Readings in Money and Banking Part 18

With reference to Professor Laughlin's fourth proposition it may be said that no economist of standing claims that purchasing power is "identical with the quant.i.ty of the media of exchange in circulation." Effective purchasing power, however, in our modern business communities, does depend upon the possession of money or of the right to demand money. The amount of deposit currency which can be used at any time in purchasing goods is limited by bank reserves because commercial deposits are payable in money on demand at the order of the depositor. Other a.s.sets, no matter how good, cannot be used for the purpose of meeting deposit obligations, except when the entire credit machinery breaks down and suspension is resorted to under the euphemistic name of clearing house loan certificates.

Professor Laughlin's sixth and seventh points are essentially the same and may be considered together. He says:

... Price-making generally precedes the demand upon the media of exchange, and does not at all imply any necessary demand at the moment upon the standard in which the prices are expressed.... The offer of money for goods is only a resultant of price-making forces previously at work, and does not measure the demand for goods.... That is, the quant.i.ty of the actual media of exchange thus brought into use is a result and not a cause of the price-making process....

This contention appears to me to result from a superficial view of the price-making process. The offer of money for goods and the offer of goods for money are of course not the first steps. Each person has his own individual or subjective prices on all sorts of commodities; these subjective prices represent the valuations which he places upon the respective commodities in terms of the valuation which he places upon the money unit. The more of a particular commodity he has the lower his subjective valuation of a unit of that commodity; the more money he owns the lower his estimation of a dollar and the higher his subjective prices; and _vice versa_. Through a process of compet.i.tion, selection, and adaptation, some of these subjective prices develop into market prices, that is, prices at which both buyer and seller benefit, and at which therefore an exchange takes place. To paraphrase an old adage, the proof of the market price is in the exchange. It is a common observation that stock quotations to be of much value must show the number of sales effected at the prices quoted. A stock for which the maximum bids were 100 and the minimum offers were 110, would not possess a market price in the strict sense of the word. The fact that sales have recently been made at a certain price, or are now being so made, is of course presumptive evidence that intending purchasers can buy at about that price. A market price, however, is the amount of money paid for a commodity, not the amount asked, offered, or promised.

Professor Laughlin's ninth proposition I find very difficult to follow.

His premise that reserves are "a consequence of the loan operations" is a dangerous half truth; they are also a consequence of most other kinds of banking operations, cash deposits, cash withdrawals and clearing house balances, foreign and domestic exchange operations, etc. His other premise, that "the fact of an increased supply of gold does not _of itself_ [the italics are mine] increase loans, unless the bank possesses the control of the capital which is a condition precedent to the loans,"

contains an element of truth, but is misleading. While an increased supply of gold does not of itself increase loans it normally has that result; and the bank's discount rate and the condition of its reserve are powerful factors in influencing its loan account. His premises, I believe, are not sound, and his conclusion, namely, that "the expansion of business 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," would not follow from his premises, even if they were sound. The normal causal chain is more nearly this: increased gold production results in greatly increased amounts of gold coming into the monetary uses.[64] This gold comes into the hands of individuals and is to a large extent deposited in banks; increased money incomes on the part of individuals lower their estimations of the value of the money unit, raise subjective prices, and as a consequence market prices; larger money deposits in banks result in larger reserves, banks do not make interest on money held in reserves, and accordingly take measures to invest such surplus money, keeping these reserves as low as is consistent with law and their ideas of safety;[65] inducements to borrowers are made in the form of more favorable discount rates; collateral is not scrutinized so carefully; the speculative market is stimulated by increasing supplies of call money; confidence everywhere increases; new enterprises spring up and old ones are expanded; and in a short time the new gold is absorbed by a higher price level and an overstimulated business activity. This was the situation after the Californian and Australian gold discoveries of the last century and it has been the result of the greatly increased gold production of the last few years.

Professor Laughlin's final point is that since 1895 the new demand for gold has roughly equalled the new supply, and that the changes in prices since 1896 must be sought mainly in the "other things," which have not remained equal. In support of this conclusion he offers two princ.i.p.al arguments. The first is as follows:

... Because of the large existing stock of gold, very considerable changes may take place in the supply of gold without materially changing the world value of gold as related to goods in general. Rapid changes of price are hence more likely to be due to influences in the market for goods, to speculative changes of demand for goods, or to psychological forces working independently of facts....

In reply it may be said that the production of gold since 1895 represents a very large percentage of the total supply. The Soetbeer figures as supplemented by those of the Director of the Mint show that the world's gold production for the 405 years 1492-1896 inclusive was in round numbers $8,982,000,000,[66] and that for the eleven years 1897-1907, was $3,513,000,000; in other words, for these eleven years it was over 39 per cent. of the total for the preceding 405 years. Probably the effective supply represents a much larger proportion of recent gold because of (1) the large amount of loss chiefly by abrasion of the gold produced in the earlier years, and of (2) the greater degree to which this early gold has a.s.sumed specialized forms, such as jewelry, plate, etc.

Satisfactory index numbers of prices for recent years are not available for all the princ.i.p.al countries of the world. Such as we have, however, point to a decided rise of prices in all gold standard countries since about 1897. Comparing standard price index numbers in six of the chief countries of the world for the years 1897 and 1907, we find the general price level to have risen as follows:[67]

United States--Bureau of Labor figures 44.4% Canada--Coats figures, (weighted) 43.7% England--Sauerbeck figures 29.0% France--de Foville, figures for export prices[68] 13.3% Germany--Hamburg figures 30.8% Italy--Necco figures for export prices 23.4%

If we average these figures together, a.s.signing the same importance to the figures of each country, in order to get a _rough_ idea of the movement of world prices in gold standard countries during the eleven years in question, we find that the average increase was 30.8 per cent.

If we follow Professor Laughlin and compare the years 1895 and 1907, we find the average increase in prices to have been 25.8 per cent., and the world's gold production for the 13 years 1895 to 1907 to have been about 42 per cent. of that for the preceding 404 years. When to this is added the fact that the evidence points to a smaller percentage of the world's annual gold production going into the industrial uses than formerly, and the further fact that during the period in question the increase and improvements in the world's banking facilities have greatly economized the uses of money, we see that a very substantial increase in general prices would be expected, despite a great expansion of business. World prices in fact have not increased nearly as rapidly as the flow of gold into monetary uses since 1897, not to mention the enormous development of deposit currency. The Director of the Mint estimates each year the amount of the world's new gold used in the industrial arts. Computations I have made based upon these figures show a tendency for a decreasing percentage of the annual production to be used in the arts, although there is considerable irregularity. For the seven years 1895-1901 the average percentage was 27.1, and for the seven years 1902-1908 it was 25.3.[69]

Professor Laughlin's second argument in favor of the proposition that the recent rise in prices has not been due primarily to the increased gold production is one of the most beautiful examples of begging the question that I have seen in economic literature. He says:

"In recent discussions one of the 'other' factors which has been slighted is the demand for gold since 1895. The examination shows that the new demand in countries turning to the gold standard, and in those already using gold and extending their demand, amounts in round numbers to about $3,000,000,000. Hence the new demand has roughly equalled the new supply, since 1895--a fact which jumps with the known conditions in the great financial markets like London, where new arrivals of gold are eagerly competed for by European banks."

Of course the demand for gold equals the supply, as does the demand for wheat or any other commodity, when one interprets demand and supply as one should, in terms of market prices. The general price level is the very thing which equilibrates the demand for gold and the supply. The higher price level about which we are talking is an expression of the absorption of most of this new gold into the world's circulation. Banks and merchants eagerly compete for it, because higher prices require more money to do a given amount of exchange work, and rising prices stimulate business.

Joseph French Johnson[70]: I am glad to observe that there appears to be a tendency toward agreement with regard to the fact that the value of money depends upon the demand for it and supply of it. Professor Laughlin likes the word standard better than I do. It suggests something permanent and fixed, whereas money is a very changeable thing. While I am in agreement with Professor Laughlin in the conclusion that the general level of prices depends upon the demand for and supply of money, I am unable to give a.s.sent to many of the propositions which he puts forward as links in the chain of reasoning leading to that conclusion.

For example, Professor Laughlin says, "A change of prices may be due to changes in the demand for and supply of (thus including the expenses of production) goods as well as to changes in the demand for and supply of gold." This proposition is true with regard to changes in the prices of particular commodities. The price of wheat may rise or fall as a result of a change in the demand for or in the supply of wheat. The proposition, however, is not true with regard to a change in the general level of prices. An increase in the supply of goods will lower the level of prices for the simple reason that it will increase the demand for gold. I am not certain that I have understood Professor Laughlin's exposition of his theory, but he certainly seemed to me to argue that there could be a change in the general level of prices without any change whatever in the demand for or supply of gold. Such a position, it seems to me, is absolutely untenable.

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 quant.i.ty 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 a.n.a.lysis 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 a.n.a.lysis 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 a.n.a.logy 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 a.s.sumptions involved, in the arguments of both. Granting that Professor Fisher's a.n.a.lysis shows a perfect correspondence between the course of prices on the one hand and the quant.i.ty 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 pa.s.sive term or why is it pa.s.sive 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 "quant.i.ty 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 a.n.a.lysis 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 pa.s.su_ with production, we are told that the value of gold has not been lowered by the greater supply.

But statistics of consumption give no clue to demand in the value-determining sense. We have many staple commodities, such as wheat and cotton, whose price drops sharply when the supply exceeds a certain normal volume, even though the whole crop is consumed. Statistically speaking, the demand for a cotton crop always rises as supply rises, and falls as supply falls, but that is because demand and supply become equated through a variation in price. Demand, in this sense of quant.i.ty demanded, is in part a result rather than a cause of value.

When we can properly speak of demand as potent for the determination of value, we are thinking of demand from the point of view of _intensity_ rather than the point of view of _magnitude_. But the demand which makes for value--demand intensively considered--is only measured by the purchasing power offered. Applied to gold, I know of no measure of demand except in the goods and services offered in exchange. To say that goods and services offered for an ounce of gold in 1910 are less than are offered for an ounce of gold in 1896, is simply to say that prices are higher. But it is these prices that we are trying to explain by giving the effect for the cause, when we say that demand has risen with supply.

Those staple commodities whose value falls off abruptly with any increase of supply beyond a customary stock are said to be subject to an inelastic demand, and those whose value declines uniformly with excessive supplies are said to have an elastic demand. Is the demand for gold elastic, or is it inelastic? And is it possible by independent a.n.a.lysis to construct the curve of elasticity which properly belongs to gold, and so avoid circular reasoning from the very prices we are trying to explain?

If the demand for gold is inelastic and the demand curve drops off abruptly after a certain supply is in evidence, the presumption is that in the conditions of gold production, rather than in the conditions of commodity production, lies the cause of our high prices. Moreover, if this be the case, we can readily see the cause of cheapening of gold, even though the product of a single year bears a small proportion to the existing stock.

If on the other hand the demand for gold be very elastic, so that it expands with growing supplies with no substantial alterations in value, then we are driven to seek the cause of high prices in influences directly touching the goods and services rather than in those directly affecting gold.

It would seem therefore that both methods of treatment have left something to be desired. The algebraic a.n.a.lysis, even as verified, presents the relations between magnitudes without showing the cause of high prices. The argument directed immediately at the value of gold of necessity involves consideration of the demand for gold, which, as a price-making factor, remains an unknown quant.i.ty.

T. N. Carver[72]: Professor Fisher ... has demonstrated beyond all question the accuracy of his formula. The question remains, however, whether his formula supports his own conclusion or Professor Laughlin's.

If, for example, it should be found that P is the cause of M, the formula would to that extent support Professor Laughlin's position. I believe that to a certain extent P is actually the cause of M. If the growing scarcity of agricultural land, or the increase in population and the increased demand for agricultural products without an increase in land, should increase the marginal cost of producing agricultural products to supply this larger demand, that would tend to increase the exchange value of these products, even according to the formula of Cairnes as quoted by President Houston.[73] Even without any increase in the gold supply, this would cause each unit of product to exchange for a little more gold; then, in order that a given number of exchanges in agricultural products could be carried on, it would be necessary to have a larger number of ounces of gold, or a larger number of gold coins, or some other form of money of given denominations to do the money work.

This, in other words, would necessitate a larger supply of money: and, if other forms than gold were not forthcoming, it would necessitate that a larger proportion of the stock of gold should be coined into money in order to do the work. Thus, without any increase whatever in the world's total gold supply, there would come to be an increase in the proportion of that supply used as money, or in the amount of gold coin actually used in circulation. I believe that this has taken place, and that it is one of the factors in the problem, although there has also been a very large increase in the gold supply to still further accentuate the tendency.

F. W. Taussig[74]: I congratulate Professor Fisher on his admirable paper. I am in accord with him in his method of reasoning and in all his essential results. His investigation of this subject adds another to the brilliant studies with which he has enriched economic science.

It deserves to be said, perhaps, that the term M' (deposits) in his equation is not entirely independent, but is in some degree a function of T. I say to some degree; it is dependent on T in part only, and not for very long periods. Professor Fisher has here treated it as dependent simply on M.... He has indicated the qualifications which must be attached to this dependence of deposits on bank reserves. He has pointed out that though a general dependence appears over long periods of time, it is affected by changes in banking ways, and by the tendency to build up a higher superstructure of deposits in times of active business. But there is also a connection between T, volume of trade, and M'. That is, for short periods--nay, for periods of some years--an increasing volume of trade tends of itself to bring about an increasing volume of deposits. (I may say, parenthetically, that "volume of trade" does not seem to me an apt expression; "units of commodities," the other phrase used by Professor Fisher, is better.) Though I would by no means go the length of Professor Laughlin's reasoning, which seems to imply that every act of exchange supplies automatically its own medium of exchange, it does seem to me that our modern mechanism of deposit banking supplies an elastic source of deposits, which, for considerable periods, enables them to run _pari pa.s.su_ with the transactions and loans resting on them. In the end, an increase of deposits finds its limit in the volume of cash held by the banks. But there is some elasticity of adjustment, by which loans and deposits increase as fast as transactions or faster; and this accounts in no small degree for the rise in prices during periods of activity. The phenomenon shows itself most strikingly in stock exchange loans, especially in a center like New York. There the business creates for itself quasi-automatically its own medium of exchange. I suspect it is undue generalization from operations of this sort that has led Professor Laughlin to take his extreme position--a position which I can not but think untenable. Some allowance for the temporary interaction between M' and T is necessary for the completeness of Professor Fisher's reasoning.

Ralph H. Hess[75]: Professor Fisher's formula (MV + M'V' = PT) approximately expresses the mathematical equality of purchase and payment which cannot be questioned. I say _approximately_ because M'

(defined by Professor Fisher as "bank deposits subject to check"), if it be made to express an accurate measure of circulating credit, should include not only open bank accounts, but certain other values which const.i.tute _current means of payment_, such as bankers' bills, trade bills, cas.h.i.+ers' checks, and certified checks....

The relation which Professor Taussig has pointed out between M' and T (the _value of negotiable credit_ and the contemporary _volume of trade_) is not only possible, but, in any community of modernized commerce, is actual. Moreover, a knowledge of the process by which commerce is financed by the existing mechanism of discount, loan, deposit, and draft justifies the conclusion that, if the volume of trade (T) be resolved into its factors, namely, _materials of trade_ and their _frequency of exchange_, the latter factor of T is quite commensurate with the velocity of credit (V').

To me it seems incontestable that the volume and velocity of credit currency, as represented by bank deposits and other circulating media, vary directly as the volume and value of the materials of trade in the process of exchange, and are, mathematically speaking, dependent functions thereof. Granting this relation, an a.n.a.lysis of the equation of exchange establishes PT as the major determinant of M'V', and, in so far as paper money may be authorized and issued upon the security of commercial a.s.sets, of M. That part of the money in circulation which does not derive its circulating powers from actual and potential commercial values is itself material of barter incorporating so-called intrinsic values.

The conclusion is clear that P (price) is independent of all other terms and factors of Professor Fisher's equation, that V and V' are determined by the mechanical circ.u.mstances and organization of exchange, and that the value of M and M', taken collectively, is a spontaneous derivative of PT. The fundamental determinants of prices and of "price levels,"

therefore, are to be found outside of monetary and credit agencies _per se_.

As to the nature and order of the price-making process and the actual forces behind price movements, I am in substantial accord with Professor Laughlin. That prices, individually and collectively considered, express the value-proportion of demand for and supply of goods on the market to demand for and "visible supply" of the standard commodity is fundamentally logical. Nor is there occasion to quibble over the paradox of disturbed equilibrium of demand and supply. Physically considered, the goods which objectify these terms are, of course, identical; but, in the valuation process, demand and supply denominate, respectively, _desire_ and _utility_--the generally acknowledged antecedents of value.

Price is the equalizing factor between the effective demand for gold and the effective demand for other goods, each taken in conventional units; and price changes are resultants of, and commensurate with, net variations in the value-factors of the standard and of the objects of exchange.