Readings in Money and Banking / Selected and Adapted

by Chester Arthur Phillips

Such an ideal standard is as unattainable as is absolute space. Changes in relative value indicate change in absolute value, either of goods or of money; but it is not possible for us to know, except in a general way, how much of the absolute change is in goods and how much in the dollar. On general principles we may be assured that the absolute change is wholly or mostly in the dollar. We economists in our measurements of value are in much the same predicament as the astronomers. Our economical "fixed stars" are fixed only in a relative sense. We cannot measure the empty spaces of absolute value, but can only express values in terms of visible goods, the general average of which is the nearest approach to absolute invariability we can, in practice, reach.

But if it were possible to measure absolute values to our universal satisfaction, in terms, say, of "marginal utility," or of "disutility of labor," or of anything else, there are no statistics by which we can realize such a standard in practice. The only readily available statistics by which we can correct our present standard are price statistics from the great markets. We can, by index numbers based on these price statistics, translate from gold into commodities, but as yet we cannot translate from commodities into any ideal or absolute standard.

If I were treating of the problem of an ideal standard of value, I think I should be inclined to agree with Professor Marshall that a standard that represents a gradually descending scale of prices to keep pace with the "real" cheapening improvements in industrial processes is better than one which represents an absolute constancy of prices. But it would be quite impracticable to discover the exact rate of fall of prices which would correctly register the improvement going on in industry, and, moreover, it would, I believe, be so small as not to depart much from the mutiple standard. This I infer is also the opinion of Professor Marshall.

Professor Kinley makes the very interesting suggestion that we can suppose a more ideal standard than the tabular by making our unit a definite percentage of the national annual dividend. This appeals to me as a rough and ready way of fixing a unit more nearly ideal than that fixed by the tabular standard. But it would certainly not be practicable. It would not even be quite ideal. But if Professor Kinley will measure his standard, the compensated dollar plan will be able to take care of it.

In fact, if we could find a more absolute standard than the tabular standard and could accurately measure it in statistics, precisely the same method of compensating the dollar could be employed to keep the dollar in tune with that standard as with the tabular standard. The only difference would be that the guiding index would be different. The plan for compensating the dollar does not in essence consist in selecting the multiple or any other standard. It consists in a method of making the monetary unit conform to any standard chosen. But there is convincing evidence that the multiple standard is usually near enough to the ideal for all practical purposes and infinitely nearer than the gold standard. While individual goods may vary greatly in absolute value, the general mass of goods will vary comparatively little and seldom. There may be some absolute change in the general mass of commodities, but it must usually be extremely small in comparison with changes in any one commodity like gold. It is clear from the theory of chances that this must be the case. The odds are hundreds to one that the variations in absolute value in several hundred commodities will offset each other to a large degree. We very seldom have world feasts or world famines. If the corn crop is short in some places it is abundant in others. If it is short everywhere the crop of wheat or barley or something else is practically certain not to be. We cannot expect that everything will usually move in one and the same direction. If there is a war in Japan, it is not likely that there will also be a war in India. A world war or even anything as near to a world war as the present conflict in Europe is a most unusual thing.

A standard composed of several hundred commodities must therefore be, in all human probability, more stable than a standard based, as is our present gold standard, on one commodity. Bimetallists made much of this point when claiming that two metals joined together were steadier than one, just as two tipsy men walk more steadily arm in arm than separately. Still more steady is the average of a hundred commodities just as a line of a hundred tipsy men abreast and holding each other's arms will march even more steadily than two. This is because it is wholly unlikely that every man in the line will lurch in the same direction at the same instant. The lurching of some in one direction can always be depended on to offset almost entirely the lurching of others in the other direction. This theory of probabilities in its application to the present rise of prices is, I believe, borne out by the facts.

After a careful study of all available evidence, I am convinced that the present general rise in prices beginning in 1896, cannot be traced to any simultaneous scarcity of goods. I refer the reader to Why Is the Dollar Shrinking? where I have given the summary of the evidence. I think the facts are equally clear that the great fall in prices from 1873 to 1896 can not be laid, wholly at least, to the increasing plentifulness of goods.

Finally, even if we could measure and apply an absolute standard, it is doubtful if, in practice, it would be of any more service in regulating contracts, than a multiple standard. For after all, as I have tried to show in Appreciation and Interest what we want in a contract is something that is dependable rather than something that is absolutely constant; and the multiple standard gives dependability in terms of the ordinary staple necessities of life. If we could know that the dollar always means a definite collection of goods, we could know that the bondholder or the salaried man who gets a stated income of $100 a month, would have the same command over actual goods, and such knowledge would be of great service. This whole subject I have discussed in Chapter X of my Purchasing Power of Money.

7. "It would be inadequate to check rapid and large changes of the price level." Owing to the narrow limits, e. g., 1 per cent. as stated, imposed on the monthly adjustments, it is quite true that a sudden and strong tendency of prices to rise or fall could not be completely checked. If prices were to rise 8 per cent. per annum and the plan permitted no more rapid shift than 6 per cent. per annum, this would leave only 2 per cent. per annum uncorrected, or only one-fourth the rate at which prices would rise if wholly uncorrected. But half (or in this illustration three-quarters of) a loaf is better than no bread. Moreover, such extreme cases are rare and when they occur there is all the keener need for mitigation even if it be somewhat inadequate. Ultimately, of course, after the rapid spurt has abated, the counterpoise, in its relentless pursuit, would overtake the escaped price level and bring it back to par.

8. "The correction always comes too late." It is objected that the plan does not make any correction until actual deviation has occurred, and so the remedy always lags behind the disease. It is true that the corrections follow the deviations. They could not precede them unless we foreknew what the deviations were to be; and we could not afford to entrust the work of guessing to government officials. In this respect, as in others, the plan does not attain perfection; yet it is infinitely better than the present plan, which leaves the standard haphazard. It is also pointed out that after the correction is applied it may happen that prices will take the opposite turn, in which case the remedy actually aggravates the disease. But, taking the extremely fitful course of prices since 1896 and correcting it according to the plan, month by month, as shown in the Quarterly Journal of Economics diagram, we find that in nine cases out of ten the opposite is true. Even in the few remaining cases the deflections were very slight and were, of course, soon corrected immediately after the following adjustments. If the corrections are sufficiently frequent, it is impossible not to maintain, in general, an extremely steady adjustment.