The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-07-29
The "Steer" Argument.

The outcry against the increase in the
purchasing power of the dollar and the de-
crease in the prices of commodities, made so
Justify by the Greenbackers, is based upon
fallacy. The dollar will certainly buy much
more than it would ten years ago, but it is as
much harder to earn it. So things are equal.
The fallacy advanced by the Greenback
speakers and echoed by their followers, is
that the eXchangeable value of commodities
has varied, and for the worse That is not
so. man can exchange just as many pigs
for horse, if he is given to barter, as he
could ten years ago. A farmer can exchange
the produce of his farm for just as much
cloth or as many pounds of groceries as he
could ten years ago. A laborer can exchange
labor for just as much food and clothing and
rent as he could ten years ago Only the
names have changed. Perhaps he got two
dollars ten years ago and gets but one now.
But the one now will buy as much as the
two would then. Butter may not sell for
so many cents pound but it will buy just
as much clothing, or -four or moiasses as if
would. This is the general rule, and the only
qualification it has is when a scarcity of any
article makes competition or a higher price
for it, and when unusual plenty sends down
the price. Thus in a big apple year the
price of that fruit will be low. In year
when apples are scarce the price will be
high. A trick the Greenback orators have
is to disregard tho rule and dwell upon the
exception. If eggs are unusually plenty
they will point to eggs and ask if chen
fruit Ia Greenback orator is nothing if not
jocular) will buy as much cloth or flour as
it would in ''fush times" Solon Chase's
Steers illustrate this trick To begin with
they were purchased when the dollar was de-
preciated, worth perhaps ninety cents; so
their nominal value has fallen, though 9TH
er things being equal, their exchangeable
value would be the same. They were bought
with dollars worth ninety cents, they must
be sold for dollars worth hundred. Natur-
ally they will not bring so many dollars.
But here the other condition comes in; they
were bought on falling market. The great
increase in cattle-growing in the West which
has enabled us to supply London meat-stalls
has lowered the price of beef, as profuse
growth of grass will lower the price of hay,
as a cold winter favorable for ice-cutting
will lower the price of ice. Thus, taking
this isolated instance of his steers, and
avoiding general consideration of ex-
changeable values, this Greenback campaign.
Il o,,+o ,,1o ~
as well say that he bought last year twenty
barrels of cider each containing twenty gal
10 for such-and-such price and complain
that this year he cannot buy twenty barrels
containing thirty gallons each, at the same
price; and further complain, if the apple
crop happens to be a failure and the price
goes up, that his money has shrunk.
1t is true that the debtor who contracted
ten years ago to pay dollars this year finds
the payment hardship and the dollars
more difficult to get. That is because the
dollar has varied, as it always does when
there is an over-issue of paper money. Had
the currency been stable in value there
would be no hardship. Seeing this, is it
not better to cling to stable dollar now we
have got it? What if man contracted
when wheat was eighty cents bushel to
deliver ten years thence thousand bushels
at that price, and that at the end of that
time wheat was worth dollar a bushel
He would certainly lose twenty cents
bushel. But could he honestly disregard
the contract? Would he be any more justi-
ned in disrcSardinS it if he knew at the
time it was made that a date had been set
when the price bushel should be one dol
lar? Substitute dollars for bushels, and
does that alter the merits of the case?