People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1892-08-26

ton would be reached. With an in
creased production and a stationary
or diminished demand the price of
some things would fall while that Of
others would rise from opposite con-
ditions.
But these variations would be ad-
justed by the business instincts Of
man. If the price of one thing rose
very much, more people would en-
gage in its production. and the price
would fall to the general level. On
the other hand, if the price of par
Gcular commodity fall, some of the
producers will engage in other pur-
suits, the product will diminish and
the price rise again to the general
level. But where prices are nearly
all falling together it is impossible
for any such adjustment to take
place.
COMMODITIES AND LABOR.
Tt is claimed that commodities
ought to be cheaper now, because it
takes less labor to produce them
That is bad logic, and the economics
of the proposition are still worse.
If it takes less labor to produce a
given commodity, that may be a
good reason why the commodity
should exchange for less labor, but
it is no reason why it should ex-
change for less money. Money and
labor are by no means Identical.
For the money price of commodi-
ties to fall as production increases
would have the effect Of keeping the
producer in the same condition,
while the possessor Of money, and
particularly one who has a large
amount Of it, would realize a great
and uncomfortable advantage.
In this connection | want to read
a brief extract from a speech by
Prof. Taussig, strong advocate Of
the gold standard, recently delivered
before the Liberal Club Of Buffalo,
as reported In the Buffalo Express ::
The fall had been attributed to i'm
proved methods of production, better
machinery and cheaper transportation.
Personally, the speaker had never been
able to find in improved methods of pro-
duCtiOn per Sc any true explanation of
the fall in prices. Commodities had
fallen in price, but there was one crucial
exception to the general tendency,
namely, in regard to mouey incomes
which had not fallen. This was a very
important consideration and put a very
different face on the relations between
debtor and creditor. The former gave
back, it was true, the same amount,
yielding a command over more commod-
tiles. The creditor got more than he
gave, but on the other hand the debtor
had not suffered, his money income was
as large as it was before.
Here is distinct recognition of
three things: First, that prices have
fallen; second, that improved meth
DDS of production, etc., have not been
the cause, and third, that all the
benefit of the change has gone to
the creditor. But he says the debtor
has not been injured. Whether he
has been directly injured or not, he
has a good right to complain, for if
any benefit accrue to the nation as
whole, the debtor surely ought to
receive his share.
Let us take simple illustration
to show how this change will work
between the man who happens to
have money and the producer.
We will suppose community of
.101 persons. One of them has $780,
1000 in money. The other 100 have
no money and are farmers engaged
in the production of wheat. Farm
ing by the most primitive methods,
they produce 1000 bushels each,
worth 81 bushel, making the total
value of their product 100000.
The man with the money can buy it
all. Now, we will further suppose
that by the application of more labor,
or, if you please, better methods,
they increase their product to 1900
bushels each, making altogether
10000 bushels. If the price fall in
proportion to the increase, the wheat
will now sell for 663 cents per bushel,
in all, 100000.
The man with the money, who has
done nothing but watch his dollars
and see them grow, can still buy the
whole of it. 1t may be said that as
each producer gets $1,000 of greater
purchasing power than formerly, he
can procure more of those things
which he has to buy, and in this way
realize benefit. If this be true it
does not obviate the glaring injustice
Of allowing the miser, doing nothing
that is useful to others but simply
gloating over his gold, to command
so per cent. more of the products Of
other mems labor.
A dollar should be no bigger one
year than it is another. Besides, if
that farmer happens to be heavily in
debt he has to pay back just the