The independent., 1903-04-23
MEASURING VALUE
MT. shera Takes Exception TO Portions of
Mr.. DeHart's Article ON "The Value
of Money

Editor Independent: l have been
| reading the articles contributed to
your columns by Mr.. De Hart, and
his loose way of discussing the subject
of money is wearisome, not to say
distressing. His conclusions are US
ually correct, but he is prone to the
habit of making unreasonable asser-
tions and then qualifying and explain
| ing away what he has said.
| For an instance, in The Indepen-
dent of April 8, in his discussion ol
| "The Value of Money he said:
money is a measure of value, not a
standard of value. 1t is measure.
| because it determines the level OF
prices, and thereby determines not
only the relative value OF any two
! commodities, but the value OF every
commodity with respect to money and
the value of money with respect to ev-
cry commodity. In other words. we
get ratio of exchange by means
of money-its quantity"
Now no careful writer who under
stands the subject will assert that
money is a measure Of value. Still
less should anyone who contributes to
populist papers. be guilty OF such
blunder.
The idea of a measure of value has
given rise to the saying, "a measure
of length must have length, a measure
of capacity must have capacity,
measure of weight must have weight,
and a measure of value must have
value But with little thought one
can readily see how erroneous and
misleading such conclusion is. Take
simple illustration: Here is a pile
of wheat; here, also, is a box, the
contents of which the government
calls a bushel Give man the meas
ure and he can go to the pile of wheat
and measure it's bulk. Here is
pound weight; man can take it and
measure the weight Of the wheat.
Here is a foot rule; man can take
it and measure the height and length
and breadth of the pile. The bushel
box, the pound weight and the foot
rule are measures, and bulk, and
weight, and height, breadth and
length are intrinsic qualities OF the
pile of wheat. But there is stand
ard silver, dollar-good money as Mr.
De Hart will allow; give a man the
dollar and let him measure the value
of the wheat. He can't do 1t, for
value is not an inherent attribute OF
the wheat as bulk, weight, height,
length and breadth are, and there can
be no such thing as measure of it.
Value is the estimation people make
80 - n jocss,. by Nf
tiles and is psychological thing. and
money is device for expressing val
ue.
I want to take this occasion to rec
ommend to you and the readers OF
The Independent the best book on
the subject of money that has ever
been published. 1t is Social Strug-
gles," by DR.. J. P. Phillips of New
Haven, Conn. In recent issue Mr.
BARLEY advised you to read it. and
you dismissed it with the impatient
assertion that you could not afford to
read every book that is called to your
notice. But Social Struggles" should
not only gain your perusal, but your
enthusiastic praise. Its name was
an unfortunate selection. for it should
have been principles of Economics
1t is carefully written by a master of
the subject and is so clear and logical,
and yet so conservative that it will
commend itself to all honest, thought
full persons who may have become
confused by the bewildering prolixity
of financial discussion. 1t is large
book of 573 pages, printed in the
highest excellence of the bookmaker's
art 1t should be among the selec-
tions you have made for your circu-
lating library of political economy, 1t
contains a chapter entitled, 'Is 1t
Crime to Own Land?" which is the
b-st refutation Of the single tax that
I have ever read. This suggested to
me the fitness of Mr. Phillips for re-
viewing the arguments used in your
forthcoming Single Tax Edition in
your issue of June II.
HIRAM SHERA.
Upland, Cal.
(The Independent will be glad to
use, in it's issue of June IL, such re-
view of the articles in our Henry
George Edition as Mr.. Phillips may
write. Neither edition, however, is IN
tended as final determination of the
matter-what The Independent desires
is to get at the truth. If the single