That Professor Laughlin seeks to hold this untenable position, it seems to me, is made evident by the qualification with which he accepts the statement that a change in the quantity of money, other things being equal, would be a factor affecting prices. He says, "An increasing demand for gold, however, would work against the effect of an increasing supply. If the new demand offset the new supply, then, if changes of price occurred, their cause must be sought in the influences touching the producing and marketing of goods." The second conditional clause in that last sentence introduces an impossible supposition, for if a new supply of gold is offset by a new demand for it, there could be no change in the general level of prices, so that no cause for any change would have to be sought in the "influences touching the producing and marketing of goods." Professor Laughlin appears to have in mind forces affecting the general level of prices which are entirely hidden from my sight. A change in the level of prices means a change in the value of gold, and how can there be a change in that if the new demand for gold just offsets the new supply?
Professor Laughlin's analysis of the price-making process is incomplete and misleading. He is correct when he says that the causes of price changes must be sought in the forces settling particular prices, but he is manifestly wrong when he states that the price of wheat is "arrived at by the higgling of the market, which depends on the buyers' and sellers' judgment of the demand for and supply of wheat." Such higgling would determine only the value of wheat. The price of wheat is not fixed until buyer and seller have reached an agreement in their estimates as to the value not only of wheat, but also of money. If wheat is comparatively easy to get, the price falls. If money is easier to get, the price rises. The demand for and supply of money is evidently just as important in the determination of the price of wheat as is the demand for and supply of wheat itself. When Professor Laughlin says that the offer of money for goods is only a resultant of price-making forces previously at work, he must have in mind some price-making process and price-making forces of which I have never heard. I know of no market in which goods are lowered in price except for the reason that at the higher price not enough money is offered to absorb the supply; nor of any market in which goods are raised in price except for the reason that buyers are willing to offer more money for the goods.
In his analysis of credit and its relation to the value of money, Professor Laughlin seems to me to have in mind a hypothetical financial world, the like of which does not and could not exist on earth. He strives to show that a bank's ability to make loans depends upon the amount of its capital and deposits, and that therefore any increase in the supply of gold would not in itself lead to an increase of loans. "Expansion of business," he remarks, "is not a direct consequence of an increasing supply of gold any more than an expansion of railway traffic is the direct consequence of an increasing supply of cars." He is quite right if he means that an increase in the amount of gold will not necessarily cause the exchange of more goods. But this does not appear to be his meaning. He holds that the use of new gold in bank reserves cannot be a causal force raising prices, for the bankers cannot increase their loans, in his opinion, unless the condition of business demands such an increase. In his hypothetical financial world bankers are willing to carry idle stocks of gold and to wait until business conditions make necessary an increase in their loans. In the real financial world, of course, bankers do nothing of the sort. Bankers with surplus gold immediately tempt borrowers by lowering the rate of discount and thus increasing the money demand for goods in the markets. As a result there is an irregular and general rise of prices. More goods may not be bought and sold and there may be no expansion of business, but expressed in terms of money the totals are bigger. There is no analogy between dollars and freight cars. The carrying capacity of a car is fixed and unchangeable, but the carrying capacity of a dollar is elastic—so elastic, in fact, that dollars are always fully loaded no matter how small the supply of goods. As Professor Laughlin points out, although he apparently does not see its significance, the new demand for gold since 1895 has "roughly equalled the new supply." Surely it could not have been otherwise, and no statistics are necessary to prove the fact.
Murray S. Wildman[71]: My comments on these interesting papers will be directed upon the methods employed, and certain assumptions involved, in the arguments of both. Granting that Professor Fisher's analysis shows a perfect correspondence between the course of prices on the one hand and the quantity of money and credit instruments on the other hand, I am still unable to see which magnitudes are properly to be regarded as causes and which as effects. That variations in the value of gold and in the price level must be reciprocal, all will admit. If we regard M as denoting the gold supply for the present, a causal relation between M and P cannot be denied. But may it not be possible that variations in M´, or credit, and V and V´, the velocity of circulation of both money and credit, be simply in consequence of the variation in M and P? Why is P the only passive term or why is it passive at all?
Suppose that the problem set was to discover the cause of credit expansion from 1896 to 1910. Would we not seek at once to explain it by reference to rising prices and greater volume of goods, making a broader basis for credit, while along with that is a greater gold supply which promotes the convertibility of an extended credit? Then might we not invoke Professor Fisher's algebraic formula, with terms rearranged, and show by this method of reasoning, supported by statistical verification, that the high prices afford an adequate cause for the present expansion of credit?
But we are seeking the cause or causes of rise in the price level. This is equivalent to seeking the cause of decline in the value of gold. Does the "quantity theory" as newly expounded give us the solution? I think not. Rather it shows us that as gold has grown in supply, and fallen in value, credit has grown in magnitude and in rapidity of circulation, and that these changes in values and volumes have gone hand in hand with proportional changes in the price level and in the magnitude of commodity exchanges.
This view of the case brings me to substantial approval of Professor Laughlin's method of analysis and argument. That is, we must seek the facts regarding supply and demand as applied to gold, and those which bear upon supply and demand as touching goods, in so far as the demand for goods is expressed in offers of gold and gold representatives. Here the algebraic formula would be invoked to support his reasoning since M´ and V and V´ may be regarded as factors in the demand for gold.
To accept Professor Laughlin's method does not involve the necessity of his conclusions. The terms, by this method, do not lend themselves to exact mathematical statement and statistical proof, so conclusions cannot be exact and definite. This may be illustrated in a consideration of demand for gold. Some say that demand has grown step by step with supply and therefore gold has not been cheapened. Others say that supply has grown more rapidly than demand, and so gold has been cheapened and to that extent prices are raised.
Either statement may be wrong. I do not believe we have yet any reliable data regarding the demand for gold in the sense of a value-making factor. Most efforts to measure demand are based on statistics of gold in use. If one can show that consumption of gold in the arts, in the circulation, and in greater bank reserves, has increased pari passu with production, we are told that the value of gold has not been lowered by the greater supply.