different sections of our country. Banks are very numerous in the East, are few in the Northwest, and still fewer in the South. Men can understand each other better in a discussion if they are conscious of the fact that they do not instinctively take the same point of view.

Countries differ in their use of money

2. The extent to which, on an average, money is used in different countries of the world, differs widely. Statements in political economy must be guarded; few of them can be taken as universally true. As the different parts of one country may be contrasted, so may the different countries. The use of money in Siberia would be much less than that in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and again the average use in Western Russia is doubtless less than that in Austria. In Austria the money use is less developed than in Germany. While there is now little difference between Germany and France in this respect, France for a long time was the more developed industrially and made greater use of money.

There is greater use of money in the cities of the outlying countries than in the rural districts. In the cities of Mexico banks and credit agencies are employed as in the American cities. The rural districts are more backward and make far less use of money than is the case in the United States. The great ports of China are provided with all the facilities of modern banking. In the great cities of India one can get a bank draft that will be paid in any part of the world. But go a very little way out of the cities of China and India, and conditions greatly change; money is far less used and principally as a storehouse of saving.

Slight use of money in the Middle Ages

3. In a historical view the European nations are seen to begin with a barter economy and to pass through great changes as regards the use of money. Here the view shifts from a comparison of different nations at the same moment to a comparison of the same nation through a period of centuries. To understand, even in a measure, what is about them men must know out of what it grows. In the early Middle Ages money was used chiefly in cities, and there only to a limited extent. Almost universally a "barter economy" prevailed, or, as it has been called, a "natural economy," a term taken from the German "Naturalien," which means natural products, enjoyable things, as opposed to money. Natural economy, therefore, means that condition of society in which things are exchanged in kind. In the Middle Ages land was the great and dominant form of wealth. The prince himself was dependent on land for his income. The conquering chief or invader took possession of the land and parceled it out to his followers, and they in turn to their vassals. The income of the rulers was in the form of "Naturalien" (wheat, chickens, eggs), the kind and amount of which was fixed by contract or by immemorial usage. The landlord had land as his wealth and income-getter; the tenant received the use of the land in payment for his labor.

Land, the main form of wealth, was rented without the use of money

The condition of the serf appears to have been, under these circumstances, inevitably connected with the "barter economy" as applied to the renting of land. A farm cannot be moved, and in medieval conditions its products mainly had to be used on the spot. If the serf was to use and enjoy the land, he had to stay upon it. Having no money he had to pay in labor or in products, for its usufruct. In those times the powerful man, politically, was also a wealthy man whose wealth consisted of landed estates. Between the landlord and the serf existed a lasting relation, inherited rather than voluntary, but similar in its conditions to the renting contract. The villein had the use of the stock, pastures, fields, woodlands, provided he kept them undiminished and undestroyed to transmit to his children. Under such conditions there was great fixity of economic relations. While in some respects this was a happy condition, it had its disadvantages. The renting contract, in connection with a fixed rotation of crops and some communal modes of cultivation, hindered improvements. The more intelligent cultivator could not change his methods for the better. It may be seen not only that the use of money on a medieval manor was slight, but that the conditions for the growth of the money habit were most unfavorable. The terms of agricultural contracts, the modes of speech, the habits and thought of the mass of the people, were therefore determined by the conditions of the barter economy. A change in these respects was slowly worked by forces originating outside, in a very different industrial environment.

Contrast between city wealth and feudal estates in the Middle Ages

4. With the growth of cities developed a new class of wealthy men and a new view of wealth. The student of history knows of the conflict that grew up during the Middle Ages between the cities and the landed aristocracy. It found its cause in economic conditions. There were obvious differences between the wealth of the feudal landlords, and the wealth that grew up in cities. One must be used mostly on the spot, the other can be moved. The fruits of one are perishable for the most part; the fruits of the other can be kept for a longer period. The methods of agriculture are exceptionally stable; production by handicraftsmen is dependent on the peculiar skill of the workman, giving greater room for invention and a premium on skill. The one industry may be carried on by servile labor; the other can be efficiently followed only by free workers having the ambition to excel.

Money thus more used in city trade

The use of money grew up in the city. The density of population made it easy, the growth of wealth made it possible, and the nature of the exchanges made it necessary. Whereas the relation of landlord and serf under the renting contract continues from year to year, the relation of the buyer and seller of shoes, hats, etc., in the city, is temporary, these things forming only a part of man's economic needs. Barter with a particular individual is much more inconvenient if exchange is only occasional than where the contract is a continuing one, and there is an annual balancing and settlement of accounts. So, as city industry and commerce grew the use of money increased, both in small neighborhood trade and in the larger transactions with distant countries; and thus the business methods of the cities grew into sharper contrast with those of the rural districts.

Money loaned and borrowed in cities

5. The loan and hire of wealth in medieval cities came to be expressed as a money loan. The loan of money and of other wealth expressed in terms of money, began in the cities. The use of money and the expression of the value of things in terms of money was common there throughout the Middle Ages. Moreover, as the movable forms of wealth multiplied, the agreement to return borrowed wealth in kind became impossible in cities; the loan in terms of money became the only practicable thing. A merchant embarking on a trading expedition must have such a number and variety of goods, that he finds it both very difficult to rent them and wasteful in time to enumerate them and return them in like kind. It therefore became usual to make a loan either of the things expressed in terms of money, or of money with which to buy the things, thereby reducing to a single, simple, easily interpreted contract, the indebtedness which the borrowing of a thousand different things occasioned.

The medieval opposition to loans at interest

Such a contract differed not in economic purpose, but only in form and terms of obligation, from the renting of wealth. The church writers, however, got much confused in regard to the nature of money loans. They did not see that it was things which the merchant wished to borrow. They did not see that the money loan was simply a more convenient mode of transferring the use of wealth from one person to another. The moralists and lawmakers of that day said: Money is unfruitful, therefore taking interest for it is robbery. We cannot follow here the controversy as to the justice of interest on money which involved other ideas than those mentioned, but even to the present time traces of the old fallacy may be seen more or less plainly in the economic theory as well of conservative writers as of the socialistic opponents of interest. The principal sum expressed in the loan contract was called the capital sum, from caput, head, and the amount paid for its use was first called usury, money for the use. How the word interest came to take its place, and the word usury came to mean excessive interest is one of the most interesting chapters in economic history. The term capital then came to be connected with city wealth, with movable forms of wealth, with things supposed to be peculiarly "the product of labor"; and interest was assumed to be connected only with this capital. The term rent on the other hand was connected especially with the use of land. The connection was a historical accident, but it has had an important influence on economic theory.

Rivalry of the commercial and landholding classes in Europe

6. The owners of city wealth and of country landed estates often were opposed as well in social and political as in economic affairs. The practical economic questions of the Middle Ages and the practical political questions largely turned on these two groups of interests. The men of wealth in the cities, the merchants and manufacturers, often were found opposed to the landed aristocracy. This social division between the commercial and agricultural classes doubtless helped to strengthen the prejudgment as to the nature of the two kinds of wealth. Indeed, in view of the situation, it may have been in a measure justifiable and expedient to contrast the thought of city wealth, which has come to be called capital, with that of landed wealth. But even if it were, it is now misleading and erroneous to continue the use of such concepts in a new country and in our modern conditions.

Land continues to be rented while city wealth is borrowed in money form

Indeed, for centuries the sharper features of the contrast have been steadily softened. The money economy of the city gradually spread to the rural districts, but never entirely displaced barter, which lingers everywhere. Important steps toward a money economy were the commuting of forced or customary labor of the serfs into a money payment to the lord, and at the same time the substitution of money payments for payments in kind (use of lands, specified goods, etc.) to the peasants. Thus arose a free peasant class receiving wages. But land continued to be rented and landed estates to be hereditary throughout Europe. As they did not pass from hand to hand as a commercial or marketable form of wealth, their value was rarely, if ever, expressed in terms of money and as a ratio to the rent they bore. The result was the fixing of the erroneous idea that agricultural wealth is essentially different in the character of its service and yield from wealth used in manufactures. One phase of the error was the idea held by the physiocratic writers and by Adam Smith that in agriculture "nature labors along with man," while in manufacture "nature does nothing, man does all." This view was corrected by later critics (Buchanan, Ricardo, and others), but the main portion of the fallacy persisted in the supposed contrast between the characters of the services performed by natural resources and by artificially produced wealth.