Economics Volume II: Modern Economic Problems

by Frank A. Fetter

§ 8. #Fluctuating standard and the interest-rate.# In connection with the standard of deferred payments there is presented a problem of the effect that fluctuations of the standard may have upon the interest-rate.[11] As the general price-level falls or rises, the monetary standard conversely appreciates or depreciates.[12] If these changes are slight in amount and imperceptible in their direction they may not affect considerably the motives of borrowers and lenders. Therefore, the rate of interest this year in long-time loans would be just that resulting in the expectation, on all hands, of a stationary level of general prices. Suppose that rate to be 5 per cent on the standard investment (such as real-estate loans and good bonds). Then the lender of $1000 will receive each year a $50 income and at the end of the investment period $1000 principal, each dollar of which will purchase the same composite quantum of goods that a dollar would have purchased at the time the loan was made. Likewise, the borrower would pay interest and principal in a standard that reflected an unchanging general level of prices. But, now, if the general level of prices unexpectedly falls 1 per cent within the year, the creditor of a loan maturing at the end of the year would receive (principal and interest) $1050 which will purchase 1 per cent more goods per dollar than the sum he loaned, or (approximately) $1060 worth of goods. Hence, he has received, in quantum of goods, a yield of 6 per cent on his investment. If this change continues for five years, the lender of a five-year loan would receive each year $50 having a purchasing power successively 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 per cent greater than the same sum had at the making of the loan; and at the end of the five years would collect the principal, having a purchasing power 5 per cent greater. The lender, on his part, would have to pay interest and repay the principal in a money that is to be obtained only in exchange for a larger sum of goods than that which could be bought with each dollar that he borrowed. This means that, with individual exceptions, creditors generally gain and debtors lose by falling prices.

But this is fully true only in respect to loans already made. For just to the extent that such a movement of prices comes to be more or less regularly in the same direction, both borrowers and lenders are able to take it into account, and as experience shows, do take it into account.[13] When prices fall men become more eager to sell wealth, to lend the proceeds, and more reluctant to borrow for investment at the prevailing rate of interest and at the prevailing prices. There is an incentive to divest one's self of ownership (e.g., by selling stocks) and to become a lender (e.g., by buying bonds). This whole situation is reversed in a period of rising prices. The result is that the rate of interest in any long continued period of falling prices (such as from 1873 to 1896) has a trend downward and in a period of rising prices (such as from 1897 to 1915) has a trend upward. This movement of readjustment would not go on indefinitely, even if the same trend of prices continued; for in the strict theory of the case the adjustment would be complete when the interest rate had changed by just the amount of the annual change in the level of prices. For example, if 5 per cent is the static normal rate of interest, then when prices are falling 1 per cent each year, the adjusted rate of interest would be 4 per cent; and when prices were rising 1 per cent each year, the adjusted rate of interest would be 6 per cent. Such adjustments serve to some extent to neutralize the effects of changes in the standard of deferred payments so far as concerns new loans made in view of just such a change and in expectation of its continuance. But no one can foresee exactly, and most persons take little account of, such a change until it has continued for several years in the same direction. The adjustment is therefore never very prompt or very exact. In some years the general level of prices has risen more than 5 per cent, or more than enough to offset the entire interest received by most lenders. A man with dollars to invest would have been as well off if he had kept them buried during that period.[14]

§ 9. #Notable changes in prices#. In most cases the true effects of monetary changes escape recognition. In a few cases, however, the change has been so great as to cause an economic revolution. Such was the change in prices following the discovery of America, which occurred soon after the old feudal dues had come to be generally expressed in terms of money instead of labor services. In modern times, since the mass of debts has become greater than ever before, such changes bring even graver economic consequence. The increase in the output of gold in 1849-57,[15] caused what was the most rapid, if not the greatest money inflation that had occurred since the sixteenth century. The substitution of gold for silver by some countries at that time, by making a great additional market for gold, helped to check the fall in its value. Indeed, a considerable decline in the output of gold after 1870 combined with its widening use to cause in 1873 the beginning of a great fall of gold prices. The resulting increase in the burden of outstanding debts was felt by all debtors, but particularly by great numbers of the agricultural classes both in Europe and in America. Their tribulations were aggravated by the fact that at that time (especially from about 1873 to 1896) the prices of their products were falling much more rapidly than were general prices, as a result of the very rapid extension of the agricultural land supply.[16] There was complaint, agitation, and demand for relief on the part of many interests in France, Germany, England, and the United States. As a result, the money question became in this country a leading political issue and continued to be such between 1873 and 1900.

§ 10. #Nature and object of bimetallism.# First came "the greenback movement," which, lasted until after 1880.[17] This then gave way to an agitation for bimetallism. Bimetallism is the plan of using two metals as standard moneys. Bimetallism is legally authorized when both metals are admitted to the mints for free coinage at an established ratio of weight. Bimetallism may be legally authorized, but not actually working, for, if the market-value long continues to vary appreciably from the legal ratio, only one of the metals may in fact be left in circulation. This situation is called limping bimetallism (or the halting double standard), tho this is a contradiction of terms. National bimetallism is confined to a single country, as was the case in the United States before the Civil War, or in France before 1867. International bimetallism is that resulting from an agreement among several nations to use two metals on the same terms.

The theory of bimetallism is that the government can act on the value of the two metals through the principle of substitution. The metal tending to become dearer will not be coined, the other will be coined in greater quantities. The degree of influence that can thus be exerted on the value of the two metals depends on the size of the reservoir of the metal that is rising in value. When it all leaves circulation, the law on the statute book permitting it to be coined becomes a mere phrase. In such a case there is bimetallism de jure, but monometallism de facto. The greater the league of states the greater is the likelihood that the plan will continue to work. The only notable historical instance of international bimetallism is that of the Latin Union, which united France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland in an agreement remaining actually in force from 1866 to 1874. A strong movement developed between 1878 and 1892 in favor of forming a great international bimetallic union of states.

One object of the movement was to put an end to the great fluctuations in the rates of exchange of money between the silver-using and gold-using countries, fluctuations which occasioned much uncertainty and loss to individuals engaged in foreign trade. The rise in the price of gold-exchange in the silver-using countries (notably India) meant also an increase in their burden of taxation. These countries collected their revenues in silver, but they had to pay their debts, principal and interest, in gold. Another object of this movement was to prevent the burden of individual debts from increasing by reason of the rise in the value of the single standard, gold. It was, indeed, hoped that by bringing silver much more into use, the value of gold would be reduced, thus bringing relief to the debtor classes. Still another object of the bimetallic movement was to aid the silver miners and silver-producing districts by creating a larger market for silver.

Several international conferences were held which were taken part in by some of the leading financiers of the world representing their respective governments. The United States was foremost in advocating the policy, France at first favored it, as did in large measure the British Indian administration, tho England was in the main opposed. The movement came to nothing.

§ 11. #The movement for national bimetallism in America#. When all hope of international bimetallism failed, the efforts of many of its advocates were turned to the plan of legalizing national bimetallism in the United States at a ratio of 16 to 1. This was very different from the market ratio. Gold had become before 1860, in fact, the standard of our money system, and after 1873 it was the only metal admitted to free coinage. Silver, little by little, had been losing purchasing power in terms of gold, until from being worth, in 1873, one-sixteenth as much, ounce for ounce, it became, in 1896, worth but one-thirtieth as much as gold. The power of silver to purchase general commodities fell much less than the change in its ratio to gold would indicate, gold having risen in terms of most other goods as well as of silver. Nevertheless, the proposal to open the mints to the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1 in the year 1896 threatened a sudden and marked cheapening of money.[18] Probably gold would have been entirely driven out as money and silver would have taken its place as the standard. In any event "free silver" would have accomplished the purpose of making the standard of deferred payments cheaper. It was at first a debtors' movement, but to succeed it had to enlist the support of other large classes of voters. And thus it developed into the more sweeping theory that wages, welfare, and prosperity were favored by a larger supply of money quite apart from the effect it would have upon debts.

In its extreme form the free-silver plan was a fiat scheme, for some of its supporters believed that by the mere passage of the law the two metals could be made to bear to each other any ratio desired. But its most intelligent advocates recognized that the force of the law was limited by economic conditions. The victory of the gold standard in the campaign of 1896 was, it would seem, due more to the well-founded fear that a sudden change of the money standard would cause a panic than to a popular understanding of the question.

The free-silver advocates got what they desired, a reversal of the movement of general prices, through an occurrence for which no political party could claim the credit. In 1883 the gold production of the world was less than $100,000,000. From that date, with the opening of newer gold-yielding territory in South Africa and in the Klondike, the annual output of gold had been increasing rapidly and almost steadily. The methods of extracting gold theretofore had still been in large part of a primitive sort. But intricate machinery was taking the place of crude tools, chemical processes had been introduced (notably, the cyanide process), and the principal product began to come from the regular and certain working of deep mines rather than from chance surface discoveries. In many parts of the world were enormous deposits of low-grade ores, before useless, that could be worked economically by the new methods.