Modern Economic Problems Part 2

-- 7. #Limitations of bequest and inheritance#. The term bequest implies a will, usually a written will in which the person, in antic.i.p.ation of death, expresses his wishes as to the disposition of his property. It is said sometimes that bequest is a "logical" result of private property, but the law does not treat it as such. The right of bequest, or of gift at death, is limited in various ways in different countries. In countries where hereditary aristocracies exist, primogeniture is in some cases required by law, in others so strongly favored by public opinion that it is practically always followed. Custom limits bequests in England to members of the family, and wills given outside the family are rare, and are almost always broken in the courts. John Stuart Mill contrasted this with the practice in America, frequent even in his day and still more frequent now, of rich men giving for public purposes. In France the right of bequest outside the family is legally limited; only the share of one child can be willed away by the father, and the rest must be equally divided among the children. Settlements and _fidei commissa_ are limited in many countries, because of the recognized social evils resulting from the tying up of estates for generations. Throughout the history of England, Parliament has given attention to the question of mortmain, which chiefly concerned the drifting of great estates into the hands of the church or of corporations, as the result of bequests by the pious. In England, of late (and to a less extent in this country), the policy of permitting unlimited endowments to charitable inst.i.tutions has been seriously questioned, and by legislation some of the old endowments have been diverted from their original purposes when these have ceased to be of social utility. Inheritance, in contrast with bequest, usually means succession to the property of one who has died intestate, that is, has made no will. The law of inheritance likewise varies greatly with time and place.

-- 8. #Social expediency of private property#. In the light of present political philosophy the explanation and justification of private property must be on grounds of social expediency. This is a broad explanation and it has the fault of a broad explanation, that it needs to be further explained. Under it can be brought the many varying conditions. Even if private property works hardship to individuals in many cases, yet it may be justified if, on the whole, it is best for the progress of society. Laws must be judged by their average working, not by exceptional cases. In general, the system of private property must be judged by this test: Does it further the welfare of the nation better than would any alternative plan for the control of economic wealth? The question is not whether it is faultless, for no human inst.i.tution is so. Nor must it be a.s.sumed that the rule of property needs to be uniform in respect to all kinds of wealth. There are many kinds of property, and the test may be applied separately to the different forms and to the varying degrees of property rights. The varied and often strict limitations of property mentioned above are all determined by some thought, wise or foolish, of social expediency.

Different parts of wealth may be treated in different ways: there may be private property in wagons, and public property in roads; private property in houses, and public property in forests; private property in automobiles, and public property in railway carriages. But any rule of property, like any other workable human law, must be applicable to all individuals that meet the conditions.

The very acceptance of the theory of social expediency implies the need of frequent readjustment of the inst.i.tution of private property.

The essential thought in the various attacks on the inst.i.tution of property is that, because it either causes or makes possible the inequality of incomes, it is not socially expedient. Private property, as it is found to-day, is complicated by many historical accidents.

Survivals of ancient injustice and relics of feudal inst.i.tutions that rest on no vital reason remain in our new country as well as in the older ones. The limits of property in many respects are determined not according to the logic of expediency, but by the social inertia which often governs successive generations.

The question is raised in many minds: If private property is not an absolute right, what shall be its limits? What changes should be made in it? These questions put the greatest economico-political problem of our day, one that contains within it, indeed, many minor problems. A number of these will receive attention in the following pages.

-- 9. #The monetary economy#. So greatly does the use of money facilitate the transfer, buying, and selling of private property and so closely are property and pecuniary trade connected in practice and in the thoughts of men, that every radical proposal to abolish private property has included a plan to do away with money also. But money and private property are not essentially and logically bound up together, for a certain measure of private property always has been found where money was little or not at all used. True, if there were absolutely no private property, there would be little use for money, altho it might still be used as a form of counter by the communistic state. We have already seen[5] how a monetary unit comes into use, and we shall treat more fully of the nature of money in later chapters. We may note here merely that the use of money is an outstanding feature of the present economic system and gives rise to many of the problems of political economy.

-- 10. #The compet.i.tive system#. The existing system is likewise characterized by compet.i.tion[6] in the buying and selling of wealth and of the usances and services of economic agents. By compet.i.tion we mean here the condition of political freedom on the part of each man to trade his property (goods, uses, or services) as he chooses, and this combined with the disposition on his part to get what he values most highly for himself and his family. Whenever any one else (official or citizen) forbids and prevents a man from getting all he can, in so far compet.i.tion is limited. Whenever any one is deterred by fear of, or by affection for, some other trader, from getting all he can, in so far compet.i.tion is limited. Whenever any one conspires with another trader to act together with him to withdraw or to alter his bid, in so far compet.i.tion is limited. Private property and economic compet.i.tion do not merely happen to exist side by side, forming more or less favored conditions each for the other; they are essentially connected.[7]

It is not our task at this point to present the advantages and disadvantages of compet.i.tion, but merely to indicate its important place in the actual economic world. Like private property, compet.i.tion is not the universal feature of our present system, but it is the most general and characteristic method of valuation, of price fixing, and of trade.

-- 11. #Limitation of compet.i.tion by custom.#[8] The relatively large influence of compet.i.tion in present society appears more plainly in comparing the present system with that of an earlier state of society or with that of a present savage tribe. A member of the lowest human societies is subject to law; tho he is a savage he is not "untutored."

On the contrary he is bound in many ways to follow customary lines of conduct, and a large part of his time is given to learning the traditions and then to observing the ceremonials of the tribe.

Primitive customs always take on a religious sanction, and every member of the tribe is piously bound to do as his fathers have done and as his neighbors are doing. This limitation applies to the choice of food to eat, clothes to wear, time to hunt, plant, and harvest, weapons and tools to use, where and how to trade, how much to give or take, and to countless other details of economic choice. So, in early society, economic relations were complex and but slowly changing from generation to generation. Custom, rather than compet.i.tion, ruled in manifold ways the economic actions of men.

Custom continued to rule a large share of the individual life of the peoples of northern Europe through barbarian and feudal times. Its force has gradually decreased, but even yet is not entirely set aside.

Political and economic interests were not clearly distinct in the Middle Ages. Land was the all-important kind of wealth. Military and other public services were performed by the higher landlords (as va.s.sals of their overlords) who in this way paid at the same time what we to-day would call rent and taxes. The landlord in turn received from his underlings services and goods in kind (food and supplies) and so (in modern eyes) was both a collector of taxes and a receiver of rent. The rent, however, was not a compet.i.tive price, but consisted of the dues and services which the forefathers had been accustomed to pay. In many ways also in the towns, close organizations of craftsmen and of merchants regulated prices and kept others out of their industries. Industrial privilege pervaded the life of that time.

Yet through all the Middle Ages ran the forces of compet.i.tion. The inefficiency of customary services and the high prices charged by selfish privilege were constant invitations to men to become compet.i.tors. Men strove to break over the barriers of custom and of prejudice. Their efforts to attain freedom to compete was the vital force of the time. The industrial history of the Middle Ages was largely the story of the struggle of the forces of compet.i.tion against the bonds of custom and privilege.

-- 12. #Effect of modern forces upon custom#. The industrial events following the discovery of America strengthened the forces making for economic freedom. Discoveries in the Western hemisphere opened up a wide field for the adventure and enterprise of Europe. Commerce is the strongest enemy of custom, and new opportunities gave a rude shock to the conservatism both of the manor and of the village. With the rapid growth of industry and manufactures, old methods broke down. In an open market custom declines; it flourishes best in sheltered places.

Further, the movement of thought in the Reformation, and the spirit of the times which expressed the principle of personal liberty and allowed the individual to follow his own opinions and take the consequences, were favorable to compet.i.tion. Despite these facts, the restraints of the national governments on trade continued great, in some respects increasing during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in France, Holland, and England. The regulation before attempted by towns and villages was employed on a larger scale by national governments with their industrial systems. The colonies in America were used for the economic ends of the "mother country"

and for the selfish interests of the home merchants in Europe. The American Revolution was one of the bitter fruits of the English policy of trade restriction.

-- 13. #Adam Smith's influence#. "The Wealth of Nations," the first great work on political economy, was published in the year 1776. That was the "psychological moment" for its appearance, as public thought was so prepared for it that it had its maximum possible influence.

The year of the American Declaration of Independence gave the most striking object lesson on the evils of a selfish colonial policy that interfered on a grand scale with economic freedom. The old customs had become ill fitted to life, ill adapted to the rapid industrial changes that were going on. What was needed in many directions, both in politics and in industry, was merely negative action by the government, the repeal of the old laws, the overthrow of old abuses.

The French Revolution, following a few years later, emphasized this thought in the political field. The philosophers of the time believed in a "natural law" in industry and politics. The reformers of the time wished to throw off the trammels of the past and to give men opportunity to exert themselves "naturally." In America the old abuses never had taken deep root, as the conditions of a new continent were not favorable to monopoly and privilege. Altho the movement for the repeal of medieval laws has continued in Europe from 1776 till the present time, yet custom still is stronger to-day in Europe than in America. Serfdom was not abolished until the first half of the nineteenth century in Austria and southeastern Europe, and not until the last half in Russia. Many economic and cultured forces furthered this movement, but the most powerful intellectual force in its favor was the work of Adam Smith. So strong an impression did Smith's book make, that in the minds of men "free trade" became almost identical in thought with political economy, whereas that was but the temporary economic problem of the eighteenth century.

Many men then thought that in "free and unlimited compet.i.tion" had been found a solution of all economic problems for all time. But soon, it was apparent that it was no such simple and absolute solution.

Indeed many of the present economic problems--in one sense all of them--center around this one: to determine the proper forms and limits of compet.i.tion. The varied aspects that this problem takes will appear in every portion of the following pages.

-- 14. #The wage-system.# Viewed in another aspect the present economic and social order is called the wage-system.[9] The wage-contract, like the use of money, is not essential to the existence of a system of private property. Communities such as the American colonies and as many of the newly settled states, may consist almost entirely of self-employed owners of land. Bulgaria, before the Balkan wars called the peasant state, presented this organization (tho of course with some wage-payment), as did also its neighbor Serbia. But given the inst.i.tution of private property with compet.i.tion (freedom to buy and sell), let manufactures and commerce develop to any extent, and inequalities of fortunes increase while an increasing number of persons work for wages. It is noteworthy that as this goes on (as it has done in America at an increasing rate since the middle of the nineteenth century) it is the agricultural and rural hand industries that continue to be mainly worked by owner-managers and workers, while it is the manufacturing, transporting, and large commercial enterprises in which the labor is done for wages. The acceptance of the wage-system thus far has been the inevitable price to be paid for manufacturing and industrial development; and one of our economic problems is to determine whether this must continue, and if so, whether in the same measure as in the past.

[Footnote 1: The exceptions are probably unstated amounts of exempt real estate (owned by munic.i.p.alities, state, and nation), some of the irrigation plants, part of the ca.n.a.ls, and that part of the gold and silver which is in the public treasury.]

[Footnote 2: See Vol. I, pp. 264-267. The law makes between property rights and equitable rights some subtle distinctions, which have their reason in the history, if not in the logic, of the law but which are not essential to economic discussion. In some states this distinction has been in large measure abolished. What interests us are the rights (claims) that men have to the control of wealth and services, whether by technical law these are called legal or equitable, and this right is what is meant by "property" in our discussion of it.]

[Footnote: 3 This confusion has had important practical consequences in the field of taxation. See Vol. I, pp. 265-267, and below, ch. 17.]

[Footnote 4: These claims mutually delimit each other (whether they be called equitable claims, or liens, or property rights), and wealth is not multiplied by multiplying the claims, as is unfortunately sometimes a.s.sumed to be the case. See above, sec. 3.]

[Footnote 5: See Vol. I, p. 51.]

[Footnote 6: See Vol. I, p. 73.]

[Footnote 7: This will appear in comparing the compet.i.tive method of distribution with other methods in ch. 31.]

[Footnote 8: See Vol. I, p. 143, on medieval land tenures; p. 158, on customary rents; p. 190, on the effect of caste.]

[Footnote 9: See Vol. I, p. 227.]

PART II

MONEY AND PRICES

CHAPTER 3

NATURE, USE, AND COINAGE OF MONEY

-- 1. Origin of money. -- 2. Qualities of the original money-goods.

-- 3. Industrial changes and the forms of money. -- 4. The precious metals as money. -- 5. Gold-using countries. -- 6. Varying extent of the use of money. -- 7. Money defined and reviewed. -- 8. Metal money without or with coinage. -- 9. Technical features of coinage. -- 10.

Seigniorage defined.

-- 1. #Origin of money#. Everywhere in the world where the beginnings of regular trade have appeared, some one of the articles of trade soon has come to be taken by many traders who did not expect to keep or use it themselves, but to pa.s.s it along in another trade.[1] This made it money, for money is whatever comes to be used as a general price-good.

The character of a _general_ price good clearly distinguishes money from goods bought and sold by a particular cla.s.s of merchants, such as grain, cattle, etc., to be sold again. It is only in so far as a particular good comes to be taken by persons not specially dealing in it, taken for the purpose of using it as a price-good to get something else which they desire, that a thing has the character of money. The thing called money thus is a durative good pa.s.sing from hand to hand in a community, and completing its use in turn to each possessor of it only as he parts with it.

The use of money is of such social importance, that it would be impossible for modern industrial society to exist without it. The discussion of money touches many interests, it raises many questions of a political and of an ethical nature. There are perhaps more popular errors on this than on any other one subject in economics, but the general principles of money are as fully understood and as firmly established as are any parts of economics.

-- 2. #Qualities of the original money-good#. The selection of any money-commodity has not been mere chance, but has been the result of that object being better fitted than others to serve as a medium of exchange. The main qualities that affected the selection of primitive form of money were as follows: 1. Marketability (or saleability); that is, it must be easy to sell. The first forms of money had to be things which every one desired at some time and many people desired at any time. That was the essential quality that made any one ready to take it even when he did not wish to use it himself. Many kinds of food and of clothing are very generally desired goods. But few of these cla.s.ses of goods have in a high measure certain other important qualities, now to be named.

2. Transportability; that is, the money material must be easy to carry, it must have a large value in small bulk and weight. To carry a bag of wheat on one's back a few miles requires as great an effort ordinarily as does the raising of the wheat, and the cost of carriage for fifty miles even by wagon will often equal the whole value of the wheat. Cattle, while not comparatively very valuable in proportion to weight, and not possessing the other qualities of money in the highest degree, have the advantage that they can be made to carry themselves long distances, and therefore they have been much used as money in simpler economic conditions.

3. Cognizability; that is, the money-good must be easy to know, and to judge as to quality. If expert knowledge or special apparatus are needed to test it in order to avoid counterfeits, few could be ready to take it and trading would be a costly process.

4. Durability; that is, the money-good must be easy to keep without much loss in amount or in quality, perhaps for long periods, until it can be pa.s.sed on in trade. Few kinds of food answer very well to this last requirement, being organic and perishable. But all four qualities above named were pretty well embodied in primitive times in rock salt, in rare flints and bits of copper suitable for tools and weapons, in furs in northern countries, and in many articles of personal adornment, such as beads, feathers, jewels, and metal ornaments.

5. Divisibility; that is, the quality in the monetary material that permits it to be divided easily into smaller amounts and then to be united again into larger ma.s.ses at little cost and without loss in amount or in quality. This quality is present only when the material is quite h.o.m.ogeneous throughout the whole ma.s.s, a condition fulfilled more completely by the metals than by any other goods. This quality makes it possible to put the governmental stamp upon the money material, and to produce pieces, some of which are exact duplicates and some exact multiples, of others. In this manner pieces of money are provided suitable for transactions of different magnitudes, down to small fractional amounts. A monetary system of this kind aids greatly the development of the sense and habit of exact estimation of price.

-- 3. #Industrial changes and the forms of money#. The money use, as has just been shown, is a resultant of a number of different motives in men. The changing material and industrial conditions of society change the kind of money that is used. Things that have the highest claim to fitness for money with a people at one stage of development have a low claim at another. The final choice of the money-good depends on the resultant of all the advantages. Sh.e.l.ls are used for ornament in poor communities but cease to be so used in a higher state of advancement, and thus their saleability ceases. Furs cease to be generally marketable in northern climes, when the fur-bearing animals are nearly killed off and the fur trade declines. When tobacco was the great staple of export from Virginia, everybody was willing to take it, and its market price was known by all. It served well then as the chief money, but, as it ceased to be the almost exclusive product of the province, it lost the knowableness and marketability it had before. In agricultural and pastoral communities where every one had a share in the pasture, cattle were a fairly convenient form of money, but in the city trade of to-day their use as money is impossible.

Thus, in a sense, different commodities compete, each trying to prove its fitness to be a medium of trade; but only one, or two, or three at the most, can at one time hold such a place.

While industrial changes and conditions affect the choice of money, in turn money reacts upon the other industrial conditions. If a new and more convenient material is found or the value of the money metal changes to a degree that affects the generalness of its use, industry is greatly affected. The discovery of mines in America brought into Europe in the sixteenth century a great supply of the precious metals, and this change in the use of money reacted powerfully upon industry.

Money, being itself one of the most important of the industrial conditions, is affected by and in turn affects all others.