The independent., 1903-04-02
CHAPTER XIV
All Rights Reserved.

Those retailers of hearsays, called
Professors of Economics, have mis-
led mankind upon this matter by pro-
mitigating two patent falsehoods:
First-They have assumed that it is
"coin," or its substitutes, that is
meant by the word money" and
which facilitates the exchange of COM
modities for each other.
Second-That "money"-by which
they mean .*coin, or substitutes for
coins created as a necessity in
and for the purpose of facilitating
those exchanges.
Even John Stuart Mill, from whom
better things might be expected, is
lost in this intellectual quagmire.
Hear him:
Things which by barter would ex-
change for one another, will, If sold
for money, sell for an equal amount
of it, and so will exchange for one
another still, though the process OF
exchanging them will consist of two
operations instead Of only one. e."-Mill,
Political Economy, Book 3, Chapter 7,
Section 3, Page "a, of Volume 2, APP
pleton edition, 1893.
"The relations of commodities to
one another remain unaltered by mon
ey: the only new relation introduced
Is their relation to money itself; how
much or how little money they will
exchange for; in other words, how
the exchange value of money itself is
determined. Ibid, page "a.
''The supply of commodity means
the quantity offered for sale. But it,
is not usual to speak of Offering mon
ey for sale. People are not usually
said to buy or sell money. This,
however, is merely an accident of
language. In point of fact, money is
bought and sold like other things. -
Ibid, page 26.
The last extract proves that Mill
himself saw that "coin" is merely a
commodity in exchanges, and is used
as such.
The superficial character of the
thought bestowed by these writer's be-
comes manifest the instant one looks
at the facts. They are deceived by the
childish assumptions received from
barharous past and accepted by them
without the smallest attempt at in
quiring into their validity. Assuming
that money" is 'coin," or some sub
stitute for coin, and that it was in.
stituted with the intent to facilitate
the exchange of commodities for each
other, each of these writer's proceeds
to illustrate that proposition by stat
ing case which is always the same
statement with a change of names
Here It is:
"a tailor has suit of clothes WORTH
S25 and desires to exchange them for
other commodities, and of course
without loss to himself He wants SIS
worth of pork and S. worth of flour.
The difficulties of exchange thus il
lustrated constitute the necessity for
coin"
Running through the productions of
these writer's, with immaterial varia-
tions, is found the framework of the
above problem. Now, in the first
place the purpose is to prove that
coin Facilitates the exchange Of COM
modities for other commodities. But
before they are through, it turns out
! that their purpose is to prove that one
can exchange coin with great facility
for all commodities.
The rea! question is,' In what way
does ''coin" facilitate the exchange of
the suit of clothes for the needed pork
and flour? And by the supposition, the
people where the supposed tailor il
| operating have no money" and conse-
| quently no "coin." The Professor of
Economics" is supposed to discover
them IN this deplorable condition, and
| sets forth the dilemma and proceeds
by the use of coin to extricate them
| from it.
Now, the first absurdity is that in
such circumstances the quantity of the
value Of the suit of clothes is, in the
example given, always expressed in
the money" term and that always
constitutes price" Then the real
problem is how tailor may exchange
S25 worth of clothing for S. worth of
pork and s5 worth of -four, without
loss to himself There can be but
one answer to this: He cannot do it.
Instead of perceiving the fundamen-
tai impossibility of such a thing, they
! nr01y =, =