The Principles of Economics, with Applications to Practical Problems

by Frank A. Fetter

Qualities of the primitive money

3. Money in its origin is that good which best unites the qualities that make it easy to sell, to carry, to know, to keep, to divide, and unite. It is evident that if some one commodity is gradually to take on this use as a medium of exchange there will be a choice; some things will be better fitted than others. First, this thing must have the quality of salability, or marketability. In the channels of exchange it is taken not because it is wanted for itself, but because it will help to get something else that is wanted. To be sure of a ready sale in a primitive community it must, however, be something that is generally desired. Food and clothing, which supply the fundamental physical needs, are the most generally used and desired of all goods. But they do not have the second quality of a good money material, that of great value in small bulk, transportability. Food is bulky. The carrying of a venison or of a bag of wheat on one's back a short distance requires an effort as great as that for the procuring of the food. Furs, however, have this quality in a high measure, united with other qualities of money, as is shown by their general use in the exchanges of northern tribes. Thirdly, a thing must be recognizable; counterfeits must be easily avoided, and the quality must be easy to test: this is the quality of cognizability. The love of ornament is universal in human societies, and gives value to many materials combining in a high degree the qualities thus far named. Fourthly, the money material, when taken in exchange, must remain without loss of quality, perhaps for long periods, until it can be exchanged again. Food does not answer to this requirement, being organic and perishable. But some of the metals, having value in small bulk, salability, cognizability, and durability, step by step displaced other forms of money. Finally, money must be made of a material easy to divide and unite. It is a great convenience in small transactions to be able to represent a fractional value by a small coin. The money material thus, likewise, is easily shifted to and from its money use. It is a very poor money that has not this quality, yet a thing may serve for money in larger transactions without it. Cattle, slaves, and land have been thus used, although they answer in a very rough way these fundamental requirements of the money material.

Industrial changes affect the convenience of certain money forms

4. The changing material and industrial conditions of society change the kind of money that is used. The money use, as has just been shown, is a resultant of a number of different motives in men. Things that have the highest claim to fitness for money with a people at one stage of development would have a low claim at another. As each of these stages is passed, the thing used as money either increases or decreases in its fitness. The final choice depends on the resultant of all the advantages. The use of a material may become more general or less so. Shells used for ornament in poor communities cease to be so used in a higher state of advancement, and thus their salability ceases. Furs, used at some stage of development as money in all northern climes, cease to be generally marketable when the fur-bearing animals are nearly killed off and the fur trade declines. Tobacco was at one time in Virginia a great staple. Merchants were always ready to take it, and its market price was known by all; but as it ceased to be the almost exclusive product of the province, it lost the knowableness and marketability it had before. In agricultural and pastoral communities where every one had a share in the pasture, cattle were a fairly convenient form of money, but to-day would be a most inconvenient one; a city merchant exchanging goods for Poland China pigs and Texas steers would envy the proverbial owner of a white elephant.

The proved fitness of gold and silver as money

The value of the money material may fall so greatly as a result of greater production, as in the case of iron, tin, copper, that it becomes unsuitable. Again, as wealth grows, as exchanges increase, as the use of money develops, as commerce extends to more distant lands, the heavier, less precious metals fail to serve the money need, especially in the larger transactions. Thus, in a sense, different commodities compete, each trying to prove its fitness to be a medium of exchange; but only one, or two, or three at the most, can at one time hold such a place. Silver and gold, step by step, often making little progress in a century, have displaced other commodities, and are the staple and dominant forms of money in the world to-day. Every community has witnessed some stage of this evolution. Now nations are divided into two great groups, silver- and gold-using, in accordance with the metals they use as standards. The gold-using countries are the most advanced industrially, requiring the most valuable money metal. Many countries have passed in the last century from the silver to the gold standard, and in an intermediate period have tried to use both standards. The Asiatic and South American countries mainly use silver, while most of those in North America and Europe use gold.

While industrial changes thus affect the choice of money, in turn money reacts upon the other industrial conditions. If a new and more convenient material is found, or the value of the money metal changes to a degree that affects the generalness of its use, industry is greatly affected. The discovery of mines in America brought into Europe, in the sixteenth century, a great supply of the precious metals, and this change in the use of money reacted powerfully on industry. Money being itself one of the most important of the industrial conditions, is affected by and in turn affects all others.

§ II. NATURE OF THE USE OF MONEY

Money is an indirect agent, a tool to effect exchanges

1. Money in all its money uses is an indirect agent, to be judged just as other indirect agents are. The key to this section is the thought that the function of money is to serve as an indirect agent. Money is often, by a figure of speech, called a tool. Literally a tool is a bit of material which, taken in the hand, is used to apply force to other things, to shape them or move them. Figuratively, this is just what money does. A man takes it in his hand not to get enjoyment out of it, but to apply force, to move something, and that which he moves is the other commodity. Adam Smith aptly likened money to the road and wagons that transport goods, thus gratifying wants by putting things into a more convenient place. Money is only one of a multitude of forms of wealth. It is not even the most "valuable"; it has value just as other indirect agents have. The loss caused by taking away an indirect agent entirely is greater than the benefit usually attributed to it. Its utility in the extremest conditions is greater than its marginal utility under ordinary conditions. Food is not credited in the market with enormous value, but if starvation threatened, all else would be given for food. In a like manner, each individual values money according to the importance of the marginal service it renders, but the marginal service is far from measuring the loss that would be caused by the entire disuse of money. In a society without money, industrial processes would be very different, and exchange would be hampered in almost inconceivable ways. It is true, therefore, that money is an economic factor of high importance, but it is not so indispensable as many other factors to which far less value is attributed.