1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Tu Ne Cede Malis

Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School for 30 years

Search Mises.org
Organization of Debt into Currency and Other Papers
by Charles Holt Carroll

Previous Chapter *  Next Chapter
Table of Contents

Chapter 27
The Currency Question in the Commercial Convention in Boston

(Reprinted from Hunt's Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, LVIII June, 1868), 418-32.)

I was glad to find that the members of the Commercial Convention in Boston of last February were generally readers of this magazine. Having had the privilege of presenting a few remarks, as an outsider, to the Committee on Currency and Finance of that Convention, by their courtesy, I would like to offer through your pages to the gentlemen who composed that committee, and to your readers generally, some further explanation of the views which there was not time to elaborate on that occasion.

Several members of the Committee having urged the need of a lower rate of interest at the West, as a reason for the increase of banks and currency there, I took occasion to say that to increase currency in relation to capital is a sure way to increase the rate of interest, as well as general prices, and that even the supply of money itself does not change this law, because interest is not a price for the loan of money merely; it is the rent of capital. It is not, therefore, currency that is needed at the West to reduce the rate of interest, but capital, since the more capital there is, the less is its rent, and capital can be obtained only by labor, or it is the fruit of labor wherever and however obtained.

In support of this doctrine, as to the rate of interest, I presented the example of California, and stated that money runs away from a high rate of interest all the world over, as it runs away from that State, where it is 24 to 30 per cent per annum, to New York, where it is 6 to 9 per cent; thence to London where it is 4 per cent, and thence to Paris, Hamburg, &c, where it is only 2 or 3 per cent. The question was asked why, under these circumstances, does money leave California? I could only reply, because of the deficiency of other capital there, California is too poor to retain the great amount of money she produces, the pressure of business before the Committee precluding any further explanation.

The question of interest is closely connected with the policy of expanding the currency, and is important for a reason the reverse of that contemplated by the advocates of that policy in the Convention. To give the subjects of interest and currency, therefore, proper consideration, let me repeat that interest is the rent of capital—loanable capital—and capital is as effectually loaned in wheat, or iron, or groceries, or dry goods, or in any other form, as in money. When goods are bought and sold on credit, obviously the rent of the capital is considered in the price of the goods. Interest includes, always, more or less of guarantee against bad debts; hence a debt currency, which is a fruitful source of bankruptcy, is a powerful agency in raising the rate of interest where, from the abundance of capital, it would be naturally low. There can be nothing more absurd, as the matter presents itself to my mind, than to expel and repel money with a debt currency, and thus force the business of the country into the credit system, with all its needless embarrassment and direct cost, and an increased rate of interest besides.

Money is but one of the exchangeable commodities of commerce, only that it possesses extraordinary utility as the common equivalent and recompense in exchange, the demand for which is without limit. To this utility it owes its value, which varies with the needs and means of payment of all who desire it, differing in this respect not at all from every other exchangeable commodity. I agree perfectly with Professor Lieber, that money existed before government; that it is a commodity; and that, virtually, there are no such two words or acts as buying and selling; there is only exchange. The blindness of the public in regard to it seems to be owing to the interference of legislation in separating the unit of money from the ordinary weights of commerce by which it was formerly known and exchanged. Every student of the subject knows that the British pound sterling was once a pound of silver, and the French livre the same. Cheating by the governments made these two units the meaningless things they are. Our dollar was originally an ounce of silver, and the German thaler the same.

Gold or silver offered in exchange, or buried in the miser's hoard, for its intrinsic value, is money. Whoever buys a barrel of flour for a gold eagle is at the same time buyer and seller; he buys flour and sells gold, and bargains as much for the value of the gold he sells as of the flour he buys. Whether in bullion or in coin, whether reckoned by ounces or dollars, until its value is augmented by labor in the arts, as plate, jewels, 8cc, gold is money.

The rate of interest is opposed to the value of money. That is to say, where the rate of interest is high, except momentarily sometimes in the crisis of a bank contraction, the value of money is low, and vice versa. Loss by the depreciation of the value of money is just the same in every respect to its owner as the loss by the depreciation of the value of wheat to the owner of wheat. The value of money is as simple an expression as the value of wheat; it is, of course, its purchasing power, and that can be expressed only in the thing it purchases. If ten dollars of money purchases a barrel of flour, so much flour is the value of so much money. If a bushel of corn exchanges for a dollar, the value of a dollar is a bushel of corn. Where little money buys much of other things its value is high: where much money buys little of other things its value is low. Nothing can be plainer; yet, and although this fact, and the distinction between the rate of interest and the value of money, have been clearly set forth by the best scientific authority in England—John Stuart Mill—we find the London Economist habitually calling the rate of interest "the value of money." I cannot suppose this to be the result of ignorance, but of the curious and unaccountable persistence with which the practical, so called, and the theoretical, in political economy refuse to become acquainted with each other. By this misuse of a significant term the Economist helps to intensify the corruption of the nomenclature of that science which obscures the subject in the public mind.

Money is capital, if free of hoards. It is exchangeable or circulating capital, like every other thing that is offered for exchange, and it is wealth, not currency, to the miser. It is wanted everywhere as capital and wealth "to serve a purpose and satisfy a desire" for its purchasing and paying power, and for its security; functions which nothing else possesses in like degree or in like convenience and perfection. It finds customers without effort, wherever it is known to exist; it is the thing promised in debt, both in and out of the currency, and it makes payment in quality and value all the world over free from doubt or uncertainty. I say it is wanted as capital and wealth, not as currency, because as currency it serves only to make price, which adds nothing to value or to wealth. Had we but one-tenth of the currency we have to-day in this country, other things being as they are, we should have but one-tenth the price of things in general, but not a particle less of value in our property and not a particle less of general wealth. We should have, in that case, simply ten times the value or purchasing power in every dollar of our currency, and, were such an extreme case possible, it would give us a wonderful advantage in commerce over every other people on the globe. Who could compete with us in the production and sale of anything that we have the natural soil and ability to produce, or the ability to procure? Who could make such profits in foreign trade as we? The barrel of flour, costing ten dollars now, would cost but one dollar then, and we could exchange it, say with England, for a yard of broadcloth of the present currency value of ten dollars, which, no matter what might be its price, would cost us but one dollar, because our imports cannot cost any more than the exports that pay for them. Could we not then supply France and Germany with broadcloth cheaper than they could make it? Could we not build ships and sail them, and supply cargoes, cheaper than any other people? Who then but we would cover the ocean with ships and steamers, and conduct the carrying trade of the world?

And what prevents us or any other people from realizing this imaginary advantage? Simply the irrevocable law of value in exchange, by which money, as capital, the great object as well as instrument of commerce to all nations, flows to the market where its value is the most; that is to say, where the least money will exchange for the most of other things. This being so, no folly can be greater than legislating for a supply of currency, since money itself is naturally in repletion everywhere to prevent any one country or people from having the advantage of others in international trade, except by the normal exercise of industry and intelligence in producing and cheapening capital.

The more of anything there is produced, the cheaper it is, of course; but this fall of special value is nevertheless an increase of wealth. The miners and the State of California are enriched as much by producing money, although cheapening it all the while, as they would be by producing a like value of wheat. This fact stares us in the face in the rapid strides of that new State to wealth, and puts to shame the speculative theory of certain scholars and writers that money is not capital. It would be as absurd to oppose the cheapening of money by its increase, as of Indian corn or wheat by an increase of the crops. But to cheapen money, as currency, without increasing it, as capital, to compensate the depreciation and supply the export demand which that depreciation creates, is quite another thing, that should be restrained as rigidly as counterfeiting, for it amounts to the same thing in its effect upon the wealth of the nation. A bank that has nothing to lend, and lends that nothing in a promise to pay money on demand, creates a fiction, and puts it into the currency to the degradation of the value of money, and loss of capital to the community, as effectually as the counterfeiter who does the same thing, the difference being only in the intention, and in public credulity which believes in and accepts the one and rejects the other.

This same thing, in principle, has been tried in dealing in wheat in Chicago: but it lacked that support from public credulity, or, as it is called, "confidence," which is so freely granted in dealing in money under the name and cloak of banking, a useful and naturally an honest business, the name of which is used to cover a multitude of sins. The quality of wheat, as of gold, may be uniform, and determined accurately by competent inspection, and the supply of various owners may be stored in bulk of one grade, and delivered in detached parcels, regardless of the distinction of ownership without injustice to anyone. Thus, as everyone knows, wheat is stored and delivered in Chicago. The warehousemen issue receipts, or certificates of deposit, as the wheat is received, and by and on those certificates it is sold and delivered. These men were not slow to discover that, as wheat was coming and going continually, and keeping their warehouses replenished, they could establish the "credit system" in the business, by dealing on their employers' capital, counting upon an average forbearance of demand, without borrowing or paying interest for it. In other words, they could issue certificates of deposit for wheat that was never deposited or produced—fictitious bushels of wheat in promises—cause sales to be made by those certificates, and meet them out of their employers' supplies.[1] Some of them did this thing; how many or to what extent is immaterial, and whether with or without intentional wrong is also immaterial to our argument, which is concerned only with the principle, and that is swindling. The Illinois legislature so considered it, and passed a law enacting that any person who shall negotiate or put in circulation any such receipt "shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than one thousand dollars, nor more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than five years." Some failures among the warehousemen, I think, brought this law about.

Nevertheless, the same thing is done with money in Chicago and elsewhere not only with impunity, but with encouragement. It is popular among the commercial nations; it is not banking, which is dealing in loanable capital, but currency-making, the illegitimate, fictitious "credit system" of the Bank of England. You deposit, say, one thousand dollars of coined money in a bank, and the bank will promise to deliver it on demand to four other men as well as to yourself; that is, will lend its employers' capital on the Chicago certificate and Bank of England plan four times over by discounting, without borrowing or paying interest for it, each of the four customers having the same privilege of checking upon your money that you have, the bank counting upon an average forbearance of demand, by circulating its debt in the place of money, so that 20 per cent reserve of specie will enable it to meet these preposterous promises. Whether the promises are in certificates, i.e., notes issued, or inscribed credits called "deposits," makes no difference; the bank creates a fiction of dollars of money, as the Chicago warehousemen created a fiction of bushels of wheat, and with the same effect in degrading the value of circulating capital.

In this country 20 per cent of specie is considered ample for the bank reserves; in England 33 1/3 per cent; in France, I think, rarely if ever less than 40 per cent; and the Bank of France, the only currency-making institution in that country, is apt to be in trouble at that; for France has had such sharp experience with "paper money" that "confidence" is not quite sufficient there to give it free scope.

If there be any difference in principle or effect between the spurious wheat traffic of Chicago, now suppressed, and the currency-making of banks, which is encouraged, in degrading the value of circulating capital to the loss of its owners and the country, I must say that, after many years of careful study of the subject, aided by practical experience in active business, I cannot see it. The loss falls first upon the owners of the capital in the local market where the spurious loan is made, and ultimately is distributed through the country.

"Everything," says De Quincey, "that enters a market we find to have some value or other. Everything in every case is known to be isodynamic with some fraction, some multiple, or some certain proportion of everything else." It is by this law of equivalents, this isodynamic or equal force and intensity of value, tending to an equilibrium constantly, but never resting, that money moves from place to place, and that every fraction of capital is attracted by and to every other fraction of capital throughout the commercial world.

"New countries are always understocked." California is understocked. She has not a sufficiency of other capital to reduce its general or average value to a level with her natural and large supply of money, or, what is the same thing, to raise the value of her money to a proportionate or isodynamic[2] equivalence with her other capital, and it is impossible that she should have it, because of her insufficiency of population and productive power. Hence, capital in general is dear there in money value and real prices are high; in other words, money is cheap; and money as cheap capital leaves California, as wheat and corn leave Illinois, being attracted abroad by other capital according to supply and demand.

No matter what may be the currency in use in this country, whether dollars or promises to pay dollars in circulating notes or demand deposits, so far as it is interchangeable with money, or passes for money, it will follow the California rule of running away from dear capital—from the market where capital is relatively scarce to the market where capital is relatively plenty—from the poor State to the rich one. The western Atlantic States cannot retain a dime more of it than will be naturally attracted to them by their circulating capital; and, if they make a currency of debt among themselves, that currency will as surely fall into the hands of Eastern creditors, in the cities where capital is in greater proportion to currency, as does the surplus money of California. But the result will be widely different; they send out in such case not money and capital, but debt and embarrassment, to return and plague them, whereas California sends money and capital that pays as it goes.

Not that California is ever out of debt to the eastern States. She is comparatively poor, as I have said, and borrows capital of them, by buying goods on credit, her surplus money being of no more advantage to her than an equal value of wheat or of any other surplus capital is or would be. But by avoiding a debt currency, she secures exemption for her capital from a great amount of utterly needless embarrassment, pro and con, in the notes and bonds of individuals for and against the notes and credits of banks, required for no purpose but to create and maintain such a currency, which, in the nature of the case, by expelling and repelling money, precludes a like amount of sales for cash in prompt exchange. At the same time she secures the production, export, and exchange for foreign goods, of large quantities of wheat and other staples that she would not otherwise produce, because the export demand would fall upon the cheapened commodity, money, which would be exported in their stead.

Many a bushel of wheat and of barley, many a pound of wool and gallon of wine, are produced and exported by California more than she would produce if the prices and cost of these staples were raised by a paper currency, since every step in the direction of high prices limits their market. Her facilities for producing these things are such that, notwithstanding her cheap money, she supplies them as cheaply, and, being equivalent thereto in value, they unite with money in the exports. But let her mix paper with her money, and the first dollar of it will be an abnormal depreciation of a dollar in the value of her money, which, there being no new dollar produced to compensate the depreciation and supply the export demand, will inevitably cause a dollar to be exported from her pre-existing stock of money, instead of merchandise. She will have precisely the same additional price to pay for her imports as if she had a new dollar to pay it with, and she will lose the money absolutely in an old dollar by having only paper price, not money value, returned for it.

California might in this way, by adding paper dollars to her circulating medium, nearly divest herself of money, and, notwithstanding her vast production and receipts of gold, come into line with her sister States in suspension and bankruptcy. It is a wonder to me that she has not been prevailed upon to do this already—that cunning men have not persuaded the people of California that they need more "money" to transact their business, and that banks have not been crowded upon them to borrow their capital blindly for nothing, and charge them interest upon it, by calling the instruments of this borrowing "money." It is a blind scheme by which the first principles of justice and common sense in the employment of capital are reversed, and its lenders are made to pay interest to its borrowers, or rather its takers; the result being that so much capital is withdrawn from its owners and the country, and irrecoverably lost. California needs this sort of thing precisely as much as any of our western Atlantic States, or as any other place in the wide world, and that she has it not, argues that she is favored with leading minds wiser than those of Australia where it prevails with a natural excess of money, and where the list of bankruptcies is unexampled and appalling.

The proportion of wealth, active and inactive, to money in circulation is naturally about as 25 to 1; and when a currency that is a mere medium of exchange and not money, is mixed with money, or, as in our present experience, takes the place of money, the proportion of wealth to the whole currency continues the same—that is to say, the aggregate price of the property of the country is twenty-five times the sum of the currency. There is in property what is called by an excellent economist, J. Y. Smith, Esq., of Madison, Wisconsin, "a greediness of price," which secures this result. Every new dollar that enters into the circulating medium is soon taken up in the price of things, and if the dollar is money, the product of labor, that price is value; otherwise it is price without value.

Mr. Calhoun, in his speech, March 21, 1834, on the recharter of the United States Bank—one of the most suggestive speeches on banking and currency, I think, ever delivered in Congress—suggests 1 to 25 or 30 as the proportion of circulation to the aggregate property of a community. If by this term "circulation" he means to exclude the demand deposits from the currency I object to the idea and to his reckoning, for it is impossible to find the slightest difference in principle or effect between a bank note and a bank deposit payable on demand. The bank note is but a check of a bank upon itself—the holder of any sum of bank notes pays out as much as he has occasion to use at the moment, and keeps the remainder for future use in his iron safe or his pocket. So the owner of a bank deposit pays out in a check the sum he has occasion for at the moment, and keeps the remainder for future use in his bank. It is not the payment, the mere manipulation of the paper, that operates upon the value of money and the price of things, but the whole sum of the demand debt, since the whole acts as a purchasing power precisely as the whole of any commodity in market acts upon the value of that commodity, although nine-tenths or any other portion of it may be at rest in warehouses and seeking demand all the while. Everyone operates in money or goods with reference to his means at hand.

As this question of the nature of bank deposits came up in the currency committee referred to, I desire to be distinctly understood in reference to it. No one doubts that one thousand dollars of coin and one thousand dollars of bank notes in your counting-house safe, which you are circulating in various amounts by daily or occasional payments and renewals, constitute two thousand dollars of currency. Suppose you transfer the whole sum to a bank, check upon it, and renew the deposit to suit your purposes; in what respect is the principle altered or the currency character of the two thousand dollars changed? Or suppose your wife takes one hundred dollars in coin and bank notes to go a-shopping, is not this sum currency? The demand she makes at the shops enters into or is a part of the average purchasing power of the whole circulating medium of the country and the world, and tends to raise prices whether she spends any of the currency or not, and this demand is, of course, in the one hundred dollars; for if you did not possess it, someone else would, and would exercise the average demand in it as you do. But your wife meets with no satisfactory bargains, and the currency is deposited to your credit in bank. Is it any the less currency than when it was in her hands? Again, you sell a quantity of coffee for a merchant's note which you get discounted, and the net sum of the discount is added to the deposit to your credit. You check upon this sum as you did upon the coin and notes. All these items are mixed into one deposit, one power, and one effect. You make an average use of this deposit, as you make an average use of the goods in your warehouse, in the operations of exchange; and, in the long run, there will be a proportional amount and purchasing power of currency and of goods at rest in this way throughout the community. Yet all are in circulation, because all are being offered in exchange.

As to the word "currency" there can be but one rule for its interpretation, and that is very plain. Currency is what and where money would be under a metallic system of like volume, free of hoards; and it is obvious that, under such a system, a great, if not the greater, part of the money employed in trade would be in banks on deposit subject to check at sight; and another great part would be held by the banks against certificates of deposit in circulation instead of bank notes. This simple rule distinguishes currency from the ordinary commercial notes, bills of exchange and ledger debits, which are of the nature of mortgages on property, and represent capital as against money when offered in market. No one pretends to consider a promissory note or bill on time, received for goods, as money. No one debits it to his cash account, and no debtor holds money in reserve against his bills running to maturity. The effect of selling such bills in market is to convey the equitable ownership of so much of his goods or capital; it is to demand money or currency, and so far to appreciate the value of money and reduce general prices.

Whereas, if the note is manipulated by a bank, and its proceeds are mixed with money in a deposit, the sum at the credit of the depositor acts as it would do under a metallic system on the money side of the exchanges, as money or currency against other capital, tending to depreciate the value of money and raise general prices, directly the opposite of its power as a promissory note.

I beg leave to dissent from the opinion of John Stuart Mill and the English country bankers on this point entirely. Under an exclusively metallic system such bills would exist and be discounted by banks for money actually in their possession. The bills, if sold, would act then, as they act now, as other capital before the discount, and as money or currency in their proceeds afterwards. In their nature they are instruments of legitimate credit having no tendency to inflation whatever. The source of inflation, and of the commercial crisis, is in the nature of the system which pretends to lend money, but creates currency by discounting such bills when there is no such money in existence. The English bankers endeavor by their argument to escape the odium of the commercial crisis, and cast it upon the increase of credit in overtrading; but they are in error. Prices are raised by currency, not by simple credit.

In computing the currency, of course, the bank reserves must be deducted from the total of bank demand liabilities, and placed where they belong in the reckoning, or we shall reckon the same thing twice over. Then adding the net sum of these liabilities to the money in circulation, and now to the outstanding government notes also, we have an amount of currency that is as 1 to 25 of the aggregate price of the property of this country, as nearly as an estimate can be made. Reckoning thus, by the aid of the bank returns at Washington near January 1, 1861, I find the currency in the latter part of 1860 amounted to 640 millions of dollars, which sum multiplied by 25 gives 16,000 millions of dollars as the aggregate price of the property of the country. This corresponds with the census estimate of 1860.

As London is the settling place or great clearinghouse of the commercial nations, we can determine by the course of sterling exchange very nearly the relation of our currency to its natural volume at any time. Nine and a half per cent nominal premium for sight bills, as every merchant knows, is the true par of exchange on London. By the latter part of 1860 sterling exchange had fallen below this point materially, indicating very clearly that the currency was below the true money volume. Had there never been a bank note or uncovered demand deposit in existence, we should have had 640 millions of dollars of gold and silver in circulation at that time unquestionably. As it was, we had but about $200,000,000; 440 millions of money being repelled by the kiting of debt against debt to maintain a bank currency within the amount naturally belonging in solid money to the capital of the country. I believe that capital has increased so much that, but for the repulsive power of the debt currency, we should have at this time 800 millions of gold and silver in circulation, instead of which we have a mixture chiefly of poverty and embarrassment, amounting to 1,400 millions, maintaining average prices at 75 per cent above money value, real estate being now in the greatest fever of inflation, other things having subsided a little to make room for it.

Now, in view of the ratio of 1 to 25, let us inquire what California would need to do to retain the gold she now sends away, and we may learn what any State must do to avoid sending to other States a currency of debt to her own loss and embarrassment, instead of merchandise to her profit and advantage. In round numbers the population of the United States in 1860 was 32,000,000. It will be observed, therefore, that the average of currency was $20 per capita for the whole country. California cannot retain so much as this, because she is young in enterprise and opportunity, and her capital does not equal the average of all the States. But allow her, for argument's sake, $20 per capita, and, her population being in round numbers 400,000, she can retain but $8,000,000 of money free of hoards. What she may retain in hoards is of no consequence to our argument, as it is of no consequence in commerce, nor in determining the value of money. The aggregate price and real money value of the developed property of California is, then, $200,000,000, according to my computation as 25 to 1 of the currency, and this sum is, I think, an extreme allowance.

San Francisco receives yearly $50,000,000 of gold, which, the currency of her State being full, she sends to the Eastern States, and to foreign countries. To retain this gold California must produce, every year, one thousand, two hundred and fifty millions of dollars ($1,250,000,000) of wealth of all sorts, over and above her present annual production. This, and nothing less than this, as 25 to 1 of the money, will enable her to retain all this gold. Any one may see at a glance the impossibility of her doing any such thing, since after eighteen years of great industry in mining, and in every other sort of production that would present a promise of profit to the most acute and enterprising people that ever colonized a country, she has accumulated, altogether, but 200 millions of property.

Here let me remark that I prefer this method of estimating the wealth of a community to the most elaborately prepared statistics, since every portion of wealth, whether in market or out of it, must have an estimation in price, and that price must depend upon and fluctuate with the volume of the currency. It is possible to make a comparatively satisfactory and accurate computation of the currency of this country from the ample returns of the banks to the government, intelligent commercial estimates of the movements of the precious metals, and the treasury report of its own issues. No other nation is, or ever was, so well supplied with information in these particulars. Merchants and bankers generally know how to keep accounts and state them. But it is impossible to make anything satisfactory out of the figures supplied by the various government agents, widely distributed over this great country, who are selected, not for their competency, but for their politics, or the politics of those who have an interest in finding them employment. Many of these men are turned into office ignorant of the work they have to do, and turned out again before they have time and opportunity to learn it, if they would, by the whirligig of partisan politics which turns upon the rule: "To the victors belong the spoils," ignoring experience and qualification entirely.

The Director of the Bureau of Statistics, Mr. Delmar, in his report to the Secretary of the Treasury, November 14, 1867, gives some instructive and amusing examples of the character of government returns that deserve attention in this connection. Referring to certain tabular statements, of a few years past, he says:

The tonnage returns were swelled with thousands of ghostly ships—ships that had gone to the bottom years ago. Newport swelled her coastwise movements with the daily arrivals and departures of the Sound steamers; and at some of the border districts, every time a ferryboat entered and left a slip, her tonnage, against a standing regulation of the department, found its way into the account of the foreign entrances and clearances.

The collector of Pembina reported that he had erroneously returned imports for exports, because he had a felon on his finger.

The imports for 1861 have been variously reported at $286,500,000, up to $352,000,000; those of 1862, from $205,700,000, to $275,300,000; and minor discrepancies follow in l863-'4-'5. The exports of 1861 are returned in different reports all the way from $227,900,000 to $389,700,000; those of 1864 from $281,800,000 to $320,200,000; and differences of smaller amounts occur in those of l862-'3-'5.

Now, if the customhouse can do no better than this, what can we expect of the departments of more recent and imperfect organization? In computing the wealth of the country I am better satisfied to rely upon the currency.

Returning to California experience, we find that State cannot keep her yearly surplus of money, $50,000,000, in circulation at home, unless she can make a yearly addition to her property of $1,250,000,000 in money value.

By the same rule Illinois, for example, could not keep $10,000,000 of bank currency in circulation, in addition to her present supply, unless she could simultaneously produce $250,000,000 of wealth of all sorts over and above the regular production, measuring price by the existing depreciated currency. And if she produced the wealth, she would have the currency without producing it, because she would sell goods to other States and receive their currency in return. It is beginning at the wrong end of the operation to make the currency before the capital, because if she does so she will buy goods of other States, remit currency, and run into debt to them, and into difficulty altogether, unless the currency is itself capital, i.e., money, and then, of course, she will remit the surplus without embarrassment, and with as much advantage as she would remit anything else, by paying, instead of running in debt, for the returns.

The population of Illinois numbers at this time, probably, 2,200,000, and it may be presumed that her capital equals, per capita, the average of all the States. Hence, at $20 a head, she can maintain $44,000,000 of currency in money, or at par with money and no more: multiplied by 25 this gives $1,100,000,000 as the aggregate money value of the developed wealth of the State. As all but six or seven per cent of the wealth produced in any State, or in all the States, in any one year is consumed in the same year, the accumulation of $250,000,000 of value, in addition to the existing wealth of Illinois, must require much time and labor; but $250,000,000 of price may be added to that wealth in very little time, and with very little labor—only so much as is needful to make speculations and promises, or fly-kites of exchanged paper, that by bank discounting will serve for inscriptions of credit to the amount of $10,000,000; provided all the other States expand their circulating medium in the same proportion. But if they do not unite in the expansion, if they keep down their circulating medium to its present relation to capital, Illinois will buy of them in price more than she sells to them; the $10,000,000 additional of her currency will be diffused temporarily among the States, Illinois retaining but her fraction according to capital, and in due time the whole will return "to plague the inventor" as surely as chickens come home to roost. It is utterly impossible for Illinois, in the long run, to maintain a dollar of currency in relation to capital more than the other States.

Let us not forget that science is experience classified and recorded, but its theory is what men think about it, which may be as wide of the truth as Ptolemy's doctrine of the immobility of the earth. Illinois has had ample experience of the truth in this matter of a debt currency, and one would think might by this time have reduced that experience to science. By simply exchanging bank liabilities, payable on demand, against the liabilities of various States, payable, as it now appears, mostly never, she had accumulated a currency of bank notes and demand deposits amounting to $13,000,000, the banks having only $300,000 of specie to pay it with. This was the work of nine years—1851 to 1860, and it culminated in extensive financial ruin to the banks and people of that State.

This, being an addition from time to time to the natural sum of the circulating medium of the State, by raising general prices and furnishing "accommodation" to merchants and farmers, encouraged the holding over of domestic products which checked production, and the sales of merchandise to other States, while it stimulated purchases from them, and the consequence was, as I have said it always must be with such a currency, it took the place of money cheapened by excess, and was remitted to the credit or cities of the east. Thence it returned mostly in the traveling bags of bankers', brokers' and merchants' agents, who met with all sorts of evasion and opposition to their demands for payment. They were told that they were paid already. Was it not money they had in their bags? What more could they want? It is good money, "well secured currency," said the Illinois people, and when some of these agents could not see it, they were, in certain interior places where a bank was about as necessary as the Temple of Jerusalem, hustled and mobbed out of town. This sort of experience ought to show that debt is not money, and that the promise to pay a thing is not the thing itself. A crash of bankruptcy sponged the slate of this business.

It is well to observe in this connection that the wealth of a community naturally divides itself into three fractions, say two-fifths of circulating capital, two-fifths of fixed capital, and one-fifth of unproductive, enjoyable wealth. In the fixed capital I include wealth intended for productive purposes, but not ready for market, and, therefore, not circulating or offered in exchange. Of these fractions only one, i.e., the circulating capital, which is in the ratio as 10 to 1 of the currency, makes any demand for, or has any influence upon, the value of money that will prevent its export, so that we have only to persevere in the production of circulating capital to secure the utmost degree of material prosperity, and all the value in money or currency that we can possibly possess. Any scheme to produce or procure more money or currency than will naturally or necessarily be attracted by and to this circulating capital, except on the California principle for export, is worse than folly; it is mischief, because it increases debt, wastes capital, and substitutes poverty and embarrassment for wealth.

And it will be observed that in creating circulating capital we increase pari passu the other divisions of wealth, into which it distributes itself by a law that is as certain of obedience as the law of gravitation; hence, after all, we must put twenty-five times the labor into the production of general wealth that we employ in the production or procurement of money, or it will fall in value, and run away by its depreciation, which, if natural because of the increase of gold and silver, is a gain of wealth, like the depreciation of breadstuffs by an increase of the crops, that, but for this increase of quantity, would not be exported; but if unnatural, because of the increase of "paper money," it is a loss of wealth, it merely robs the country of so much pre-existing money and capital, and we might as well throw so much gold into the sea.

In conclusion, let me advise the reader to bear in mind the experience of California and Illinois in the investigation of the currency question; and I take leave to enter a caveat against the deductive method of reasoning on this or any other question of political economy, which is quite too common; that is, from theory downward to fact. The opposite or inductive method, upward from the fact of experience, is, in my view, the true course to pursue with economical questions. Adam Smith's method is deductive. He supposes a wagonway through the air, which "enables the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures and cornfields, and thereby to increase very considerably the annual produce of its land and labor." By this downward logic, from the clouds to the earth, he finds a saving of gold and silver in the use of "paper money." A paper wheel or a paper machine, which costs less than a metallic one, is another of his metaphors. "A certain quantity of very valuable materials, gold and silver, and of very curious labor," is thus saved for other uses than distributing the revenue of society among its members. Looking from the clouds he does not see that these valuable materials, gold and silver, form, themselves, like other circulating capital, a portion of that revenue which is lost by the degradation of their value through the previous increase of the currency, before "paper money" takes their place.

I have the highest respect for Adam Smith's teaching generally, but this deductive process of his, to prove the profit and advantage of "paper money," seems to me inductive nonsense. When we have a wagonway in the air, to reason from, which transports goods and passengers with the directness, celerity and security of railways and earth roads, we shall doubtless cultivate the ground beneath with profit and satisfaction. When we find a paper wheel or a paper machine to do satisfactorily the powerful work of a metallic one, miners and metal workers will keep holiday or starve, perhaps, and then it may answer to accept Adam Smith's theory of "paper money" as scientific truth.

[1]Betting on the price of wheat is a different thing, because it brings into the market both buyer and seller simultaneously, and by the same act, and the one balances the other.

[2]Isodynamic, "Logic of Political Economy," page 49. This scholastic term of Mr. De Quincey's aptly defines the equivalence of money. Montesquieu supposed money to be the equivalent of all other values combined, which is an error. It is the equivalent of each particular thing for or against which it exchanges; but it is the common equivalent, acknowledged and accepted by the trading world. This is the sole peculiarity of money as an exchange value. Other values are equivalents, that pay by the higgling of the market, but money is the only universal recompense accepted without question.

Previous Chapter *  Next Chapter
Table of Contents