Inconvertible Paper Money: The Ideal Money

Inconvertible Paper Money: The Ideal Money

Thomas Allen

    Inconvertible paper money is money that is not convertible into full-weight metallic coin, such as gold and silver coin, on the demand of its holder in spite of its promises or guarantees. Proponents of inconvertible paper money consider it the “ideal money” as it has no intrinsic value and it represents no metallic coin, which they believe to be inferior to paper money.
    Inconvertible paper money derives from two sources. First, and the most common today, are bank notes that become inconvertible because of a suspension of redemption in specie. Today’s federal reserve note is an example of this type of inconvertible paper money. When bank notes are no longer convertible to specie, they begin to behave like inconvertible government notes — especially if the government makes them legal tender and if the government controls their issue either directly or indirectly. Government notes are the second source of inconvertible paper money. That is, the government issues its paper money directly. Examples of government notes are the Assignat, the Continental and the U.S. note between 1862 and 1879. This type of inconvertible paper money was much more common before World War I than it is today. (Today, most inconvertible paper money is bank notes issued for  governments by their central banks, which often have the appearance of independence, but which are really subject to governmental control. Although this money is usually labeled as bank notes, functionally, and for all practical purposes, they are government notes.)
    Promoters of inconvertible paper money based their assertion of the superiority of inconvertible paper to metallic coin on several principles. A discussion of the chief ones follows.
    1. Medium of exchange. According to the adherents of inconvertible paper money, it is superior to metallic money as a medium of exchange. Paper money is a convention and does not have any “intrinsic value.” However, by general consent, it may become the medium of exchange of a country. It may become so acceptable that it cannot be distinguished from the acceptance of gold. This is true as long as custom or law forces people to use the paper money. If gold coin is allowed to circulate, its circulation will cease as people prefer to hoard the more valuable money, gold, and spend the less valuable money, paper. If gold coin does circulate, it will trade at a premium to the paper money.
    2. Common denominator in exchanges. Adherents of inconvertible paper money claim that it functions as well as, if not better than, metallic money as a common denominator in exchanges. Producers want an article of uniform quality that can be easily divided to serve as a common denominator in exchanges. Thus, money is a mere convention to facilitate exchanges. Inconvertible paper money can serve this purpose as well as, if not better than, gold.
    What is called “a common denominator in exchanges” is called “a measure of value” by most economists. Gold coin is superior to inconvertible paper money as a measure of value as its value as money is independent of itself. Inconvertible paper money is inferior to full-weight gold coin in that its monetary unit does not measure anything tangible that is independent of itself. For example, the Gold Standard Act of 1900 defines the dollar as 23.22 grains of gold, which means that it has a value equivalent to 23.22 grains of gold. When the redemption of federal reserve notes in gold coin ceased, federal reserve notes had a value of 23.22 grains of gold. However, as federal reserve notes were no longer convertible to gold, the dollar ceased having the value of 23.22 grains of gold. It ceased having an independent unit of measure. Its measure of value became what a dollar could buy, which is a highly inferior measure of value.
    3. Standard of deferred payment. Adherents of inconvertible paper money assert that it can function better than metallic money as a standard of deferred payment. The better a money can ensure the same purchasing power during the duration of the contract or loan, the better it functions as a standard of deferred payments. Advocates of inconvertible paper money claim that it maintains its purchasing power better than metallic coin.
    Inconvertible paper money can perform as a standard of deferred payment (it does so today) as long as it has popular acceptance. How well it performs this function depends on the regulation of its quality — so assert its proponents. Gold often proves inadequate in performing this function. Nevertheless, gold has historically done a better job of preserving value and, by that, its purchasing power than has inconvertible paper money. Eventually, inconvertible paper money loses popular acceptance. Gold never has although governments have often intervened to prevent its use, as occurred in the United States between 1933 and 1974.
    Moreover, the advocates of inconvertible paper money seldom admit that depreciation, as revealed by a premium on gold or silver, is proof that the paper money has failed as a standard of deferred payment. They argue that the value of paper has not fallen; the value of gold and silver has risen. Whenever they do admit to depreciation, the fault is not with inconvertible paper money itself. It is with the government’s failure to use the correct formula or technique, which they are ready to provide, to regulate the quantity of money. If the depreciation occurs during wartime, the argument is that the enemy is flooding the country with counterfeit notes.
    4. Natural limitations on quantity. Adherents of inconvertible paper money argue that it is superior to metallic money because it is not subject to natural limitations as is metallic money. Unlike gold, inconvertible paper money is not subject to any natural limitations. Coins, hoards, ornamentation, plat, and the like along with mines limit the quantity of gold available for monetary use. The only limitation to the quantity of paper money is the speed at which printing presses can run and the speed at which printing presses, inks, and papers can be manufactured. These limitations can be overcome by putting an ever larger number on the paper notes.
    The production of gold can vary significantly over the years. However, the quantity of newly mined gold entering the market is extremely small when compared with the aboveground stock of gold available for money. This high stock-to-flow ratio stabilizes the value of gold and prevents it from changing significantly. With no restriction other than governmental fiat placed on the production of inconvertible paper money, its quantity can increase without limit — or at least increase until it becomes worthless and no one accepts it.
    According to the advocates of inconvertible paper money, another advantage that it has over metallic money is that the cost of manufacturing paper money is extremely low. Mining gold is expensive.
        5. Not exportable. Adherents identify the inability of inconvertible paper money to be exported to other countries as an advantage that it has over metallic money, which is easily transported. Inconvertible paper money is limited in its circulation to the country of issue. (This may have been true in the past, but it is not true today. The U.S. dollar circulates worldwide. Other fiat inconvertible paper moneys also circulate outside their country of issue.)
    Under the gold standard, an overissue of money is halted by the exportation of gold. No such mechanism exists to halt the overissue of inconvertible paper money.
    Moreover, unlike gold under the gold standard, inconvertible paper money is independent of the actions and monetary policies of other countries. Advocates of inconvertible paper money consider this independence to be a great benefit.
    6. Overissue. Adherents of inconvertible paper money firmly believe that if the government follows the correct formula or technique in issuing it, overissue is impossible. So far, no one has found the correct formula or technique, although fiat money reformers have come forth with several techniques to use to issue the right amount. However, the temptation to issue ever more notes is often too great. Governments find issuing new notes easier and more acceptable than raising taxes. One of the few exceptions is the U.S. note: The government reduced the quantity in circulation and eventually redeemed them in gold.
    Under the gold standard, overissue is a self-correcting, short-lived problem. Any excess gold coins will be exported or converted to bullion. Excess convertible bank notes will be converted to gold coin, which will then be exported or converted to bullion. Thus, the overissue is quickly halted and reversed.
    7. Overissue leads to more issue. Adherents of inconvertible paper money who believe that it may be overissued are convinced that the overissue can be halted instead of leading to more issuance. However, the overissue of inconvertible paper money is seldom halted; the overissue nearly always leads to evermore increases in the money supply.
    When gold is the money, supply and demand applies. Demand creates supply; supply satisfies demand. Excess monetary gold is exported or converted to bullion.
    However, paper money is seldom exportable; it can only be used in the domestic markets. (Today, the U.S. dollar is a notable exception. Being the primary reserve currency of the world and the primary currency for buying and selling goods on the world markets, it is highly exportable. This exportation has spared Americans an enormous rise in prices.) When prices begin to rise because of excessive issuance, the government has to issue more notes just to maintain its current level of consumption. This new issuance leads to more rising prices, which leads to more issuance. Thus, a vicious cycle is created. Soon speculators enter the markets to by goods before their prices rise to sell them at a higher price later; thus, prices begin to rise even more rapidly. A prime example of this phenomenon is the Assignat of the French Revolution.
    In spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary, advocates of inconvertible paper money are convinced that no government can issue more notes than the real necessities of the government require. Unlike banks, governments cannot issue notes for profit. Therefore, the issue of government notes is limited to the absolute wants of the government. Most often governments under issue their notes — so assert some advocates of inconvertible paper money.
    8. Stability. Adherents of inconvertible paper money claim that it is more stabile, i.e., maintains constant purchasing power, than is metallic money. An abstract paper monetary unit is more likely to be less variable in value, purchasing power, than gold. Yet, history has shown that the value of inconvertible paper money is much less stable than the value of gold under the gold standard.
    Historically, gold’s purchasing power tends to rise for a decade or two and decline for a decade or two. However, over decades, its purchasing power is fairly constant. (See Roy Jastram’s study on gold’s purchasing power.)
    On the other hand, inconvertible paper money’s purchasing power tends to decline at varying rates. Moreover, the decline accelerated as the currency approaches its death.
    Depreciating paper money fluctuates primarily for two reasons. First, the demand for money varies. Under the gold standard, this variation in demand is smoothed by gold moving into and out of the country. However, inconvertible paper money remains in the country; thus, its value fluctuates with changing demand. Second, the depreciation of inconvertible paper money impairs its circulation. Depreciation affects confidence in the currency. Inconvertible paper money depreciates more rapidly when confidence is falling and less rapidly when confidence is steady or rising. A rise in confidence may lead to a rise in purchasing power for a while. Political events affect confidence more than the volume of money in circulation.
    9. Benefits the working class. Adherents of inconvertible paper money are adamant in that the primary beneficiary of inconvertible paper money is the working class. They present it as benefitting the working class and gold standard as harming the working class. As with most claims of these advocates, the opposite is true. Inconvertible paper money is an egregious tax on production and labor. It leads to speculation, which benefits sharpies at the expense of workers. Initially, depreciating paper money increases the profits of businesses at the expense of consumers, most of whom are workers. However, these excess profits are short-lived as they attract more businesses. Moreover, inconvertible paper money leads to wasteful habits. As it is nearly always depreciating, its loss of purchasing power causes prices to rise. Moreover, prices rise before wages do and faster than wages. Thus, workers must pay more for goods and services with the same amount of labor. Also, most workers lack the means to hoard goods to sell in the future at much higher prices, or even for their own use. Worse, inconvertible paper money undermines the virtues needed to support the social system of the community. It destroys industry, frugality, and economy while promoting extravagance and speculation. Inconvertible paper money is the most effective means to cheat workers as it transfers the wealth of workers to the rich and the government.
    10. Gold is not essential to the monetary unit. Adherents of inconvertible paper money argue that gold is not essential to defining the monetary unit. They assert that gold is no more essential to the monetary unit than brass or wood of a ruler is to the yard or meter. The yard and meter are not defined by the material of which a ruler is made. They are defined by the distance that light travels in a specific fraction of a second. Likewise, the value of the monetary unit is not defined by the material of which money is made. Under the gold standard, it is defined by the value of a specific weight and purity of gold. For example, the dollar was defined as 23.22 grains of fine gold, and, thus, had a value equal to 23.22 grains of gold. Under today’s monetary standard, the dollar is a nebulous abstraction whose value cannot be defined except in terms of itself.
    Defining the value of the monetary unit, such as the dollar, peso, pound, or euro, as equal to the value of what the monetary unit buys gives the illusion of stability. The dollar always buys a dollar’s worth of goods. However, the quantity and often the quality of goods that a dollar buys declines over time. Anyone who has lived during the permanent suspension of the gold-coin standard and later the suspension of the gold exchange standard has personally witnessed the instability of an abstract monetary unit and its constant deterioration and loss of value.
    Inconvertible paper money may be as bank notes for which redemption has been suspended, such as federal reserve notes after 1932, or forced government notes, such as U.S. notes before 1879. No matter which, both derive their initial value as money from the commodity money, e.g., gold coin, that they replace.
    Unlike gold, which has value both as money and as bullion for ornamentation, etc., inconvertible paper money has only one use and that is as money, purchasing medium, a unit of account, and payment of debt and taxes. Therefore, it is low quality money. Lacking quality, it is a poor store of value. Likewise, its poor quality as money makes it a poor standard of exchange value, that is a standard of prices and accounts, or a measure of value.
    Inconvertible paper money does have value, but that value is derived from its use as money, and that value depends on the confidence that people have in it. Also, it depends to a limited extent on the authority and power of the government to force it on the people. Once the value of money degenerates beyond a certain point, the power of government can no longer force the people to accept it, even with the death penalty. Examples are the Assignat and the Continental. Unless the government gives a believable promise that the paper money will soon be convertible on demand in full-weight metallic coin, that confidence declines. Declining confidences leads to declining value, purchasing power, of inconvertible paper money.
    As the value of inconvertible paper money declines, so does the demand for it. When demand declines, its value declines. Therefore, more is needed to make the same quantity of purchases, Thus, its supply must increase to maintain the same level of purchases. Increasing supply leads to further lose of confidence and decline in demand for the money. As a result, general prices continue to rise.
    Inconvertible paper money does function as money although inferior to gold coin. It can serve as a medium of exchange, a standard for the payment of debt, especially when it is legal tender, a measure of value, and even a store of value. However, it swindles creditors and impoverishes workers as it generally loses value over time. Moreover, as it loses value at varying rates, it is a poor measure of value and a poor standard of value. However, unlike gold coin, inconvertible paper money cannot extinguish debt. It merely discharges debt by transferring it to the issuer of the paper money.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Does Money Measure Value and Store Value?

Does Money Measure Value and Store Value?

Thomas Allen

    In Money (1878), Francis Walker discusses his concept of money. He identifies what he considers the basic functions of money: a medium of exchange (it facilitates exchanges), a common denominator (this function should not be confused with money as a measure of value), and a standard for deferred payments (it is a standard of value for paying debt). Walker rejects two functions of money that most economists hold: money as a measure of value and money as a store of value. At least before the demise of money’s connection to gold in 1971, most economists disagree with Walker on these two functions.

Measure of Value
    Under the gold standard, when an economist claims that gold is a measure of value, he means that the value of goods and services are compared with the value of a specific weight and fineness of gold. This comparison results in the price of the good or service. For example, between 1837 and 1934, the US dollar was defined as 23.22 grains of fine (pure) gold or 25.80 grains of standard gold, which was 90 percent pure. Thus, a theater ticket that cost $10 had the same value as 232.2 grains of gold.
    According to Walker, when most economists are describing money as a measure of value, they are really describing it as a common denominator. Although some use the two terms interchangeably, they are really two different things. Moreover, “they have no necessary relation to each other.”
    Walker defines the value of money the way that adherents of inconvertible paper money define the value of money. That is, the value of a gold coin is the value of what it can purchase. According to Walker, the value of a gold coin is determined by its use as a medium of exchange and is independent of its gold content. (Presumably, if the gold content of a gold coin were doubled or halved, its purchasing power would not change. Even Walker and the opponents of gold know that this is absurd.) To most adherents of the gold standard, the value of a gold coin is the value of the material of which it is made, although some of them argued against this notion by claiming that the quantity of gold coins was the primary determinant their value. Others, such as George Weston, argue that the value of the gold coin determines the value of its metal content, and the value of the gold coin is determined by the supply of metallic and paper money. To illustrate the difference between the two, today, the value of the dollar is the value of a dollar’s worth of goods. Between 1837 and 1934, the value of a dollar was the value of 23.22 grains of gold. The latter definition is superior to the former because it defines the value of the dollar independently of itself. The former defines the value of the dollar in terms of itself.
    Walker argues that when values are measured, they may be expressed relatively to each other as a scale of numbers. Perceiving money as providing a scale of value instead of a measure of value, was not original with Walker. Dugald Stewart had earlier argued this notion. Like Stewart, Walker seems to believe that gold is the best form or type of money. Yet, if his argument that money does not measure value, but merely provides a scale for relative values is correct, then the material of which the money is made is irrelevant. Like Stewart, Walker does not consider money as capital but as an aid in enumeration and arithmetic. Many economists, especially today, and even in the nineteenth century, concur with Walker and Stewart. Thus, for example, if item A has a value of 1 and item B, of 5, then item B is worth 5 times more than A.
    He notes that advocates of Ideal Money, which is inconvertible paper money, maintain that money merely provides a common denominator by which the relative values of various goods can be compared. Advocates of Real Money, which is full-weight metallic coin either gold or silver, maintain that money provides a common measure of value to which various goods are compared and measured. (Ironically, while supporting the adherents of Ideal Money on money being merely a numeric that compares but measures nothing, he abhors inconvertible paper money.)
    Instead of money measuring value, Walker argues that money merely provides a common denominator. If money is merely a numeric, as today’s money essentially is, although it does measure value, albeit poorly, what purpose do such apparent units of measure as the dollar, pound, franc, mark, or peso, serve? Walker does not say. If money merely provides a common denominator, then the coin or paper note would only need a number stamped on it. Adding “dollar,” “pound,” “franc,” “mark,” or “peso” is superfluous and can be confusing (misleading one to believe that value is being measured). Why make a $10 gold coin twice the size of a $5 gold coin and a $20 gold coin twice the size of a $10 gold coin, if the coin does not measure value? Why not just use paper money with numbers and no units printed on them? Yet Walker abhors inconvertible paper money.
    Following the lead of Prof. Rogers, Walker compares measuring value to measuring distances. If the distance between A and B is 1 and the distance between B and C is 10, then the distance between B and C is ten times greater than the distance between A and B. However, one does not know if the distance is in zeptometers (an extremely short distance) or in zettameters (an extremely long distance). Without a unit of measure, one does not know whether the distances are short or long. Moreover, a unit of measure is needed to ensure that the relative values are understood correctly. Thus, the distance between A and B compared with B and C is much greater than it appears if the distance between A and B is in zeptometers and B and C is in zettameters. Instead of the relative distance between B and C being ten times greater than A and B, it is 10 to the 43rd power greater (an enormous number). (Another example of the inadequacy of relative comparisons occurs with corporate profits. Corporation X has a 100 percent increase in profit compared with the previous year, while corporation Y has only a 1 percent increase in profit. In relative terms, corporation X appears to have a greater profit. However, when absolute profits are considered, a different story is revealed. Corporation X had a profit of $1 the previous year and $2 this year; thus, it had an increase in profit of 100 percent. Corporation Y had a profit of $1 billion last year and $1.01 billion this year, which is an increase in profit of 1 percent. Of the two which did the best?)
    When comparing values, a measure of value, that is a unit of value, is also needed. For example, the US dollar had a value of 23.22 grains of gold and the British pound had a value of 113 grains of gold. Thus, the value of the British pound was about 4.86 times greater than the value of the US dollar. One needs to know whether prices are being compared in dollars or pounds or both. The relative values may be the same, but the absolute values may not be. For example, if item X costs £2 and item Y costs £1, then item X costs twice as much as item Y. If item A costs $2 and item B costs $1, then item A costs twice as much as item B. Although both X and A have twice the value of Y and B respectively, X is worth 4.86 times A and 9.72 times B. Thus, more than a common denominator is needed to estimate value or even to measure relative differences. A unit of measure, i.e., a unit of value, is also needed. Furthermore, that unit of value must have value in and of itself.
    As shown above, when distance or value is being compared, more than a numeric value is needed. Moreover, that unit of measure must possess what is being measured.
    Walker does admit that to measure value, a value must be used. Nevertheless, that value can be relative and expressed as a pure number without reference to any common value. He states, “Value is a relation. Relations may be expressed, but not measured.” He illustrates this with distance by claiming that the relationship between a furlong and a mile cannot be measured but can only be expressed as 8 to 1. (By definition, a mile equals eight furlongs. However, as discussed above, if no units of measure are attached to the relative numbers, one has no clue about the distances being expressed.)
    Furthermore, Walker uses seigniorage as an argument that money does not measure value. Because of seigniorage, the monetary value stamped on the coin exceeds the value of its metal content. This is true. Seigniorage may cause the coin to be overvalued domestically, but not necessarily so. If the seigniorage is too high, coins will exchange based on the value of their metal content and not based on the monetary value stamped on them — even if such exchanges are illegal. Nevertheless, the seigniorage premium disappears once the coin leaves the country of issue. Outside the country of issue, its purchasing power is that of its metal content and not that which is stamped on it.
    Unlike Walker, most economists argue that to measure and compare values of various items, these items have to be compared with a common item, which under the gold standard is a specific weight and fineness of gold. Moreover, this standard to which items are compared has to have value in and of itself, which is often called “intrinsic value.” Walker argues that money cannot measure value because unlike the yardstick or meterstick, its value is not fixed, even for a gold coin. (Even the definition of the meter has changed several times since it was first invented. Therefore, the measure of distance has changed over time, although minutely.) It varies with time, place, and circumstances. This is true. Being subjective, value is not constant — not even for money regardless of the material of which it is made. Moreover, relative values vary with time, place, and circumstances. Yet nothing cannot measure something as Walker seems to argue. If it could, unitless numbers on paper could serve as money as well as full-weight gold coin. Moreover, paper money would be much cheaper to manufacture. However, Walker presents a convincing argument that inconvertible paper money is vastly inferior to gold coin. (Nevertheless, he uses inconvertible paper money to argue against the notion that money can measure value and has to have value in and of itself to do so.)

Store of Value
    Most economists who support the gold standard assert that one of the important functions of money is to serve as a store of value. Some even claim that this is the most important function of money.
    Contrary to the assertion of these economists, Walker argues that money does not serve as a store of value. About this function of money, or more correctly, lack of it, he agrees with the proponents of inconvertible paper money.
    The store of value is closely related to the measure of value. If money does not and cannot measure value, it need not store value. However, if money is the measure of value, then it needs to be able to store value so that it can measure value. That is, money has to have value in and of itself to measure value. Value can only be measured against value and with value.
    Walker identifies money serving as the standard for deferred payments as an important function of money; that is, money serves as the payment for debt. Why would anyone give up something of value, whatever is lent, in exchange for payments of no value? To function as payment for debt, money has to be able to transfer value through time and often through space. Even inconvertible paper money transfers value through time to a highly limited degree.
    Furthermore, money functioning as a medium of exchange implies that money is a store of value. It must store value so that it can carry value from its receipt to its expenditure so that little or no value is lost. Also, why would anyone sell his goods or labor in exchange for that which has no value? Evidently, Walker believes that people are willing to make such exchanges. Contrary to Walker’s belief, money’s function as a medium of exchange cannot be separated from its function as a store of value. This is true not only for full-weight metallic coin but also for inconvertible paper money. (Generally, losing value over time at various rates, inconvertible paper money stores value poorly and becomes a poor medium of exchange.)
    Moreover, Walker states, “When a commodity comes to serve as a store of value, it ceases to be money.” Gold in hoards, treasures, plate, and ornamentation is not money. (At the other extreme is Murray Rothbard, who claims that gold is money whatever its form.) Walker is unclear whether gold coins held in reserves by banks for payment of their notes and checkable deposits are money. Based on his argument, bank reserves should not be considered money.
    On the other hand, being a good economist, he asserts that gold’s ability to be used as a store of value is an important attribute that qualifies it as money. Is this not confusing? Gold stores value, but once it is coined and used to buy something or pay a debt, it ceases to store value. However, if the recipient puts the coin in his pocket and does not spend it for a year, i.e., hoards it, it ceases being money and becomes a store of value. (This is akin to the gold-is-sterile argument against the gold standard.)
    To add to the confusion of gold being either money or ornamentation, i.e., a store of value, Walker describes the use of gold as jewelry, such as ring-money worn as rings or necklaces, being used as money. Presumably, when the owner was wearing the ring-money on his finger, it was a store of value, but not money. However, when he took the ring off and bought an item with it, the gold ring ceased storing value and became money. (How long does a gold coin have to remain in one’s purse before it ceases being money and becomes a store of value? Walker does not say.)
    In summary, Walker argues that money does not measure value; it merely serves a common denominator by which the values of various goods and services are compared. Furthermore, money does not and cannot store value, although the material of which it is made can often store value. On these two points, most economists who support the gold standard disagree. However, most economists who support inconvertible paper money agree with Walker.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Poor on Ricardo

Poor on Ricardo

Thomas Allen

    In 1877, Henry Varnum Poor (1812-1905) wrote Money and Its Laws: Embracing a History of Monetary Theories, and a History of the Currency of the United States. He was a financial analyst and founder of a company that evolved into Standard & Poor’s. Poor was a proponent of the real bills doctrine and the classical gold-coin standard and, thus, the quality theory of money. He gave little credence to the quantity theory of money — especially if credit money, such as bank notes, were convertible on demand in species. Also, he contended that the value of money depends on and is derived from the value of the material of which it is made and with paper money, its representation of such value.
    In the latter part of his book, he discusses leading monetary theorists from Aristotle (350 B.C.) to David A. Wells (1875). Most of the economists whom he discussed were proponents of the quantity theory of money. We will look at his discussion on David Ricardo. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    David Ricardo (1772-1823) was a British economist. Included among his major works are The High Price of Bullion: A Proof of the Depression of Bank Notes (1809), Proposals for Economical and Secure Currency (1816), and Principles of Economy and Taxation (1817). When Parliament returned Great Britain to the gold standard after the Napoleonic Wars, it relied on his works. It also relied on his works when developing banking and monetary laws in the decades that followed.
    Ricardo argued that a currency without a specific standard was a chimera. He favored a monometallic silver standard. Also, he preferred the bullion standard to the coin standard. That is, banks redeemed their bank notes in standard bullion bars instead of coin. Thus, people would be forced to make small payments with paper money. Ricardo was a proponent of the quantity theory of money and believed that the value of money can be properly maintained by regulating its quantity.
    Ricardo believed “that value was not a necessary attribute of money. . . . [M]oney became such by virtue of the insignia of government; that its value was in ratio to its quantity, — that the most worthless pieces of paper, or the most debased coin, might be raised to the highest pitch of value simply by limiting their amount” (p. 221). That is, the government can declare anything to be the medium of exchange, give it a specific value, and maintain that value by properly regulating its quantity. [Menger proves the falsity of this notion. Gold and silver were used as purchasing media before any government insignia was stamped on it. Gold and silver have been used throughout history, and even today, as purchasing media without a government insignia stamped on it. When a government debased its coins, history shows that the value of the coin falls until it reaches the value of its gold or silver content. Therefore, the metal content, and not governmental decree, fixes the value of the coin.]
    Poor quotes from Ricardo’s Principle of Political Economy and Taxation:

        The quantity of money that can be employed in any country must depend upon its value. . . . A circulation can never be so abundant as to overflow; for, by diminishing its value, you will in the same proportion increase its quantity, and, by increasing its value, diminish its quantity. . . .
        While the State coins money, and charges no seigniorage, money will be of the same value as any other piece of the same metal of equal weight and fineness; but, if the State charges a seigniorage for coinage, the coined piece of money will generally exceed the value of the uncoined piece of metal by the whole seigniorage charged, because it will require a greater quantity of labor, or, which is the same thing, the value of the produce of a greater quantity of labor, to procure it.
        While the State alone coins, there can be no limit to this charge of seigniorage; for, by limiting the quantity of coin, it can be raised to any conceivable value.
        It is on this principle that paper money circulates: the whole charge for paper money may be considered as seigniorage. Though it has no intrinsic value, yet, by limiting its quantity, its value in exchange is as great as an equal denomination of coin or of bullion in that coin. On the same principle, too, namely, by a limitation of the quantity, a debased coin would circulate at the value it should bear if it were of the legal weight and fineness, not at the value of the quantity of metal which it actually contained. . . .
        [I]t will be seen that it is not necessary that paper money should be payable in specie to secure its value: it is only necessary that its quantity should be regulated according to the value of the metal which is declared to be its standard. If the standard were gold of a given weight and fineness, paper might be increased with every fall in the value of gold, or, which is the same thing in its effects, with every rise in the price of goods. . . .

    Poor argues against Ricardo’s assertion that the government can charge whatever seigniorage that it wants to. For example, if the government charged 9 ounces of gold to coin 1 ounce, Ricardo believes that people will still bring gold to be coined because they need coins, or money, in commerce. Poor argues that people will cease bringing their gold to be coined. Instead, the metal will be privately assayed and will pass by weight. “A person possessing bullion might wish to sell it for use in the arts, or for the purchase of foreign commodities; for which it would be received at its full value” (p. 223). Noting that a lack of coinage may cause inconveniences, he adds that “great commercial communities existed long before coinage was invented” (p. 223). Furthermore, “[t]he inconvenience resulting from the want of coinage, relative to the magnitude of the transactions taking place, would be much less now than before the invention or use of symbolic money; for the reserves necessary for the conversion of such currency may be in the form of bullion, nearly as well as in that of coin. They are now largely held in bullion” (p. 223). Disagreeing with Ricardo about the government’s insignia giving money value, Poor writes, “[G]overnment can no more create values by its insignia without an obligation, than the Alchemist could create gold out of curious and fanciful combinations of the baser metals” (p. 223). [Moreover, history shows that under the gold standard, bank notes without the government’s insignia circulated at par with gold coins as long as they were convertible in gold coin on demand.]
    Ricardo acknowledges that paper money has no intrinsic value. However, according to Ricardo, its value can be maintained by properly controlling its quantity. Poor argues that governments cannot be trusted with the issuance of paper money. As history shows, they will always abuse that power. Therefore, Poor argues that paper money should always be issued by private parties or bankers (p. 224). As long as bankers have to convert their paper money to species on demand, their issue of paper money will be regulated. Any excess issue of paper money, i.e., in excess of the real demand of the domestic markets, people will convert to gold for use in foreign markets. [A situation like this occurred in the United States in the early 1890s. In response to political pressures, the U.S. government had left a large quantity of U.S. notes, greenbacks, in circulation following Lincoln’s war to suppress Southern independence. Gold backed less than half these notes. Also, to satisfy the silver interest and the inflationists, i.e., the “easy money” folks, Congress enacted the Sherman Act. This Act required the U.S. government to buy large quantities of silver with legal tender Treasury notes of 1890. These notes were redeemable in gold or silver at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. He chose to redeem them in gold. People began redeeming U.S. notes and Treasury notes of 1890 for gold, which they exported. The Secretary of the Treasury could retire Treasury notes when they were redeemed. However, the law required him to reissue U.S. notes that were redeemed. The reissued U.S. notes were redeemed for gold, thereby creating a vicious cycle draining the treasury of its gold. The crisis ended with the repeal of the silver purchase part of the Sherman Act and the sale of bonds for gold to European bankers to replenish the treasury’s gold stock. Nevertheless, this crisis helped to precipitate the depression of the 1890s.]
    “Convertibility of paper at all times into coin . . . [is] the only certain test of the propriety of its issues” (p. 224). Nevertheless, much more than convertibility is needed to ensure the propriety of issue. Poor writes that “convertibility of issue may have no relation whatever to propriety of issue. A person may be able to pay a bill he has uttered; but by doing so be may strip himself of every dollar he possesses. The question, therefore, far in advance of convertibility, and which is the only one important to be considered, is the manner in, or cost at which, convertibility is sought to be secured” (p. 224). The solution to the propriety of issue is the real bills doctrine: “Where bills are discounted, obligations are mutually created; and, so long as such bills represent merchandise entering into consumption, their payment is certain to return to the Bank its obligations, without the withdrawal of any considerable portion of its means. So long as such rule is followed, so long as a currency is issued only in the discount of bills representing merchandise, there can be no inflation; nor is there any danger that the Bank issuing it will be called upon for any considerable amount of coin” (p. 225).
    When a bank ceases discounting bills and uses its bank notes to buy government securities, the result is often bankruptcy and financial crisis. The only way to avoid this outcome is some provision to retire bank notes without any act of the issuer. With financial papers like government securities, no such mechanism exists. Poor states, “The only proper mode of issuing a currency is that which shall provide for its retirement automatically, by the operation of the laws of trade, — by the debtors of the Bank, instead of the Bank itself” (p. 225).
    About government notes, Poor declares, “A government currency, which may at first have a value in coin nearly equal to its nominal value, may become wholly valueless; but its price at any given time is to be accepted as its value. In other words, money will no more be taken but at its value than any other kind of merchandise or property” (p. 225). Yet, Ricardo “held value to be no attribute of money; but that it was an instrument of commerce precisely in the same manner that scales or balances are instruments of commerce, the value of both depending upon their quantity” (p. 226). Poor responds, “If Ricardo be correct, then provided there be but one shilling in the world, and that a debased one, its value might be equal to all the money in it at the present time. If he be correct, then the debasement of a currency, provided its nominal amount be not increased, is the wisest possible policy both for princes and people” (p. 226). As shown, Poor strongly disagrees with Ricardo.
    Ricardo preferred the government to issue the country’s paper money if it would not abuse this power. However, governments are more likely to abuse this power than a banker. Redemption of notes to gold would limit the ability of banks to expand the money supply. Governments are more likely to suspend the redemption of government notes than they are of bank notes. Nevertheless, he saw no problem with an independent government commission issuing the country’s currency as convertibility would not be suspended, so he believed (pp. 226-227) [Ricardo’s logic is flawed. First, no government body is truly independent. Like all government agencies, politics control it. The legislature can withdraw independence as quickly as it grants it. Furthermore, the French made similar arguments before they introduced the assignat, and that turned out to be a disaster.]
    Ricardo praised paper money and preferred not to see gold and silver coins circulated. Circulating coins were a waste of resources and much more expensive than paper. He restricted the conversion of paper to gold to large bars of gold. Redemption should be in bullion and not in coin (p. 230).
    Poor writes, “Ricardo would maintain the value of paper money by having it represent gold, but would prevent a resort to gold by throwing inconveniences in the way of its use. He assumed, of course, that only a small amount of gold would be required to meet occasional calls; for nothing would be gained, provided the amount of gold to be held in reserve equaled the amount of notes issued. But, if it were optional with the public whether or not they would receive the notes of the Bank, they would not receive them, if they could get nothing for them but bullion” (pp. 281-282). Thus, Ricardo based his monetary argument on the assumption that the public wanted currency, a medium of exchange, instead of capital. Also, he believed that if people were free to choose between coin and paper, they would choose the more expensive (to manufacture) coin over paper. Therefore, they should be denied the choice of coin. According to Ricardo, “a perfect currency would be realized; costing nothing in itself, yet always at the standard of coin” (p. 232)!
    Poor concludes his discussion of Ricardo with the following critique:

Ricardo possessed in an eminent degree the gift of money-making, and undoubtedly ranked high as a man of affairs. He, however, no sooner took up his pen than he seemed instantly discharged of all reasoning faculty. In the same sentence, he could affirm propositions exactly opposed the one to the other, without the least perception of their incongruity. Never was there a more striking instance of confident assumption on the one hand, and fatuity on the other. To add to the strangeness of the picture, he occupies the front rank among the Economists as an original and profound thinker, — one who exploded many of the radical errors, who placed on firm foundations some of the most important truths of Political Economy, and to whom it is more indebted than to any writer but Adam Smith. . . . From his example, it would seem that no mind is capable of discussing the subject of money, and of preserving, at the same time, its balance and integrity. (pp. 232-233).

    Poor adds that “in the matter of money, the most groundless and absurd theories are often found intimately associated with the greatest practical talent for its accumulation and administration. Life nowhere else presents an example of such complete disassociation between the practical and speculative sides of our nature” (p. 233).

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Poor on Huskisson

Poor on Huskisson

Thomas Allen

    In 1877, Henry Varnum Poor (1812-1905) wrote Money and Its Laws: Embracing a History of Monetary Theories, and a History of the Currency of the United States. He was a financial analyst and founder of a company that evolved into Standard & Poor’s. Poor was a proponent of the real bills doctrine and the classical gold-coin standard and, thus, the quality theory of money. He gave little credence to the quantity theory of money — especially if credit money, such as bank notes, were convertible on demand in species. Also, he contended that the value of money depends on and is derived from the value of the material of which it is made and with paper money, its representation of such value.
    In the latter part of his book, he discusses leading monetary theorists from Aristotle (350 B.C.) to David A. Wells (1875). Most of the economists whom he discussed were proponents of the quantity theory of money. We will look at his discussion on William Huskisson. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    William Huskisson (1770-1830) was a British statesman, financier, and member of Parliament. He wrote “Question Concerning the Depreciation of Our Currency” (1810), which Poor reviews. Huskisson wrote his pamphlet during the Napoleonic wars when the English pound was not convertible into gold or silver. His and Poor’s comments reflect this condition.
    Huskisson states that in the popular sense, money is often considered to have only purely arbitrary and conventional value. Sometimes, it is defined as “the representation of all other commodities, and sometimes as the common measure of them” (p. 216). He concludes that these definitions are incomplete “because they are equally applicable to every description of currency, whether consisting of the precious metal, of paper, or of any other article” (p. 216). Huskisson continues, “It is of the essence of money to possess intrinsic value” (p. 216). Moreover, “The quality of representing commodities does not necessarily imply intrinsic value; because that quality may be given either by confidence or by authority. The quality of being a common measure does not necessarily imply intrinsic value” (p. 216). He adds, “Money, or a given quantity of gold or silver, is not only the common measure and common representative of all other commodities, but also the common and universal equivalent” (p. 216). Although paper currency has no intrinsic value, promissory notes in whatever form and from whatever source can represent value. “It does so, in as much as it is an undertaking to pay, in money, the sum for which it is issued” (p. 216) “The money, or coin of a country, is so much of its capital. Paper currency is no part of the capital of a country: it is so much circulating credit” (p. 216). Huskisson adds, “Whoever buys, gives, whoever sells, receives, such a quantity of pure gold or silver as is equivalent to the article bought or sold; or, if he gives or receives paper instead of money, he gives or receives that which is valuable only as it stipulates the payment of a given quantity of gold or silver” (pp. 216-217). Paper money remains at par with gold if it is convertible to gold coin. Both money (gold coin) and paper promissory money (bank notes) “are common measures and representatives of the value of all commodities. But money alone is the universal equivalent; paper currency is the representative of that money” (p. 217). He identifies two types of paper currency: “the one resting upon confidence, the other upon authority” (p. 217). Paper currency resting upon confidence is circulating credit. Bank notes are of this type of currency. Paper currency resting upon authority is paper money [government notes and bank notes made legal tender by the government] are of this type of currency (p. 217). [Huskisson was a Bullionist. That is, he believed that paper money ought to be a warehouse receipt for gold. For each dollar, pound, or franc of paper money in circulation, there ought to be a dollar, pound, or franc of gold stored in a vault to back that paper money.]
    Poor objects to Huskisson’s notion that confidence or authority can give quality to representing commodities. Poor remarks, “That a person believes that a note which he takes represents commodities does not make it the representative of them, any more than the belief of the Alchemists made the baser metals in combination the representatives of gold, into which they so long sought to convert them. If confidence would create values, the silliest dunce would be the Croesus of the race” (p. 217).
    Some people believe that if the government can declare the length of the foot or meter for measuring distance, it can declare that a bank note [or a government note] can measure value: “Intrinsic value is no more necessary in one case than in the other” (p. 217). To this belief, Poor replies that owners of land would not accept for their sales the instruments by which their acres are measured. To them, a surveyor’s chain is only worth its value as scrap metal. “When men buy and sell, they exchange, or intend to exchange, articles possessing equal values” (p. 217). [Actually, exchanges only take place when both parties perceive that they are receiving something of greater value to themselves than what they are giving up.]
    Poor continues citing Huskisson. According to Huskisson, if a country’s circulating currency consists exclusively of gold and if the quantity of gold in that country doubles while the quantity of gold and the demand for it remained the same in all other countries, then the value of gold in such country would fall. This loss of value would appear as a rise in the prices of all commodities. However, since gold is much cheaper in the country in which its quantity has increased, it would be bought and exported to other countries until its value is again equal in all parts of the world (p. 218). If a country’s circulating currency consists of both gold and paper and if a paper currency were doubled while the quantity gold remains the same, prices will rise. The value of gold as a commodity will rise in price and in the same proportion as other commodities; that is, its value compared with other commodities will remain the same. Such an increase in paper currency causes the exportation of gold coin because gold’s value as currency remains the same while its price in that currency has increased, i.e., the gold content of the coin is worth more than the denomination stamped on the coin. This exportation decreases the currency in circulation and thus supports the value of the currency remaining. Thus, “[a]n excess of paper has, in the first instance, the same effect upon prices as an excess of the precious metals, to the same amount, would have, in any particular country. But it does not admit of the same relief: it cannot right itself by exportation” (p. 218).
    Huskisson identifies two ways that the currency of a country can be depreciated:

        1. If its standard coin contain less of gold or silver than it is certified to contain. In that case, the paper, as representing the coin, is also depreciated, and precisely in the same degree as the coin.
        2. If the standard coin being of full weight, and the paper which represents that standard coin, and is, or purports to be, exchangeable for it, is not exchangeable, at the same time, for so large a quantity of gold or silver as is contained in the coin which it represents. In that case, the coin, though undiminished in value, must, as part of the currency, partake of the depreciation of the whole (p. 218).

    Poor remarks that if the currency of a country consists of gold coin and paper and if the two were equal in value, then the paper must be symbolic. Contrary to Huskisson assumption, a doubling of the currency would not be inflationary.  Poor writes:

Prices would, in reference to money, remain unchanged. So long as gold and paper possessed the same value, an increase, or, rather, an inflation, of the currency, would not inflate or increase the price of gold bullion, — gold as merchandise, — while it might increase the value of all other kinds of merchandise, for the very good reason that gold cannot rise in value in reference to itself; that is, a sovereign after the inflation would purchase the same amount of bullion as before” (p. 219).

    Moreover, Poor remarks, “So long as coin would purchase no more than an equal nominal amount of paper, gold would have no more tendency to go abroad than before such increase. Indeed, its tendency would be inward to provide adequate reserves for the increase of paper” (p. 219).
    He continues, “If adequate provision, either in merchandise or coin, were not made for its [paper currency’s] redemption, it [paper currency] would become depreciated: it would not be exchangeable for an equal quantity of gold, nor would it command an equal amount of merchandise with gold, no matter whether it rested upon confidence or authority” (p. 219). Moreover, he adds, “The value of gold would not be influenced in any degree by the amount or value of the paper outstanding” (p. 219).
    According to Poor, if paper currency rests on authority and was issued in large amounts, “it would, in great measure, drive the coin previously in circulation out of the country. But this fact would not tend, in any degree, to raise the value of the currency ‘resting on authority’” (p. 220). Furthermore, contrary to Huskisson’s assertion, “[t]he exportation of coin would tend to reduce the value of such currency, instead of raising it, by rendering it all the more difficult to resume, from the impoverishment of the people, which would be measured by the amount of gold — capital — that had been drawn from them” (p. 220). [Also, the government has no power to create value on which the currency must rest except to declare the monetary unit to be a specific weight of a commodity, such as gold or silver, to which paper currency is convertible on demand. Many proponents of fiat paper money do believe that government fiat can actually give value to that which has no value.]
    According to Poor, Huskisson believes that paper currency resisting on confidence or authority is equal to gold as a measure of value. A decline in the value of paper currency brings down equally the value of gold, “for the reason that one competent measure of value must be equal in potency or effect to any other competent measure” (p. 220). However, the opposite is true. Poor writes “that the paper money of the country, though declared to have a value equal to that of an equal nominal amount of gold, did not possess such value; that the values of the two, though equally supported by authority, had no necessary relation the one to the other; and that their wide divergence was well calculated to excite the most profound alarm” (p. 220).
    Poor concludes,

He [Huskisson] could not go into the market to make any purchase, without having thrust into his hand two scales of prices, — one in paper, the other in gold; yet, in the face of all this, he was so tied to tradition as to assert that money resting upon authority — the assignats of France and the Revolutionary Currency of the United States — was as competent a measure of values as gold and silver (pp. 220-221).

    [Many fiat money reformers believe that the Continental and assignat failed because the government did not follow the right scheme in issuing them. Also, the flaws of today’s paper monetary system, including its electronic equivalent, result from following the doctrines of Keynes and Friedman instead of the scheme that the fiat money reformers promote, who disagree with each other on the proper scheme. Examples of these schemes are:
    – the Social Credit scheme, which requires the government to give the people enough money to  fill the gap between national income and gross domestic product (GDP);
    – the American Monetary Institute’s scheme, which has the government creating and issuing government notes directly without banks {v. “Analysis of the American Institute’s American Monetary Act” by Thomas Allen};
    – Richard Cook’s scheme, which is a combination of the Social Credit scheme and the American Monetary Institute’s scheme {v. “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen};
    – the Money Reform Act scheme, which promotes the government issuing government notes and an end to banks converting loans to money {v. “Analysis of the Monetary Reform Act” by Thomas Allen};
    – Arnold Leese’s scheme, which is a fascist monetary scheme {v. “Analysis of Money No Mystery” by Thomas Allen};
    – Byron Dale’s scheme, which has the government printing and spending government notes to finance the construction and maintenance of roads {v. “Analysis of Byron Dale’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in Bashed by the Bankers” by Thomas Allen};
    – Charles Norburn’s scheme, which has the government creating and spending government notes into circulation and an end to issuing interest-bearing government securities {v. “Analysis of Charles Norburn’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in Honest Money” by Thomas Allen};
    – the Foundation to Restore and Educated Electorate scheme, which is similar to Norburn’s scheme {v. “Comparison of Three Monetary Systems” by Thomas Allen};
    – Gertrude Coogan’s scheme, which has a trusteeship answerable to Congress issuing government notes to match productiveness and to maintain stable general prices {v. Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money by Thomas Allen, pp. 232-233};
    – Silas Adams’ scheme, which has the government owning most of the country by buying all bonds, promissory notes, and other debt securities and corporate stock and other securities with government notes {v. Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money by Thomas Allen, pp. 233-235};
    – K.S. Kenan’s scheme, which reduces the Federal Reserve mostly to a clearing house for banks and makes the Department of the Treasury responsible for issuing the country’s currency and replacing all interest-bearing U.S. securities with non-interest-bearing government notes {v. Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money by Thomas Allen, pp. 235-238}.
For fiat money reformers, the problem is not fiat money itself; the problem is how the fiat money system is administrated.]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More money articles.

Poor on Stewart

Poor on Stewart

Thomas Allen

    In 1877, Henry Varnum Poor (1812-1905) wrote Money and Its Laws: Embracing a History of Monetary Theories, and a History of the Currency of the United States. He was a financial analyst and founder of a company that evolved into Standard & Poor’s. Poor was a proponent of the real bills doctrine and the classical gold-coin standard and, thus, the quality theory of money. He gave little credence to the quantity theory of money — especially if credit money, such as bank notes, were convertible on demand in species. Also, he contended that the value of money depends on and is derived from the value of the material of which it is made and with paper money, its representation of such value.
    In the latter part of his book, he discusses leading monetary theorists from Aristotle (350 B.C.) to David A. Wells (1875). Most of the economists whom he discussed were proponents of the quantity theory of money. We will look at his discussion on Dugald Stewart. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    Dugald Stewart (1753-1828) was a Scottish philosopher and mathematician, who popularizing the Scottish Enlightenment. He was a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. Among his writings are Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind (in three volumes, 1792, 1814, and 1827), Outlines of Moral Philosophy (1793), and The Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers (1828). Poor reviews Stewart’s monetary philosophy as presented in his Lectures on Political Economy.
    Poor writes, “Stewart was an ardent admirer of [Adam] Smith, and assumed to reduce to precise and logical terms what his great master only more generally outlined”  (p. 171). Nevertheless, Stewart objected to Smith’s belief that the value of gold and silver depended largely on “their beauty, utility in the arts, and scarcity; that such qualities, among others still more important, fitted them to serve as money” (p. 171). For Stewart, the intrinsic value of gold and silver in a coin is “merely accidental circumstances.” Stewart asserts, “When gold is converted into coin, its possessor never thinks of any thing but its exchangeable value” (p. 171). If the intrinsic value of gold and silver are annihilated, i.e., their conversion to flatware, jewelry, etc., they could still function as money as they did when they had intrinsic value. Money is merely a ticket or counter. “It is general consent alone which distinguishes them [gold and silver], when employed as money, from any thing else which circulates in a country; from the paper money, for instance, which circulates in Scotland and England.” (p. 172). If a country were isolated from the rest of the world, gold or silver coin as a medium of exchange would have no advantage over paper currency. Also, whether the circulation medium consists of gold or paper would make no difference on the national wealth. Moreover, according to Stewart, whether gold or silver was abundant or scant would not matter. “The only utility which is essential to gold and silver as media of exchange is their peculiar adaptation (divisibility, durability, &c.) to this purpose” (p. 172). [For the most part, fiat money proponents agree with Stewart’s monetary theory.]
    Poor replies that like Smith, Stewart errs in his assumption “that money was an invention, — an arrangement entered into from a sense of its necessity” (p. 172). Stewart also errs in his conclusion “that value is not a necessary attribute of money” (p. 173). [Poor is correct: Money was not an invention. It evolved over time from spontaneous market operations. Only after money came into being did governments get involved.]
    However, Stewart’s idea of money is a logical derivation from Smith’s idea. From the premises laid down by Smith, Stewart concluded that “value is no attribute of money.” Poor remarks, “the real value of money must equal its nominal value, or, in case of symbols, the values of what they represent must equal their nominal value in coin, or value is no attribute of money whatever” (p. 173). [Today’s fiat paper money is based on Stewart’s premise that value is no attribute of money. That is, the quality of money is irrelevant. Force is the only thing behind, or backing, today’s fiat paper money.]
    Stewart states, “We never think when we receive the precious metals as money, of their value in the arts” (p. 173). To which Poor replies, “But were they not first taken, and chiefly, for their value in the arts? and if we do not now consciously go through the same mental process that was gone through when they were first taken, is it not that such consciousness is concealed from us by habit, not that it does not exist” (p. 173)? People practice many things without conscious thought about how such practice came into being. Acting this way “is no proof that the mind is not engaged in one case as in the other” (p. 173). Poor notes:

Stewart, however, wholly misstated the fact that gold and silver are taken without any consciousness of their value in the arts. As a rule, we do not raise the inquiry; we assume from experience that coins are what they purport to be: but let it be noised abroad that debased coins of a particular denomination are in circulation, then every one of the kind, good or bad, will be subjected to the closest scrutiny, and, if taken at all, will only be taken at its value in the arts, measured by the amount of pure metal it contains (pp. 173-174).

    Stewart claims that if all gold and silver mines were exhausted, all the gold and silver in existence would be converted to money. Poor disagrees. First, he doubts the possibility of exhausting of all mines. If gold and silver were to disappear, civilization would disappear with them. However, if all mines were exhausted, Poor doubts that all gold and silver would be converted to money. Poor writes:

As it [gold] gradually disappeared from loss and attrition, commerce and trade, and with these, civilization and wealth, would gradually die out. As these disappeared, gold and silver would gradually flow back into the arts, and almost wholly in time; for, as there would be no trade, money would not be wanted. It is a fact of universal observation, that gold and silver possessed by the savage races are not used as money, but almost wholly in the arts (p. 174).

    To Stewart’s belief that “gold and silver, as a medium of exchange, would possess no value over the most worthless of substances” (p. 175), Poor replies:

This absurdity is repeated by every subsequent writer upon the subject of money. Suppose England to be the world, what then? Would all sense of beauty, of utility or value be lost to its people? Suppose, as Stewart assumes, England isolated, a Yorkshire grazier should take with him to London a lot of beeves; and upon their sale should be offered a leather medal, with curious hieroglyphics stamped upon it, in payment. The seller at first might consider the offer as a good joke; but, on finding the purchaser in earnest, he would believe himself to be dealing with a madman, and would take good care to get his beeves into his possession again, and to rid himself of such a dangerous customer. To be logical, Stewart must assume that, were England isolated from all the world, its people would have a sense of neither use nor beauty; in other words, that they would be lower in the scale than any race or tribe ever yet discovered. If the precious metals have no intrinsic value, then the Scythian was correct in assuming money to be useful only for the purpose of assisting in numeration and arithmetic. It is for this reason that Stewart held their value to be disadvantageous, in complicating thereby the theory of money. If value be not an attribute of money, he was quite right in eliminating from it all idea of such quality (p. 175).

[The fiat paper monetary system that has now taken over the world supports Stewart’s notion of money better than it does Poor’s. However, Poor’s notion is much closer to the truth than Stewart’s. Because of believing Stewart, the world is now on the edge of a monetary crisis the likes of which the world has never before witnessed. Civilization is on the verge of collapsing into an economic abyss from which it may never recover, such as that which happened when the dying Roman civilization collapsed into the Dark Age — only this time the collapse may be worse. Only a return to a commodity monetary standard, such as the gold standard, where money has real value in non-monetary uses and can extinguish debt because it is no one else’s obligation, can save it.]
    Poor asks if Stewart is correct in that money as such has no value, then what harm can come from debasing coins? When a coin is debased, the denomination remains the same. However, the precious metal content of the coin is reduced. [Historically, when precious-metal coins were debased, prices quickly rose to adjust to the precious metal content of the debased coin. Even the death penalty could not deter this price adjustment.] Poor remarks, “If the sole use of money, as asserted by Stewart, be to assist in numeration and arithmetic, then the different denominations of coin have only the force of numerals; and a piece of leather upon which is imprinted the word ‘dollar’ is in its proper essence the same thing as a piece of gold upon which the same word is impressed” (p. 176). He continues,

Hume was more logical and consistent. Agreeing with Stewart that the only value of money, as such, was to assist in numeration and arithmetic, he took the ground that the currency should be debased, as the means of eliminating value from it; naively remarking, that such debasement should be effected in such a sly way that the people should not discover the swindle. Of the two, Hume is to be preferred. The admission that the debasement was a swindle had the merit, at least, of putting the people on their guard (p. 176).

    Stewart writes that money provides a “scale of value” instead of a “standard of value,” which is the term that Smith uses. Thus, Stewart is more accurate than Smith about his concept of money. Poor notes, “It would be a contradiction in terms to call that a standard of value which had no value. A thing may be a scale, without being a standard. A yardstick is a scale for measuring distance or extension, but not the standard of distance or extension” (p. 177).
    Poor asks, “If all value is to be abstracted from money, then of what advantage are the qualities of divisibility and fusibility, in the materials composing it” (p. 177)? These are two of the qualities that Stewart claims make gold useful as money (p. 176). Moreover, Poor continues, “Why not have the denominations which are fitted to express ‘every conceivable variation, of value’ all of the same size and fineness? A bank-note for a thousand dollars has precisely the same size and quality of material as a note for one dollar. The only difference is in their inscriptions” (p. 177).
    Continuing his comment on Stewart’s claim that divisibility and fusibility were qualities that fitted gold and silver for money, Poor writes, “According to Stewart’s theory, the qualities which fit gold and silver for money — divisibility and fusibility — are of the least importance; for pieces of similar size may be made by their inscriptions to express ‘every conceivable variation of value’” (p. 177).
    Stewart claims that a scale of value renders “the ideas of value much more precise and definite than they otherwise would have been” (p. 177). Poor asks, “But how can ideas of relative value be made more precise by comparing them with a scale from which all value is abstracted? How can nothing be made to be the measure of the value of something” (p. 177)? [A great question. As far as I know, no one has satisfactorily explained how something of no value and does not represent something of value can measure value.] Continuing with an example, Poor writes, “A definite idea is conveyed in the statement that a gold dollar measures the value of a bushel of corn; but what idea can be formed of the value of the corn from a statement that its value is that expressed upon a worthless piece of leather or paper” (p. 177)? [With today’s fiat paper money, value is “measured” with worthless pieces of paper. Perhaps trying to measure something with nothing explains, at least in part, the devastating economic crisis looming before the world.]
    Stewart also suggests that “the quantity of money required by a community was in ratio to the rapidity of its circulation” [i.e., the velocity of money or the velocity of circulation] (p. 178). [The concept of the velocity of money is an important component of the quantity theory of money.] To which Poor replies, “This suggestion, which naturally resulted from the assumption that money is not capital, but a scale of valuation, or an aid in enumeration and arithmetic, has become an axiom among all modern Economists” (p. 178). [Today, nearly all economists continue to agree with Stewart on this issue.] Commenting on the event that Stewart used to deduce his conclusion on the rapidity of circulation, Poor writes:

The result of these transactions was, that in the course of seven weeks the garrison had been paid 49,000 florins, the sutlers had sold supplies to the amount of 49,000 florins, and the commandant or government owed them 49,000 florins: so that in the end the latter had converted their supplies into money, and had in hand 7,000 florins, and a debt against the government or commandant for 49,000 florins. From all this Stewart deduces a law, — that the amount of currency required is in ratio to its activity. Suppose the garrison had required a certain amount of forage lying twenty miles off; and that, having but one horse, ten days were required for its transportation. With ten horses, the same work might have been done in a single day. Would Stewart from this fact have attempted to prove that one horse could do the work of ten? We wonder he did not fortify his argument by the following syllogism: ‘ten horses can do so much work in one day; one horse can do the same work in ten days; therefore one horse can do the work of ten horses (p. 179).

    Stewart states “that the quantity of money and notes in circulation must bear but a small proportion to the value of the goods to be bought and sold, and that this proportion must vary according to the quickness with which the money circulates or shifts from one hand to another” (p. 179). To this claim, Poor replies, “If the proportion of money to the goods to be bought and sold be small, then the amount of goods bought and sold will be small. Stewart has only shown that, with a small amount of money, seven weeks were required to effect exchanges which might, with an adequate amount, have been made in one” (p. 179).
    Continuing his comments on the rapidity of the circulation of money, Poor writes:

If money be capital, or the representative of capital, and if when it is exchanged it is exchanged for other kinds of capital, then there can be no greater activity in money than in other kinds of capital; and there can be no relation whatever between its activity and quantity. There would be just as much sense in saying that the quantity of wheat necessary for the consumption of a community was in ratio to the rapidity of its movement: that is, if the rapidity of its motion be made twice as great, one-half the ordinary quantity will suffice. . . . [Stewart] overlooked the fact, that, when money was used as the measure of value or the scale of valuation, the thing, the scale itself, passed from the party using it to the party whose goods had been purchased and measured by it. . . . With Stewart . . . money is an entity, possessed of volition and will, flying about the country eager to do some good deed; an active and lively piece doing twice the work of a dull, phlegmatic one. But money cannot move unless something else moves, no matter how eager it may be for work. Its eagerness must find its complement in some other kind of property; so that if volition, will, and activity be predicated of one, volition, will, and activity must be predicated of the other. Money has no attribute of activity different from that possessed by all other kinds of merchandise. The use of one involves the use of the other; the employment of one involves the employment of the other (pp. 180-181).

    Poor concludes his review of Stewart with this comment:

One of the great evils resulting from the reputation of such a man as Dugald Stewart is, that every word that he uttered, which was recorded by himself or by others, is carefully gathered up and put into his ‘works.’ In the case of Stewart, these are swelled to eleven ponderous volumes, full of propositions of the correctness of not one of which the reader can have the least assurance. Had his ‘literary executor,’ instead of carefully raking up, burned three quarters of all he left, he would have rid the world of a vast mass of rubbish, and the painstaking student of a great deal of the most irksome toil. It may be set down as a maxim, that a person who assumes to write authoritatively upon every subject will write well upon none. Life is not long enough for one man to know every thing, or to construct an universal science (p. 182).

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More money articles.

Comparison of Three Monetary Systems

Comparison of Three Monetary Systems
Thomas Allen

The Foundation to Restore an Educated Electorate (F.R.E.E.) has put out a pamphlet titled “Time to End the Fraud.” It promotes the fiat monetary reforms of Theodore Thoren and Richard Warner. This pamphlet has a table taken from Thoren and Warner’s book The Truth in Money Book comparing Thoren and Warner’s “Treasury Credit Money System” to the current “Federal Reserve System.” I am comparing Thoren and Warner’s Treasury Credit Money System and their description of the current Federal Reserve System with the “People’s Money System.” Occasionally, I comment on the Treasury Credit Money System and the Federal Reserve System to identify misleading statements in the table. My comments are in parentheses.

First, I give a brief description of the People’s Money System. Under the People’s Money System, the people directly control the quantity of money in circulation. They do this in two ways. They control the quantity of gold and silver coins in circulation by the quantity of gold and silver bullion that they convert to coins and by the quantity of coins that they convert to bullion for nonmonetary uses. Also, they control the quantity of commercial money (real bills of exchanges) in circulation through their productivity. For a more detail description of commercial money see Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System, “There Is Enough Gold,” “Response to Dale’s Analysis of ‘There Is Enough Gold,’” “Analysis of Byron Dale’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in Bashed by the Bankers,” “Analysis of the American Monetary Institute’s American Monetary Act,” and “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths.” The People’s Money System does not require legal tender laws, banks, or governmental management of the monetary system.

Now for the comparison of the fifteen items in the pamphlet’s table.

1. Treasury Credit Money System: “Money created debt-free by the Treasury.” (But it is still debt.)
Federal Reserve System: “Money created as debt by private commercial banks (and Investment banks and Savings Banks since repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).”
People’s Money System: The people themselves create money debt-free as described above.

2. Treasury Credit Money System: “Money spent into circulation for Federal expenditures.”
Federal Reserve System: “Money spent into circulation only for expenses of Federal Reserve and commercial banks.”
People’s Money System: Money is spent into circulation by the people themselves for their own expenses.

3. Treasury Credit Money System: “Treasury never borrows.” (This statement is not true. With its notes the Treasury is forcing government loans on everyone. Unlike conventional government loans, these loans bear no interest. Moreover, the government never intends to pay them unless it pays them with more debt.)
Federal Reserve System: “Treasury collects insufficient taxes and borrows from private banks and others (individuals and foreign governments) to cover Federal deficit expenditures.” (This system does not force the Treasury to collect insufficient taxes and borrow the rest. Banks do not hold the weapons of coercion; the government does.)
People’s Money System: The government may borrow at interest from banks, private individuals, and perhaps other governments. However, it greatly restricts the size of the government and inhibits its expansion; borrowing is minimal.

4. Treasury Credit Money System: “Treasury lends money to banks.”
Federal Reserve System: “Treasury borrows money from private banks.” (The Treasury also borrows from individuals as noted under No. 3.)
People’s Money System: The people lend money to banks, mostly as savings deposits and certificates of deposits. The Treasury never lends to banks; it keeps the government’s money in government vaults.

5. Treasury Credit Money System: “Interest rates (mathematically) set by Treasury to balance interest receipts with Treasury expenditures.”
Federal Reserve System: “Interest rates set by New York banks according to secret policy decisions.”
People’s Money System: Interest rates are primarily set by savers and secondarily by investors, i.e., the markets set interest rates.

6. Treasury Credit Money System: “Banks operate as savings and loan associations (as they did before Glass-Steagall repeal) — lend from depositor’s savings and their own borrowings from Treasury.”
Federal Reserve System: “Banks create money through fractional reserve deposit expansion (commercial banks do not lend their depositor’s savings).”
People’s Money System: Banks do not create money. Fractional reserve banking does not exist. Two types of banks (or banking activities) exist: issuing banks and lending banks. Issuing banks convert commercial money (real bills of exchange) into bank money (bank notes and checkbook money) by buying real bills. Issuing banks do not lend. Money in checking accounts is fully backed by deposited gold or silver or real bills, which can quickly be converted into gold and silver coins. (Real bills always appreciate until they mature; then they are paid in specie.) Lending banks lend savings. No loans are made for periods greater than the time that the bank has complete control of the money being lent. That is, a depositor cannot demand the return of his savings during the time of the loan. Thus, lending banks do not borrow short and lend long. Checking accounts at lending banks are fully backed by gold or silver that the account holder has deposited or that the bank has transferred to the account from savings accounts via a loan.

7. Treasury Credit Money System: “Checks are cleared through a department of the Treasury.”
Federal Reserve System: “Banks clear their own checks.”
People’s Money System: Checks clear through clearing house associations, which member banks own.

8. Treasury Credit Money System: “System is inflation-proof and depression-proof.” (Like all fiat monetary reformers, Thoren and Warner claim that their system is inflation proof and depression proof. They are wrong. Money issuance under their system is not and cannot be based on economic needs. Because fiat money is a political creation, it is always based on politics and political needs. The supply of fiat money tends to grow, i.e., inflation. Inflation distorts the economy, which leads to economic contraction that can result in a depression.)
Federal Reserve System: “System causes inflation-depression cycles.”
People’s Money System: The business cycle is smoothed, and inflation and deflation are greatly mollified. Unlike fiat monetary systems, this system quickly and automatically increases and decreases the money supply as the demand and the economy’s need for money increase and decrease. Economics and not politics, as occurs with fiat monetary systems, drives the expansion and contraction of money supply.

9. Treasury Credit Money System: “Money maintains constant purchasing power.” (As discussed above, this statement is false. Money under this system will lose its purchasing power. Being irredeemable paper money, it is extremely low quality money. Low quality money cannot maintain a constant purchasing power. It always declines in value. History shows that money issued directly by government typically inflates, depreciates, faster than that issued by banks.)
Federal Reserve System: “Money loses purchasing power until it causes depression.”
People’s Money System: Being gold and silver, money is of the highest quality. Its purchasing power gradually increases over time. Unlike the other two systems, it results in the standard of living of the common man actually rising.

10. Treasury Credit Money System: “Money supply expands or contracts according to needs of society.” (Perhaps Thoren and Warner explain in their book how this is accomplished. However, I do not see how it is possible without saintly divine beings being in charge of the monetary system. I have yet encountered a fiat monetary system that, in spite of assurance of its proponents that it can, can manipulate the money supply to meet the needs of the economy. I guess that Thoren and Warner’s out is adjusting the money supply to meet the needs of “society” instead of the “economy.” Society includes both the political and economic. As fiat money is a political creation, it can be expanded and contracted to meet the political needs of society as those in power construe these needs.)
Federal Reserve System: “Money supply expands or contracts according to secret policies.”
People’s Money System: As discussed above, the money supply expands and contracts to meet the economic needs or needs of the economy. It accomplishes these adjustments automatically and quickly without any governmental intervention.

11. Treasury Credit Money System: “Taxes kept at a minimum.” (By substituting printing press money for taxation.)
Federal Reserve System: “Taxes kept at a maximum.”
People’s Money System: Taxes are kept at a minimum.

12. Treasury Credit Money System: “No personal income tax.”
Federal Reserve System: “Maximum politically acceptable income tax.”
People’s Money System: It does not necessarily eliminate personal income taxes. However, because it keeps the government small and lean, personal income taxes become unnecessary.

13. Treasury Credit Money System: “No national debt.” (This is another false statement. The U.S. government note, which is the form of money under this system, is a form of debt. It is a governmental debt forced on everyone. The national debt is not eliminated. It is merely transformed into noninterest bearing, nonpayable debt.)
Federal Reserve System: “National debt grows exponentially.”
People’s Money System: It does not necessarily eliminate national debt, but it keeps it small. To the extent that it encourages frugal government, it makes debt unnecessary.

14. Treasury Credit Money System: “All debts are totally payable.” (This statement is misleading and false. It is misleading when it claims that debts are totally payable. Debts paid with debt [government notes] may be discharged, but they can never be extinguished. Debt is paid by transferring it to another. This statement is false because government notes are debt, and the government never pays them off.)
Federal Reserve System: “Never enough money in the system to pay all debt (principal and interest).” (This is not quite accurate. Bankruptcy leaves money to pay the interest.)
People’s Money System: Unlike the other two systems, debt is not money. As all debts are eventually paid with that which is no one else’s obligation, gold and silver, this system truly does extinguish all debt.

15. Treasury Credit Money System: “Interest collections on treasury-held debt never exceed supply of debt-free money in circulation.”
Federal Reserve System: “Bank interest collections deplete the money supply forcing escalation of debt, interest and prices.” (If interest depletes the money supply, how can it force prices up? If people have less money to spend, merchants have to cut their prices if they want to sell their products.)
People’s Money System: As interest is paid in real money that remains in use as long as a need or demand for that money remains, this is a nonissue.

The following eight items are comparisons not in the pamphlet’s chart. Most likely, they were not considered because they show how much alike are the Treasury Credit Money System and Federal Reserve System.

1. Treasury Credit Money System: Produces low quality money.
Federal Reserve System: Produces low quality money.
People’s Money System: Produces high quality money.

2. Treasury Credit Money System: Leads to, or at least facilities, ever expanding, ever more powerful government; increases the government’s power over the people.
Federal Reserve System: Leads to, or at least facilities, ever expanding, ever more powerful government; increases the government’s power over the people.
People’s Money System: Leads to smaller, more limited government; decreases the power of the government over the people.

3. Treasury Credit Money System: Trusts politicians and bureaucrats; distrusts the people and bankers.
Federal Reserve System: Trusts politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers; distrusts the people.
People’s Money System: Trusts the people; distrusts politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers.

4. Treasury Credit Money System: Trusts promises and paper; distrusts that which is no one else’s obligation, especially gold.
Federal Reserve System: Trusts promises and paper; distrusts that which is no one else’s obligation, especially gold.
People’s Money System: Trusts that which is no one else’s obligation, including gold; distrusts promises and paper.

5. Treasury Credit Money System: Depends on legal tender laws, the military might of the government to force the people to accept the money. Its money cannot stand on its own merit.
Federal Reserve System: Depends on legal tender laws, the military might of the government to force the people to accept the money. Its money cannot stand on its own merit.
People’s Money System: Depends on the merit of the money to get the people to accept it. Legal tender laws are unnecessary.

6. Treasury Credit Money System: Money dies with the issuing government or sooner if the government abolishes it. Its type of money seldom survives a generation.
Federal Reserve System: Money dies with the issuing government or sooner if the government abolishes it. Its type of money seldom survives a generation.
People’s Money System: Money outlives the issuing government and even the country. It survives for millennia. Although the government may outlaw it, the government cannot kill or abolish it.

7. Treasury Credit Money System: Monetary unit is an intangible legal abstraction, which has no intrinsic value[1] that can store, measure, and transfer value and wealth.
Federal Reserve System: Monetary unit is an intangible legal abstraction, which has no intrinsic value that can store, measure, and transfer value and wealth.
People’s Money System: Monetary unit is a tangible specific measurable quantity of a commodity, e.g., as a specific weight of gold. As the monetary unit has intrinsic value, it can store, measure, and transfer value and wealth.

8. Treasury Credit Money System: Governmental policies are necessary to the management of the country’s money. Thus, the monetary system is politically managed.
Federal Reserve System: An “independent” central bank, the Federal Reserve, can best mange the country’s monetary system. As the creation and existence of the central bank is political, the central bank is guided by politics instead of economics in managing the country’s money. Besides, it is as ignorant as the government in knowing how much money is needed, when it is needed, and where it is needed. It is as incompetent as the government in getting the right quantity at the right time to the right place.
People’s Money System: The people through their market activities can best control the country’s money; monetary policies of the government and its central banks only hamper the management of the country’s money. The best monetary system is a market managed system. Thus, it is vastly superior to the government or its central bank at getting the right quantity of money to the right place at the right time.

Endnote
1. Intrinsic value is the value of the monetary material in its nonmonetary use. Commodity money such as gold has high value in its nonmonetary use. If the impressions were removed from a gold coin, the coin would still have the same value. Moreover, a double eagle is worth twice as much as an eagle even without any impression on it. A small piece of paper with the picture of a dead president on it has no more value than a square of stiff toilet paper — practically none. If the engraving were removed, a $100 bill would have no more value than a $1 bill.

A commodity’s utility in its nonmonetary use is what originally gave it value as money. With free coinage under the true gold standard, the monetary value and nonmonetary value of the commodity are kept in equilibrium. Originally, paper money obtained its value from the commodity money with which it was connected. As the distance from its connection with commodity money lengthens, its monetary value declines and eventually equals its nonmonetary value of nearly zero.


Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.