Readings in Money and Banking / Selected and Adapted

by Chester Arthur Phillips

In such a state of things there can hardly be said to be any real hardship for the debtor. It is true that prices have fallen, and that the money he repays the creditor will buy more goods than it did when the loan was contracted; but his own money income has risen, or at least has not fallen, and the repayment of the loan can cause him no special hardship—none greater than he must have expected. The case clearly differs fundamentally from that of a simple rise in the value of money, or general fall in both prices and wages.... The fall in prices in the United States since 1879, and that in European countries in the period since 1873, are the result, on the whole and in the long run, of ... the general improvements in production; they have not been accompanied by a fall in money incomes, and they cannot be said to have caused an increase in the burden of debtors.

The reasoning of the preceding paragraphs bears also on the second part of the bimetallist indictment—that, namely, as to the depressing effects of falling prices on industrial enterprise. Whether a simple rise in the value of money, unaccompanied by any other circumstance, would have the depressing effects which the bimetallists predict and the classic economists deny, is a question radically different from that which in fact presents itself. It may be that in this simple case the bimetallists might prove to be, in some degree at least, in the right, and that the classic reasoning, here as on many other subjects, while sound in the long run, would need some qualifications and correction. In the long run, no doubt, it is immaterial whether prices are high or low, whether money returns fall or rise; and yet it might turn out that the habitual association of gain or loss with "making money" would cause a period of simple falling prices to be one of hesitating investment of capital and unenterprising conduct of business. But what the world in fact has seen has been the complex case of a fall in prices accompanied by great improvements in production. The business man and capitalist has had, to be sure, to deal with falling prices; but the same amount of capital and labor has turned out more commodities than before; and his total money returns, so far from declining, have generally increased. The money incomes of the managers of industry have shown the same upward movement as the money incomes of the other classes in society. So long as this is the case, it is idle to talk of a depressing effect on enterprise from the fall in prices, or of a strangling of the industrial organism from insufficiency of the circulating medium. In fact, the immediate cause of the fall in prices has been the pushing on the market for sale of larger and larger quantities of commodities, produced with profit at lower and lower cost: a state of things fortunate for the community, and surely not depressing for the business man....

This effect on the entrepreneur of improvements and of falling prices combined, doubtless accounts for the failure of the bimetallist agitation to secure any appreciable hold in the business world. The bimetallists, both in England and on the Continent, have labored zealously to engage support among the business men, but never with a degree of success at all proportionate to the energy displayed. The simple reason is that the business world has not been in any state of chronic depression. In the ups and downs of industrial activity there have been periods which seemed to confirm the pessimistic accounts of the bimetallist and of other persons malcontent with the present order of things; but in due time the tide has always turned....

On the whole, then, the fall in prices, when considered in connection with the other great changes which have accompanied it, does not afford so much countenance to the bimetallist proposal as at first sight it seems to. The rise in money incomes and the improvements in production disprove any intolerable burden on debtors, and make it highly improbable that the change has had any general depressing effect on industry.

THE CASE OF THE FARMER

Nevertheless, there is something more to be said, in explanation and justification of the discontent with falling prices, and of the silver agitation which rests on that discontent. While the effects of the fall in prices on debtors as a class and on producers as a whole have not given real grounds for complaint, certain particular debtors and producers have undoubtedly been injured. The case of these latter have given plausibility to the general arguments of the bimetallists, and, what is more important at the present juncture, has given strength to the movement in the United States for more money and more silver.

The situation will be best understood if we contrast for a moment the different modes in which the improvements in production have been brought about in manufacturing industries on the one hand, in agriculture on the other hand. In manufactures the improvements have been better machinery, new processes, labor-saving inventions, the conduct of business on a larger scale, and so the greater and more effective division of labor. In agriculture the main cause of cheaper production has been different: it has been the opening up of new lands and new sources of supply. No doubt there are important exceptions to these general statements. In agriculture there have been advances in the arts—new plants, better fertilizers, improved implements, more effective ways of cultivating the soil. In manufactures, on the other hand, there have been important changes due to the discovery of new and rich mines of materials, such as coal, iron, copper. But on the whole, the difference holds good. In agriculture undoubtedly the opening of new lands through the improvements in transportation has been the most important single cause at work. The cheapening of agricultural products has been due not so much to the more effective use of the soil already under cultivation, as to the development of soil not formerly available for the supply of the market.

The changes in production and prices have consequently affected the producers in these two branches of production in very different ways. In manufactures all alike have felt them, and have been able to accommodate themselves to the effects. No doubt the shrewder producers adopt improvements and new inventions first, and, so long as they keep in the lead, have the advantage of their competitors. They gain by doing a large business at lower prices, while for the time being their slower competitors lose. But new processes and new inventions spread over the whole field in no long time. The opening of a new source of supply, on the other hand, cheapens production through a process which the holders of the old source of supply cannot avail themselves of. If wheat is raised in large quantities in Dakota, the price goes down as effectively as if the wheat fields of England and New York had suddenly become more fertile; but as those wheat fields produce no more than before, the farmer or land owner on the old soil has nothing to offset the lower price. This is the explanation of the agricultural distress of which so much has been heard in Europe in recent years, and which has been the main occasion of the revival of protectionist feeling in France, Germany, and other countries of the Continent. The farmer on the old lands does not find in improvements in production any compensation for lower prices. If he owns the land, he must pocket the loss, and perhaps in the end abandon his land and turn to something else; such has been a common case in New England. If he is a tenant on the land, he will probably, after a period of struggle and hardship, get lower rents, leaving the landlord as the permanent sufferer; such has been the outcome in old England. If he was in debt before the change took place, he will find his debts growing more burdensome as his money income goes down; such has been the result with many a Western farmer.

It is in causes of this sort that we find the explanation, in part at least, of the restlessness among the Western farmers of which the silver agitation is one sign. The fall in the prices of wheat, corn, and other staples has been due to enormously increased production in regions which were formerly out of reach of the market: in India, Australia, Russia, as well as in California, Dakota, Washington, Oregon, and the Far West generally....

It is probable that some of the complaints in regard to the burden of debt on the farmers are simply a legacy from the old days of inflated paper money. Not a few of the debts of the present [1891] go back to the years before 1870, when we had prices high in terms of over-issued paper money. These debts have been renewed and continued, in whole or in part; and the fall in prices has made them heavier and heavier to bear. The evil here again is real, and a remedy is now hard to find. The only conclusion which can be laid down with perfect conviction is that we should make sure of preventing the recurrence of a new era of excessive paper money.