In reply it may be said that the production of gold since 1895 represents a very large percentage of the total supply. The Soetbeer figures as supplemented by those of the Director of the Mint show that the world's gold production for the 405 years 1492-1896 inclusive was in round numbers $8,982,000,000,[66] and that for the eleven years 1897-1907, was $3,513,000,000; in other words, for these eleven years it was over 39 per cent. of the total for the preceding 405 years. Probably the effective supply represents a much larger proportion of recent gold because of (1) the large amount of loss chiefly by abrasion of the gold produced in the earlier years, and of (2) the greater degree to which this early gold has assumed specialized forms, such as jewelry, plate, etc.
Satisfactory index numbers of prices for recent years are not available for all the principal countries of the world. Such as we have, however, point to a decided rise of prices in all gold standard countries since about 1897. Comparing standard price index numbers in six of the chief countries of the world for the years 1897 and 1907, we find the general price level to have risen as follows:[67]
| United States—Bureau of Labor figures | 44.4% |
| Canada—Coats figures, (weighted) | 43.7% |
| England—Sauerbeck figures | 29.0% |
| France—de Foville, figures for export prices[68] | 13.3% |
| Germany—Hamburg figures | 30.8% |
| Italy—Necco figures for export prices | 23.4% |
If we average these figures together, assigning the same importance to the figures of each country, in order to get a rough idea of the movement of world prices in gold standard countries during the eleven years in question, we find that the average increase was 30.8 per cent. If we follow Professor Laughlin and compare the years 1895 and 1907, we find the average increase in prices to have been 25.8 per cent., and the world's gold production for the 13 years 1895 to 1907 to have been about 42 per cent. of that for the preceding 404 years. When to this is added the fact that the evidence points to a smaller percentage of the world's annual gold production going into the industrial uses than formerly, and the further fact that during the period in question the increase and improvements in the world's banking facilities have greatly economized the uses of money, we see that a very substantial increase in general prices would be expected, despite a great expansion of business. World prices in fact have not increased nearly as rapidly as the flow of gold into monetary uses since 1897, not to mention the enormous development of deposit currency. The Director of the Mint estimates each year the amount of the world's new gold used in the industrial arts. Computations I have made based upon these figures show a tendency for a decreasing percentage of the annual production to be used in the arts, although there is considerable irregularity. For the seven years 1895-1901 the average percentage was 27.1, and for the seven years 1902-1908 it was 25.3.[69]
Professor Laughlin's second argument in favor of the proposition that the recent rise in prices has not been due primarily to the increased gold production is one of the most beautiful examples of begging the question that I have seen in economic literature. He says:
"In recent discussions one of the 'other' factors which has been slighted is the demand for gold since 1895. The examination shows that the new demand in countries turning to the gold standard, and in those already using gold and extending their demand, amounts in round numbers to about $3,000,000,000. Hence the new demand has roughly equalled the new supply, since 1895—a fact which jumps with the known conditions in the great financial markets like London, where new arrivals of gold are eagerly competed for by European banks."
Of course the demand for gold equals the supply, as does the demand for wheat or any other commodity, when one interprets demand and supply as one should, in terms of market prices. The general price level is the very thing which equilibrates the demand for gold and the supply. The higher price level about which we are talking is an expression of the absorption of most of this new gold into the world's circulation. Banks and merchants eagerly compete for it, because higher prices require more money to do a given amount of exchange work, and rising prices stimulate business.
Joseph French Johnson[70]: I am glad to observe that there appears to be a tendency toward agreement with regard to the fact that the value of money depends upon the demand for it and supply of it. Professor Laughlin likes the word standard better than I do. It suggests something permanent and fixed, whereas money is a very changeable thing. While I am in agreement with Professor Laughlin in the conclusion that the general level of prices depends upon the demand for and supply of money, I am unable to give assent to many of the propositions which he puts forward as links in the chain of reasoning leading to that conclusion.
For example, Professor Laughlin says, "A change of prices may be due to changes in the demand for and supply of (thus including the expenses of production) goods as well as to changes in the demand for and supply of gold." This proposition is true with regard to changes in the prices of particular commodities. The price of wheat may rise or fall as a result of a change in the demand for or in the supply of wheat. The proposition, however, is not true with regard to a change in the general level of prices. An increase in the supply of goods will lower the level of prices for the simple reason that it will increase the demand for gold. I am not certain that I have understood Professor Laughlin's exposition of his theory, but he certainly seemed to me to argue that there could be a change in the general level of prices without any change whatever in the demand for or supply of gold. Such a position, it seems to me, is absolutely untenable.