The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1893-12-12
THE SCIENTIFIC DOLLAR.
MIR. Wilfred P. Borland Takes Issue
with Harry Hinton.


money question which appeared IN
THE PROGRESSIVE FARMER some weeks
ago Mr.. Geo. @. Ward also disagrees
with Harry Hinton and publishes the
matter in his patent reform page In
the following shape. Mr.. Hinton Is
quoted first and then Mr.. Borland
Mr. Hinton said:
'The scientific dollar is something
spoken of by many as yet to come, but
no one has properly defiaed this dollar,
beyond the common greenback. We
have seen what is necessary to make
q perfect dollar; a unit of value deter
mined by the value of another unit
which has the value per Sc, govern
ment legal tender, etc. Therefore, the
very first thing to do in evolving this
dollar is to determine its unit of value
with value in itself"
In this language Mr.. Hinton betrays
the fact that ne does not understand
what value is, while in his proposition
that with perfect ease, the scientific
paper dollar can be made to refer TO
so much bullion Of silver and gold as
its unit and have a greater stability as
to permanent value than it now has
To make half of the bullion In our silver
dollar and half of the bullion in our
gold dollar the unit and for the gov
eminent to keep this bullion on deposit
always in suf ;ient quantities, half
and half, to determine its value would
make a safe, simple and scientific
paper dollar without going into nation
alism." He shows that he is profound
" ignorant Of the fact that we never
can determine just what gold and sill
are really worth, until we entirely
cease to use them as money metals>O f
course when we declare, by fat law,
that 50 many grains of gold or silver,
or so many goose eggs, shall be enc
dollar, they will always be worth one
dollar. Mr.. Borland says:
sit ia the function of money to facili-
tate the exchange of products, and for
this purpose men express the value of
the products they wish to exchange in
terms of money, thus arriving at an
easy and convenient mode of compar-
ing the magnitude of the values of diff
ferent products with each other and
determining the proportions in which
they shall exchange. Thus, in ex-
changing wheat for hats, when we say
wheat is worth 81 per bushel, and hats
g a piece, we simply express the fact
that one hat is of the same value as
two bushels of wheat, and thereby de-
1termine the ratio of exchange between
wheat and hats. It is utterly impos.
sible to affect this ratio through any
alterations in the money medium itself;
the only way it can be affected is by
alterations in the relative values of
wheat and hats, which will be brought
about permanently by variations in
the labor time necessary for their pro-
duction, u, temporarily, by variations
IN the supply of and demand for wheat
or hats. These conditions, remaining
the same, if we say that wheat is worth
IS a bushel instead of 81, then hats
viii be worth 81 a piece instead of 50,
and the ratio of exchange between hats
and wheat remain unaltered. This
being as true of all products as it is Of
the two mentioned, it will be e that
it is impossible for men to manipulate
the money medium so as to increase
their own values at the expense of the
Of others, as long as money is
restricted to its natural and legitimate
function-that of differentiating and
comparing the value of commodities
exchange purposes. 1t is a mistake
to suppose that a commodity has value
because it can be exchanged for money.
the contrary, a commodity can be
exchanged for money simply because
it has value, and the expression of it's
money equivalent places it in a value
relation with ell other commodities for
exchange purposes How to cow, TT
the money medium into an instrument
Of spoliation is a problem that has been
easily solved by placing it in the list of
commodities and subordinating its
money function to the value relations
Of the material of which it is composed.
The wise fnanciers tell us that money
isacommodity, subject to the same laws
rs other commodities, but it is a en-
tire fallacy and it is because men have
believed this fallacy for so long that
they have permitted themselves to be
for others. Money is not a
commodity it is impossible for it to be
4 commodity, for if it were a commod-
ity it could not be money. Commod-
tiles step into circulation, express their