On The Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation Part 17

Adam Smith speaks of the advantages derived by merchants from the superiority of the Scotch mode of affording accommodation to trade, over the English mode, by means of cash accounts. These cash accounts are credits given by the Scotch banker to his customers, in addition to the bills which he discounts for them; but as the banker, in proportion as he advances money, and sends it into circulation in one way, is debarred from issuing so much in the other, it is difficult to perceive in what the advantage consists. If the whole circulation will bear only one million of paper, one million only will be circulated; and it can be of no real importance either to the Banker or merchant, whether the whole be issued in discounting bills, or a part be so issued, and the remainder be issued by means of these cash accounts.

It may perhaps be necessary to say a few words on the subject of the two metals, gold and silver, which are employed in currency, particularly as this question appears to perplex, in many people's minds, the plain and simple principles of currency. "In England," says Dr. Smith, "gold was not considered as a legal tender for a long time after it was coined into money. The proportion between the values of gold and silver money was not fixed by any public law or proclamation; but was left to be settled by the market. If a debtor offered payment in gold, the creditor might either reject such payment altogether, or accept of it at such a valuation of the gold, as he and his debtor could agree upon."

In this state of things it is evident that a guinea might sometimes pa.s.s for 22_s._ or more, and sometimes for 18_s._ or less, depending entirely on the alteration in the relative market value of gold and silver. All the variations too in the value of gold, as well as in the value of silver, would be rated in the gold coin,--it would appear as if silver was invariable, and that gold only was subject to rise or fall.

Thus, although a guinea pa.s.sed for 22_s._ instead of 18_s._ gold might not have varied in value, the variation might have been wholly confined to the silver, and therefore 22_s._ might have been of no more value than 18_s._ were before. And on the contrary, the whole variation might have been in the gold: a guinea, which was worth 18_s._ might have risen to the value of 22_s._

If now we suppose this silver currency to be debased by clipping, and also increased in quant.i.ty, a guinea might pa.s.s for 30_s._; for the silver in 30_s._ of such debased money might be of no more value than the gold in one guinea. By restoring the silver currency to its mint value, silver money would rise; but it would appear as if gold fell, for a guinea would probably be of no more value than 21 of such good s.h.i.+llings.

If now gold be also made a legal tender, and every debtor be at liberty to discharge a debt by the payment of 420 s.h.i.+llings, or twenty guineas, for every 21_l._ that he owes, he will pay in one or the other according as he can most cheaply discharge his debt. If with five quarters of wheat he can procure as much gold bullion as the mint will coin into twenty guineas, and for the same wheat as much silver bullion as the mint will coin for him into 430 s.h.i.+llings, he will prefer paying in silver, because he would be a gainer of ten s.h.i.+llings by so paying his debt. But if on the contrary he could obtain with this wheat as much gold as would be coined into twenty guineas and a half, and as much silver only as would coin into 420 s.h.i.+llings, he would naturally prefer paying his debt in gold. If the quant.i.ty of gold which he could procure could be coined only into twenty guineas, and the quant.i.ty of silver into 420 s.h.i.+llings, it would be a matter of perfect indifference to him in which money, silver or gold, it was that he paid his debt. It is not then a matter of chance; it is not because gold is better fitted for carrying on the circulation of a rich country, that gold is ever preferred for the purpose of paying debts; but simply because it is the interest of the debtor so to pay them.

During a long period previous to 1797, the year of the restriction on the Bank payments in coin, gold was so cheap, compared with silver, that it suited the Bank of England, and all other debtors, to purchase gold in the market, and not silver, for the purpose of carrying it to the mint to be coined, as they could in that coined metal more cheaply discharge their debts. The silver currency was during a great part of this period very much debased, but it existed in a degree of scarcity, and therefore on the principle which I have before explained, it never sunk in its current value. Though so debased, it was still the interest of debtors to pay in the gold coin. If indeed the quant.i.ty of this debased silver coin had been enormously great, or if the mint had issued such debased pieces, it might have been the interest of debtors to pay in this debased money; but its quant.i.ty was limited and it sustained its value, and therefore gold was in practice the real standard of currency.

That it was so, is no where denied; but it has been contended that it was made so by the law which declared that silver should not be a legal tender for any debt exceeding 25_l._, unless by weight, according to the mint standard.

But this law did not prevent any debtor from paying any debt, however large its amount, in silver currency fresh from the mint; that the debtor did not pay in this metal, was not a matter of chance, nor a matter of compulsion, but wholly the effect of choice; it did not suit him to take silver to the mint, it did suit him to take gold thither. It is probable that if the quant.i.ty of this debased silver in circulation had been enormously great, and also a legal tender, that a guinea would have been again worth thirty s.h.i.+llings; but it would have been the debased s.h.i.+lling that would have fallen in value, and not the guinea that had risen.

It appears then, that whilst each of the two metals was equally a legal tender for debts of any amount, we were subject to a constant change in the princ.i.p.al standard measure of value. It would sometimes be gold, sometimes silver, depending entirely on the variations in the relative value of the two metals, and at such times the metal, which was not the standard, would be melted, and withdrawn from circulation, as its value would be greater in bullion than in coin. This was an inconvenience which it was highly desirable should be remedied, but so slow is the progress of improvement, that although it had been unanswerably demonstrated by Mr. Locke, and had been noticed by all writers on the subject of money since his day, a better system was never adopted till the last session of Parliament, when it was enacted that gold only should be a legal tender for any sum exceeding forty-two s.h.i.+llings.

Dr. Smith does not appear to have been quite aware of the effect of employing two metals as currency, and both a legal tender for debts of any amount; for he says that "in reality, during the continuance of any one regulated proportion between the respective values of the different metals in coin, the value of the most precious metal regulates the value of the whole coin." Because gold was in his day the medium in which it suited debtors to pay their debts, he thought that it had some inherent quality by which it did then, and always would regulate the value of silver coin.

On the reformation of the gold coin in 1774 a new guinea fresh from the mint would exchange for only twenty-one debased s.h.i.+llings; but in the reign of King William, when the silver coin was in precisely the same condition, a guinea also new and fresh from the mint would exchange for thirty s.h.i.+llings. On this Mr. Buchanan observes, "here, then, is a most singular fact, of which the common theories of currency offer no account; the guinea exchanging at one time for thirty s.h.i.+llings, its intrinsic worth in a debased silver currency, and afterwards the same guinea exchanged for only twenty-one of those debased s.h.i.+llings. It is clear that some great change must have intervened in the state of the currency between these two different periods, of which Dr. Smith's hypothesis offers no explanation."

It appears to me, that the difficulty may be very simply solved, by referring this different state of the value of the guinea at the two periods mentioned, to the different _quant.i.ties_ of debased silver currency in circulation. In King William's reign gold was not a legal tender, it pa.s.sed only at a conventional value. All the large payments were probably made in silver, particularly as paper currency, and the operations of banking, were then little understood. The quant.i.ty of this debased silver money exceeded the quant.i.ty of silver money, which would have been maintained in circulation, if nothing but undebased money had been in use; and consequently it was depreciated as well as debased. But in the succeeding period when gold was a legal tender, when bank-notes also were used in effecting payments, the quant.i.ty of debased silver money did not exceed the quant.i.ty of silver coin fresh from the mint, which would have circulated if there had been no debased silver money; hence though the money was debased, it was not depreciated. Mr.

Buchanan's explanation is somewhat different, he thinks that a subsidiary currency is not liable to depreciation, but that the main currency is. In King William's reign silver was the main currency, and hence was liable to depreciation. In 1774 it was a subsidiary currency, and therefore maintained its value. Depreciation, however, does not depend on a currency being the subsidiary or the main currency, it depends wholly on its being in excess of quant.i.ty.

To a moderate seignorage on the coinage of money there cannot be much objection, particularly on that currency which is to effect the smaller payments. Money is generally enhanced in value to the full amount of the seignorage, and therefore it is a tax which in no way affects those who pay it, while the quant.i.ty of money is not in excess. It must, however, be remarked, that in a country where a paper currency is established, although the issuers of such paper should be liable to pay it in specie on the demand of the holder, still, both their notes and the coin might be depreciated to the full amount of the seignorage on that coin, which is alone the legal tender, before the check, which limits the circulation of paper, would operate. If the seignorage on gold coin were 5 per cent., for instance, the currency, by an abundant issue of bank-notes, might be really depreciated 5 per cent. before it would be the interest of the holders to demand coin for the purpose of melting it into bullion; a depreciation to which we should never be exposed, if either there was no seignorage on the gold coin; or, if a seignorage were allowed, the holders of bank-notes might demand bullion, and not coin, in exchange for them, at the mint price of 3_l._ 17_s._ 10-1/2_d._ Unless then the bank should be obliged to pay their notes in bullion or coin, at the will of the holder, the late law which allows a seignorage of 6 per cent., or four pence per oz., on the silver coin, but which directs that gold shall be coined by the mint without any charge whatever, is perhaps the most proper, as it will more effectually prevent any unnecessary variation of the currency.[48]

CHAPTER XXVI.

ON THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF GOLD, CORN, AND LABOUR, IN RICH AND IN POOR COUNTRIES.

"Gold and silver, like all other commodities," says Adam Smith, "naturally seek the market where the best price is given for them; and the best price is commonly given for every thing in the country which can best afford it. Labour, it must be remembered, is the ultimate price which is paid for every thing; and in countries where labour is equally well rewarded, the money price of labour will be in proportion to that of the subsistence of the labourer. But gold and silver will naturally exchange for a greater quant.i.ty of subsistence in a rich than in a poor country; in a country which abounds with subsistence, than in one which is but indifferently supplied with it."

But corn is a commodity, as well as gold, silver, and other things; if all commodities, therefore, have a high exchangeable value in a rich country, corn must not be excepted; and hence we might correctly say, that corn exchanged for a great deal of money, because it was dear, and that money too exchanged for a great deal of corn, because that also was dear; which is to a.s.sert that corn is dear and cheap at the same time.

No point in political economy can be better established, than that a rich country is prevented from increasing in population, in the same ratio as a poor country, by the progressive difficulty of providing food. That difficulty must necessarily raise the relative price of food, and give encouragement to its importation. How then can money, or gold and silver, exchange for more corn in rich, than in poor countries? It is only in rich countries, where corn is dear, that landholders induce the legislature to prohibit the importation of corn. Who ever heard of a law to prevent the importation of raw produce in America or Poland?--Nature has effectually precluded its importation by the comparative facility of its production in those countries.

How then can it be true, that "if you except corn, and such other vegetables, as are raised altogether by human industry, all other sorts of rude produce--cattle, poultry, game of all kinds, the useful fossils and minerals of the earth, &c., naturally grow dearer as the society advances." Why should corn and vegetables alone be excepted? Dr. Smith's error throughout his whole work, lies in supposing that the value of corn is constant; that though the value of all other things may, the value of corn never can be raised. Corn, according to him, is always of the same value, because it will always feed the same number of people.

In the same manner it might be said, that cloth is always of the same value, because it will always make the same number of coats. What can value have to do with the power of feeding and clothing?

Corn, like every other commodity, has in every country its natural price, viz. that price which is necessary to its production, and without which it could not be cultivated: it is this price which governs its market price, and which determines the expediency of exporting it to foreign countries. If the importation of corn were prohibited in England, its natural price might rise to 6_l._ per quarter in England, whilst it was only at half that price in France. If at this time, the prohibition of importation were removed, corn would fall in the English market, not to a price between 6_l._ and 3_l._, but ultimately and permanently to the natural price of France, the price at which it could be furnished to the English market, and afford the usual and ordinary profits of stock in France; and it would remain at this price, whether England consumed a hundred thousand, or a million of quarters. If the demand of England were for the latter quant.i.ty, it is probable that, owing to the necessity under which France would be, of having recourse to land of a worse quality, to furnish this large supply, the natural price would rise in France; and this would of course affect also the price of corn in England. All that I contend for is, that it is the natural price of commodities in the exporting country, which ultimately regulates the prices at which they shall be sold, if they are not the objects of monopoly, in the importing country.

But Dr. Smith, who has so ably supported the doctrine of the natural price of commodities ultimately regulating their market price, has supposed a case in which he thinks that the market price would not be regulated either by the natural price of the exporting or of the importing country. "Diminish the real opulence either of Holland, or the territory of Genoa," he says, "while the number of their inhabitants remains the same; diminish their power of supplying themselves from distant countries, and the price of corn, instead of sinking with that diminution in the quant.i.ty of their silver which must necessarily accompany this declension, either as its cause or as its effect, will rise to the price of a famine."

To me it appears, that the very reverse would take place: the diminished power of the Dutch or Genoese to purchase generally, might depress the price of corn for a time below its natural price in the country from which it was exported, as well as in the countries in which it was imported, but it is quite impossible that it could ever raise it above that price. It is only by increasing the opulence of the Dutch or Genoese, that you could increase the demand, and raise the price of corn above its former price; and that would take place only for a very limited time, unless new difficulties should arise in obtaining the supply.

Dr. Smith further observes on this subject: "When we are in want of necessaries, we must part with all superfluities, of which the value, as it rises in times of opulence and prosperity, so it sinks in times of poverty and distress." This is undoubtedly true; but he continues, "it is otherwise with necessaries. Their real price, the quant.i.ty of labour which they can purchase or command, rises in times of poverty and distress, and sinks in times of opulence and prosperity, which are always times of great abundance, for they could not otherwise be times of opulence and prosperity. Corn is a necessary, silver is only a superfluity."

Two propositions are here advanced, which have no connexion with each other; one, that under the circ.u.mstances supposed, corn would command more labour, which is not disputed; the other, that corn would sell at a higher money price, that it would exchange for more silver; this I contend to be erroneous. It might be true, if corn were at the same time scarce, if the usual supply had not been furnished. But in this case it is abundant, it is not pretended that a less quant.i.ty than usual is imported, or that more is required. To purchase corn, the Dutch or Genoese want money, and to obtain this money, they are obliged to sell their superfluities. It is the market value and price of these superfluities which falls, and money appears to rise as compared with them. But this will not tend to increase the demand for corn, nor to lower the value of money, the only two causes which can raise the price of corn. Money, from a want of credit, and from other causes, may be in great demand, and consequently dear, comparatively with corn; but on no just principle can it be maintained, that under such circ.u.mstances money would be cheap, and therefore, that the price of corn would rise.

When we speak of the high or low value of gold, silver, or any other commodity in different countries, we should always mention some medium in which we are estimating them, or no idea can be attached to the proposition. Thus, when gold is said to be dearer in England than in Spain, if no commodity is mentioned, what notion does the a.s.sertion convey? If corn, olives, oil, wine, and wool, be at a cheaper price in Spain than in England; estimated in those commodities, gold is dearer in Spain. If again, hardware, sugar, cloth, &c. be at a lower price in England than in Spain, then, estimated in those commodities, gold is dearer in England. Thus gold appears dearer or cheaper in Spain, as the fancy of the observer may fix on the medium by which he estimates its value. Adam Smith, having stamped corn and labour as an universal measure of value, would naturally estimate the comparative value of gold by the quant.i.ty of those two objects for which it would exchange: and, accordingly, when he speaks of the comparative value of gold in two countries, I understand him to mean its value estimated in corn and labour.

But we have seen, that, estimated in corn, gold may be of very different value in two countries. I have endeavoured to shew that it will be low in rich countries, and high in poor countries; Adam Smith is of a different opinion: he thinks that the value of gold estimated in corn is highest in rich countries. But without further examining which of these opinions is correct, either of them is sufficient to shew, that gold will not necessarily be lower in those countries which are in possession of the mines, though this is a proposition maintained by Adam Smith.

Suppose England to be possessed of the mines, and Adam Smith's opinion, that gold is of the greatest value in rich countries, to be correct: although gold would naturally flow from England to all other countries in exchange for their _goods_, it would not follow that gold was necessarily lower in England, as compared with corn and labour, than in those countries. In another place, however, Adam Smith speaks of the precious metals being necessarily lower in Spain and Portugal, than in other parts of Europe, because those countries happen to be almost the exclusive possessors of the mines which produce them. "Poland, where the feudal system still continues to take place at this day as beggarly a country as it was before the discovery of America. _The money price of corn, however, has risen_; THE REAL VALUE OF THE PRECIOUS METALS HAS FALLEN in Poland, in the same manner as in other parts of Europe. Their quant.i.ty, therefore, must have increased there as in other places, _and nearly in the same proportion to the annual produce of the land and labour_. This increase of the quant.i.ty of those metals, however, has not, it seems, increased that annual produce, has neither improved the manufactures and agriculture of the country, nor mended the circ.u.mstances of its inhabitants. Spain and Portugal, the countries which possess the mines, are, after Poland, perhaps, the two most beggarly countries in Europe. The value of the precious metals, however, _must be lower in Spain and Portugal_ than in any other parts of Europe, loaded, not only with a freight and insurance, but with the expense of smuggling, their exportation being either prohibited, or subjected to a duty. _In proportion to the annual produce of the land and labour, therefore, their quant.i.ty must be greater in_ those countries than in any other part of Europe: those countries, however, are poorer than the greater part of Europe. Though the feudal system has been abolished in Spain and Portugal, it has not been succeeded by a much better."

Dr. Smith's argument appears to me to be this:--Gold, when estimated in corn, is cheaper in Spain than in other countries, and the proof of this is, not that corn is given by other countries to Spain for gold, but that cloth, sugar, hardware, are by those countries given in exchange for that metal.

CHAPTER XXVII.

TAXES PAID BY THE PRODUCER.

M. Say greatly magnifies the inconveniences which result if a tax on a manufactured commodity is levied at an early, rather than at a late period of its manufacture. The manufacturers, he observes, through whose hands the commodity may successively pa.s.s, must employ greater funds in consequence of having to advance the tax, which is often attended with considerable difficulty to a manufacturer of very limited capital and credit. To this observation no objection can be made.

Another inconvenience on which he dwells is, that in consequence of the advance of the tax, the profits on the advance also must be charged to the consumer, and that this additional tax is one from which the treasury derives no advantage.

In this latter objection I cannot agree with M. Say. The state, we will suppose, wants to raise _immediately_ 1000_l._ and levies it on a manufacturer, who will not, for a twelve-month, be able to charge it to the consumer on his finished commodity. In consequence of such delay, he is obliged to charge for his commodity an additional price, not only of 1000_l._ the amount of the tax, but probably of 1100_l._, 100_l._ being for interest on the 1000_l._ advanced. But in return for this additional 100_l._ paid by the consumer, he has a real benefit, inasmuch as his payment of the tax which Government required immediately, and which he must finally pay, has been postponed for a year; an opportunity, therefore, has been afforded to him of lending to the manufacturer, who had occasion for it, the 1000_l._ at 10 per cent., or at any other rate of interest which might be agreed upon. Eleven hundred pounds payable at the end of one year, when money is at 10 per cent. interest, is of no more value than 1000_l._ to be paid immediately. If Government delayed receiving the tax for one year till the manufacture of the commodity was completed, it would, perhaps, be obliged to issue an Exchequer bill bearing interest, and it would pay as much for interest as the consumer would save in price, excepting, indeed, that portion of the price which the manufacturer might be enabled, in consequence of the tax, to add to his own real gains. If, for the interest of the Exchequer bill, Government would have paid 5 per cent., a tax of 50_l._ is saved by not issuing it. If the manufacturer borrowed the additional capital at 5 per cent., and charged the consumer 10 per cent., he also will have gained 5 per cent. on his advance over and above his usual profits, so that the manufacturer and Government together gain, or save, precisely the sum which the consumer pays.

M. Simonde, in his excellent work, _De la Richesse Commerciale_, following the same line of argument as M. Say, has calculated that a tax of 4000 francs, paid originally by a manufacturer, whose profits were at the moderate rate of 10 per cent., would, if the commodity manufactured only pa.s.sed through the hands of five different persons, be raised to the consumer to the sum of 6734 francs. This calculation proceeds on the supposition, that he who first advanced the tax, would receive from the next manufacturer 4400 francs, and he again from the next, 4840 francs; so that at each step 10 per cent. on its value would be added to it. This is to suppose that the value of the tax would be acc.u.mulating at compound interest, not at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, but at an absolute rate of 10 per cent., at every step of its progress. This opinion of M. de Simonde would be correct if five years elapsed between the first advance of the tax, and the sale of the taxed commodity to the consumer; but if one year only elapsed, a remuneration of 400 francs, instead of 2734, would give a profit at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, to all who had contributed to the advance of the tax, whether the commodity had pa.s.sed through the hands of five manufacturers or fifty.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ON THE INFLUENCE OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY ON PRICES.

It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of commodities, and not, as has been often said, the proportion between the supply and demand: the proportion between supply and demand may, indeed, for a time affect the market value of a commodity, until it is supplied in greater or less abundance, according as the demand may have increased or diminished; but this effect will be only of temporary duration.

Diminish the cost of production of hats, and their price will ultimately fall to their new natural price, although the demand should be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled. Diminish the cost of subsistence of men, by diminis.h.i.+ng the natural price of the food and clothing, by which life is sustained, and wages will ultimately fall, notwithstanding that the demand for labourers may very greatly increase.

The opinion that the price of commodities depends solely on the proportion of supply to demand, or demand to supply, has become almost an axiom in political economy, and has been the source of much error in that science. It is this opinion which has made Mr. Buchanan maintain that wages are not influenced by a rise or fall in the price of provisions, but solely by the demand and supply of labour; and that a tax on the wages of labour would not raise wages, because it would not alter the proportion of the demand of labourers to the supply.

The demand for a commodity cannot be said to increase, if no additional quant.i.ty of it be purchased or consumed; and yet under such circ.u.mstances its money value may rise. Thus, if the value of money were to fall, the price of every commodity would rise, for each of the compet.i.tors would be willing to spend more money than before on its purchase; but though its price rose 10 or 20 per cent. if no more were bought than before, it would not, I apprehend, be admissible to say, that the variation in the price of the commodity was caused by the increased demand for it. Its natural price, its money cost of production, would be really altered by the altered value of money; and without any increase of demand, the price of the commodity would be naturally adjusted to that new value.

"We have seen," says M. Say, "that the cost of production determines the lowest price to which things can fall: the price below which they cannot remain for any length of time, because production would then be either entirely stopped or diminished." Vol. ii. p. 26.

He afterwards says that the demand for gold having increased in a still greater proportion than the supply, since the discovery of the mines, "its price in goods, instead of falling in the proportion of ten to one, fell only in the proportion of four to one;" that is to say, instead of falling in proportion as its natural price had fallen, fell in proportion as the supply exceeded the demand.[49] "_The value of every commodity rises always in a direct ratio to the demand, and in an inverse ratio to the supply._"

The same opinion is expressed by the Earl of Lauderdale.

"With respect to the variations in value, of which every thing valuable is susceptible, if we could for a moment suppose that any substance possessed intrinsic and fixed value, so as to render an a.s.sumed quant.i.ty of it constantly, under all circ.u.mstances, of an equal value, then the degree of value of all things, ascertained by such a fixed standard, would vary according to the proportion _betwixt the quant.i.ty of them_, and the demand for them, and every commodity would of course be subject to a variation in its value, from four different circ.u.mstances.