The independent., 1903-03-26
Money and the Taxing Power
out a money" as with both.
BY w. Fl. ASHBY.

out money" as with both.
But to say that the quantity of the
force of demand in action, at given
time and place, for a definite guam
tity of wheat, is equal to the quantity
Of the like force, at the same time and
place, for definite quantity Of corn,
is OF to express what the fixed
quantity of that force is. To say that
the force of demand for one bushel of
wheat is of the same quantity of val
uatior as the valuation of that force
for five bushels of corn, does indeed
express the relative quantity Of wal
ue' of EACH
1t declares that the fixed quantities
Of each article thus named are the
exchange equivalent of each other and
are acted upon by an equal quantity
OF the force of demand which consti-
tutes equal valuation; but it utterly,
fails to express to us what that
quantity of the force OF demand, thus
valued, is. 1t merely shows the rela-
tion as to quantity, in which those
particular articles should exchange for
each other. There is among the sup
posed people no word, by the use
of which fixed quantity of the force
OF demand may be uttered or ex-
pressed.
In the absence of a money" term,
there is no standard" What is need
ed is to fix upon definite quantity
OF that force and choose term to ex-
press it-which shall be 'sunit."
S,f ka@ 80 50
exchange equivalence" that some
thoughtful persons have drawn the
false notion that "value is rela-
tion,' or that value is a ratio" But
| 1t must be observed, too, that the re-
lation is not relation between the
commodities. The relation is be-
tween the quantity of the force of de-
mand in action for each, inducing
valuation" or estimate of it's relative
degree of intensity for each, and so
begetting different valuation" of
quantity of that force for each. The
two quan titles Of demand d do
Istand in relation to each other; but
neither quantity of that force can be
said to be a relation.
Just as we saw that the degree or
Intensity or quantity of force of de-
mand is always estimated by human
beings; yet the force of demand thus
valued" cannot itself be human es-
| timation; so here the two valuations"
OF that force of demand, standing in a
relation to each other, cannot them
selves be that relation.
What we call value is simply hui
man appraisal or valuation of the
degree Of intensity of the play of the
force of demand for commodities en-
dowed with utility.
The quantity of the force of de-
mand, in the case last supposed, was
five times as great per bushel for the
wheat as for the corn. But neither of
these could be a fixed standard for
the other, although relation between
the two quantities of the force of de-
mand would be plainly perceivable and
a simple ratio would express this.
But where there are countless multi
| tude OF heterogeneous commodities to
| be exchanged, the thing required is
not means of expressing the rela-
tive quantity of the force of demand
Aoi oLJ WV opCIliiC UuI
means of expressing a quantity of
that force, which shall be fixed and
unvarying and which may be applied
as common standard to express
quantity of that force for all commod-
| tiles.
Such a device never could have been
and is not now n ecessity in the
exchange of commodities 1t always
must have been and is now a great
onvenie and greatly 'fa-
cilitates' those exchanges.
| The governing body of nation hav-
ing been compelled by the necessities
arising out of the exercise of the tax
ing power to institute the device
called money" !" it is soon siezed upon
and used as means of facilitating
| exchanges of commodities for each
other, by expressing fixed quantity
J OF the force of demand for. any
commodity.
Continued Next Weekly
N