The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1889-11-26
and the following table win show
nearly the exact ratio of contraction:
CIRCULATION PER CAPITA.

In regard to the proposition LnaC
money does not cut any figure IN
making the price, we desire to first
correct on error. Instead of saying
wheat we should have said cereals
The report of the Bureau of Statistics
for the year 1888, page 225, in re-
captivating the. tables of cereals,
wheat, oats, corn, rye, barley and
buckwheat, gives the figures which
We will repeat. In 1867, IS, $3.50, 600
acres in cultivation produced 1926
729, 900 bushels of all kinds of grain
which sold for $l,2S4, 600, 900; while
in 1887, 14I,82b,000 acres produced
2, $50, 457,O00 bushels of all kinds of
grain which sold for only $l,2O4,289,-
600. We will not make the subtrac-
ton. We claimed this reduction in
price was made by a corresponding
reduction in the amount Of currency,
and We again make the same assertion
and further we claim this wholesale
destruction of values cannot be &C,
counted for by any other method of
reasoning The price of all cereals
have fallen in about the same ratio
as have every other product of labor,
Search through the whole list of fac.
tors used in production and profit and
we will find them in the same condi-
ton or better today to remunerate
labor than in 1866, with the single ex-
ception of the volume of currency.
The NeVs and Observer says that politi-
cal economists study this question.
That is true, and we will quote from
a few of the most eminent among
them.
John Stewart Mills says:
elf the whole money in circulation
was doubled, prices would double. If
it vas only increased one-fourth, prices
would rise one fourth. The ve,y
same effect would be produced on
if we suppose the goods (the
uses for money! diminished instead of
the money increased; and the contrary
effect if the goods were increased or
the money diminished. So that the
of money-all other things re.
naming the same-varies tnUersely as
its quantity; every increase in quantity
lowering its value, and every diminu-
ton raising it in . ratio exa ;tly
equivalent"
Ricardo plainly says in regard to
this question:
"That commodities would rise and
fall in price in proportion to the in
crease DR. diminution of money, / as
sumo as a fact that is Gncontroverti6Le.
That such would be the case, the most
writer's on political econ
omy are agreed. =
The value of money does not wholly
depend upon It's absolute quantity,
but On its quantity relattve to the pay
ments it has to accomplish; and the
same effect would follow either of two
causes-from increasing the uses for
money one-tenth, or from diminishing
its quantity one.tenth; for, in either
case, its value would rise one-tenth."
Space will not permit further quota
tons. We will say that David Hume,
Erness Seyd, Leon Fauchet, Prof.
Laveleye, Adam Smith, Francis Way
land, Thomas Tooke and every other
writer of any note ON economic ques-
tions in this or other countries agree
with the ideas given above. The ex-
periences of our own and other nations,
the best writer's of our own and other
countries on this subject, prove be-
yond all question that price depends
upon the circulating medium, and that
circulating medium makes The ability to
purchase. We are glad the NeaVs and
Observer has givensus thisopportunity
of showing more clearly the strength
and truth ofour position.
4,