The Value of Money

by Benjamin M. Anderson

In general, the standard of deferred payments and the measure of value functions do not, per se, add to the value of money. The legal tender function may or may not do so. The medium of exchange function, the store of value function, the reserve for credit function, and the bearer of options function, normally do occasion an added value which is to be attributed to money, either as a capital increment, or as a rental.

The question remains, however, as to the relation of the rental value, and the capital value, of money. This question is not easy to answer. As I have already shown, in the chapter on "Capitalization" and elsewhere, various complications present themselves in the case of money. (1) In the case of money, the rental, and the prevailing rate of interest at which rentals are discounted to make a capital value, are not independent variables, but tend to vary together. Thus, whereas increased rentals would in the case of most income-bearers tend to give a higher capital value, this is offset, in the case of money, by the fact that rentals are subject to a higher discount. (2) In the case of income-bearers generally, the magnitude of the income, or rental, is causally prior to the capital value. The capital value, in our illustration of the candle, the disk and the shadow on the wall, is the shadow, while the rental is the disk. This is the general relation insisted upon by the Böhm-Bawerk-Fetter-Fisher line of capital and interest theory. Productivity theories of capital have been criticised on the ground that capital value is not productive, that only concrete capital-instruments are productive, and that they produce, not value, but goods, that these goods receive value from the market, which is reflected back, but discounted, to the capital instruments which produced them, so that, in value-causation the line of causation is precisely the reverse of the line of technological causation. Capital instruments produce consumption goods, but the value of the consumption goods is the cause of the value of the capital instruments. In the case of money, however, this is not true. It is the value of the money, the capital value, which does the work that makes a rental value. The value of the money is a precondition of the money-function. So far as money is concerned, both "productivity theories" and "use theories" seem vindicated. There is a "use," an "enduring use" in addition to the "uses."[488] (3) The capitalization theory, as hitherto formulated, assumes money and a value of money. It is a part of the general body of price theory for which this assumption has been shown to be needed.

With reference to the second, at least of these points, however, it has been shown that money is not unique. Diamonds, and all other goods which have as part of their function the conspicuous display of wealth, likewise perform this function because they have value. This gives them an additional value. Diamonds are bought for this purpose, when they would not otherwise be bought, or when they would not otherwise be bought in such quantity. This additional value makes diamonds still more effective as a means of displaying wealth, with a further increment in their value, etc. We seem, here, to have an endless, and vicious, circle in value causation, the value mounting indefinitely, building upon itself, a sort of "pyramiding" process. But the limitation comes from several angles. In the first place, as diamonds rise in value, from whatever cause, a smaller and smaller number of diamonds is required to display a given amount of wealth! The increase in the value makes each diamond so much more effective for the purpose in hand that it tends to cut under the cause of the increase. These two tendencies come into some sort of equilibrium. I suppose that by making strict enough assumptions, and limiting the problem rigidly, it would be possible for the mathematician to work out a formula for this equilibrium, letting the increment in value grow feebler with each rebound, till at last it is dissipated in infinitesimals. In the second place, diamonds are not alone in performing this service. They must compete with other precious stones, with the precious metals, with limousines and Turkish rugs, with servants and livery, with houses and lots in restricted neighborhoods, with opera boxes and memberships in clubs which confer prestige, with a very wide range of goods, for the detailed discussion of which I would refer again to Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. The differential advantage of diamonds, when it is borne in mind that the conspicuous display of wealth is not the only purpose, as a rule, for which any of these things are bought, that the concrete diamond, or other good bought, is a bundle of valuable services,[489] of which the displaying of wealth is only one, is not, necessarily very great. For many people, other forms of wealth do better. And, as a rule, diamonds would not perform that service satisfactorily alone. A large number of diamonds, without proper "setting," in clothing, servants, house, opera box, etc., would excite ridicule, and fail[490] in their purpose of gaining social prestige. They must be part of a complex of goods of the same sort, to accomplish their purpose.

Now it is the differential advantage of diamonds which makes possible the extra value, in this use. If all wealth were equally serviceable in conspicuous display, if cattle and barns and shares in a coal mine or slaughter-house or glue factory could display themselves as well as diamonds can, and if possession of these things conferred prestige as much as possession of diamonds does, this differential advantage of diamonds would disappear, and with it all extra value from that cause. Diamonds are members of a class of goods, a restricted, but still large class, which possess this advantage. We may apply the old Ricardian rent analysis here, arranging goods in a series from the standpoint of their capacity to perform this additional service. Bread would, for the purpose in hand, be a "no-rent" good. Ford automobiles are probably nearly no-rent goods now! That the differential factor is a cause of value in land, as the Ricardian doctrine seems to hold, is not, I think, true. If all land were of equal quality, and of equal accessibility to the market, all land would still bear a rent, if it produced goods which had value, and if the land were sufficiently restricted in quantity.[491] But here is a case where the differential factor is an actual cause of value. If all wealth were equally effective in displaying itself, no form of wealth could gain in value as a means of display.

This proposition calls for one important qualification. The fact that wealth, in general, confers prestige is, undoubtedly, a source of stimulus in wealth creation and acquisition, and a big source of the value[492] of total wealth. It is probable, however, that it is so great a stimulus to production that it defeats itself so far as the values of units of goods are concerned. It stimulates production, which reduces the marginal values that arise from other causes. Thus, while a source of additional value to the aggregate of wealth, it probably reduces the values of given items.

I have dwelt at length on the case of diamonds, because principles applying there will give us important clues to the case of the value of money.

Money, by being valuable, is so far equipped to perform the money service. But its differential advantage over other valuable things comes from its superior saleability. Its original value comes from non-monetary causes, and has been sufficiently explained in the chapter on "Dodo-Bones" and in the chapter on the "Origin of Money." The extra value which comes from the money functions rests chiefly in its superior saleability. Saleability is itself a cause of additional value. But here again we may arrange goods in a series, starting with the least saleable, and ending in money. Money has an advantage, but its advantage is not absolute. Under a system of free coinage, gold bullion is virtually on a par with coin, and even without free coinage, bullion is for many purposes as good, and for foreign exchange may be better. Modern credit, moreover, as has been indicated before, tends to add to the saleability of all goods, and so to lessen the differential advantage of money.

Here, again we may see the principle that the extra value that comes from the differential advantage tends to limit itself. As the money-use adds to the value of money, a smaller amount of money is required to do the money work, and hence the source of the increment of value is cut under. This principle will partly explain why the rental of money cannot be capitalized in the same way that the rental of land can be. Increasing the capital value of land is not the same as increasing the productive power of land. But increasing the capital value of money does mean an addition to the power of a dollar to do money work. It tends, moreover, to lessen the work that there is for money to do, both by reducing the total amount of trading, and by increasing the incentive to the use of substitutes for money. Only a part of the value of the services of money, thus, can be added to the capital value of money. There is a further point which is important, as differentiating money from diamonds: much more of the value of the services resting on the value of diamonds can be added to the capital value of the diamonds than is the case with money. The reason is that diamonds may give forth a continuous flow, in the same hands, of the service of conspicuous display of wealth. Money, however, can perform most of its services for a given owner only once. For a given owner, it can serve only once as a medium of exchange. For one owner, it can serve only once as legal tender for debts. It can serve indefinitely as a store of value, or as "bearer of options." In these cases, however, the relation between value of service and capital value does work out in accordance with the capitalization theory. The money thus held brings in no money income. It is held thus only if the services which it performs are equivalent to the income which would come if it were alienated, and something which would bring in a money income were purchased in its place. Money may have added to its capital value the value that is created by one marginal exchange, but the whole series of values which a dollar may create in exchanges cannot be capitalized, if only because the same owner cannot get them all. This holds strictly true only so long as no credit arrangements exist. If loans of money can be made, then the lender can take toll on successive exchanges, and get an income which may be capitalized in part, subject to the limitation already discussed, that increasing capital value of money cuts into the rental, and so, in large measure, destroys its own source.

Where money is not freely coined, there may be an increment, growing out of the capitalization of the money-services, in the value of the coin. The coin may be worth more than the uncoined bullion. This need not be true. If the amount of money work to be done is not increasing, it will not be true, unless the value of the bullion declines, and need not be true then. But an agio on coined over uncoined metal is quite possible, and has frequently occurred. Such an agio has limits, however. In the first place, the bullion may be used as a substitute for coin, so lessening the amount of work there is for coin to do, and lessening the source of the agio. Bullion would tend to rise in value from being thus employed, and coined money would lose in value from a reduction in the services it performed. Further, anything which has more than ordinary saleability may be used as a substitute, in one or another capacity. Again, the agio, if it appeared in a country where men are accustomed to thinking about money, might well arouse distrust, lessen the scope of the coin still further, and so cut into its own source. But such agios have appeared, and while a pure case, where the sole source of the agio is the values created in the money-functioning, is hard to find, I think it is not to be questioned that cases where this is part of the explanation have arisen. I should be disposed to find part of the explanation of the rise of the rupee in India after the closing of the mints in 1893 in this factor. There seems to be evidence, however, that Laughlin is right, in part, in ascribing the rise to an expectation of the adoption of the gold standard.[493]

Modern money, in general, however, rests on a system of free, even where not strictly gratuitous, coinage. Coined metal thus rarely gets, save to a limited extent or temporarily, an agio over uncoined bullion. Uncoined bullion is acceptable in a host of places where coin would otherwise be used, particularly in reserves for credit instruments. Bullion is even superior in international trade as a medium of exchange. Credit paper (particularly bills of exchange), is superior to both in international exchange, as a medium of exchange, because of various reasons of economy. Such paper is even used in reserves in many places, particularly by the Austro-Hungarian Bank.