the high price of bullion-第11部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





to　stop　if　we　admitted　any　other　rule　of　action。　They　should　have



explained　to　us　therefore；　why；　if　the　demand　for　the　commodity



imported　should　continue；　the　country　importing　might　not　be



entirely　exhausted　of　its　coin　and　bullion。　What　is　under　such



circumstances　to　check　the　exportation　of　the　currency？　The



Reviewers　say；　because　〃a　country　with　a　diminished　quantity　of



bullion　would　evidently　soon　be　limited　in　its　powers　of　paying



with　the　precious　metals。〃　Why　soon？　Is　it　not　admitted　〃that



excess　and　deficiency　of　currency　are　only　relative　terms；　that



the　circulation　of　a　county　can　never　be　superabundant；〃　（and



therefore　can　never　be　deficient；）　〃except　in　relation　to　other



countries。〃　Does　it　not　follow　from　these　admissions；　that　if　the



balance　of　trade　may　become　unfavourable　to　a　country；　though　its



currency　be　not　relatively　superabundant；　that　there　is　no　check



against　the　exportation　of　its　coin；　whilst　any　amount　of　money



remains　in　circulation；　as　the　diminished　sum；　（by　acquiring　a



new　value；）　will　as　readily　and　as　effectually　make　the　required



payments　as　the　larger　sum　did　before？　A　succession　of　bad



harvests　might；　on　this　principle；　drin　a　country　of　its　money；



whatever　might　be　its　amount；　although　it　consisted　exclusively



of　the　precious　metals。　The　observation　that　its　diminished　value



in　the　importing　county；　and　its　increasing　value　in　the



exporting　country；　would　make　it　revert　again　to　the　old　channel；



does　not　answer　the　objection。　When　will　this　happen？　and　in



exchange　for　what　will　it　be　returned？　The　answer　is　obvious　…



for　commodities。　The　ultimate　result　then　of　all　this　exportation



and　importation　of　money；　is　that　one　county　will　have　imported



one　commodity　in　exchange　for　another；　and　the　coin　and　bullion



will　in　both　countries　have　regined　their　natural　level。　Is　it　to



be　contended　that　these　results　would　not　be　foreseen；　and　the



expence　and　trouble　attending　these　needless　operations



effectually　prevented；　in　a　country　where　capital　is　abundant；



where　every　possible　economy　in　tade　is　practised；　and　where



competition　is　pushed　to　its　utmost　limits？　Is　it　conceivable



that　money　should　be　sent　abroad　for　the　purpose　merely　of



rendering　it　dear　in　this　country　and　cheap　in　another；　and　by



such　means　to　ensure　its　return　to　us？



　　　　It　is　particularly　worthy　of　observation　that　so　deep…rooted



is　the　prejudice　which　considers　coin　and　bullion　as　things



essentially　differing　in　all　their　operations　from　other



commodities；　that　writers　greatly　enlightened　upon　the　general



truth　of　political　economy　seldom　fail；　after　having　requested



their　readers　to　consider　money　and　bullion　merely　as　commodities



subject　to　〃the　same　general　principle　of　supply　and　demand　which



are　unquestionably　the　foundation　on　which　the　whole



superstucture　of　political　economy　is　built；〃　to　forget　this



recommendation　themselves；　and　to　argue　upon　the　subject　of



money；　and　the　laws　which　regulate　its　export　and　import；　as



quite　distinct　and　different　from　those　which　regulate　the　export



and　import　of　other　commodities。　Thus　the　Reviewers；　if　they　had



been　speaking　of　coffee　or　of　sugar；　would　have　denied　the



possibility　of　those　articles　being　exported　from　England　to　the



continent；　unless　they　were　dearer　there　than　here。　It　would　have



been　in　vain　to　have　urged　to　them；　that　our　harvest　had　been



bad；　and　that　we　were　in　want　of　corn；　they　would　confidently　and



undeniably　have　proved　that　to　whatever　degree　the　scarcity　of



corn　might　have　existed；　it　would　not　have　been　possible　for



England　to　send；　or　for　France　（for　example）　to　be　willing　to



receive；　coffee　or　sugar　in　return　for　corn；　whilst　coffee　or



sugar　cost　more　money　in　England　than　in　France。　What！　they　would



have　said；　do　you　believe　it　possible　for　us　to　send　a　parcel　of



coffee　to　France　to　sell　there　for　100　l。　when　that　coffee　cost



here　105　l。　…　when　by　sending　100　l。　of　the　105　l。　we　should



equally　discharge　the　debt　contracted　for　the　imported　corn？　And；



I　say；　do　you　believe　it　possible　that　we　shall　agree　to　send；　or



France　agree　to　receive　（if　the　transaction　is　on　her　account）



100　l。　in　money；　when　95　l。　invested　in　coffee　and　exported　will



be　equally　valuable　as　the　100　l。　when　it　arrives　in　France？　But



coffee　is　not　wanted　in　France；　there　is　a　glut　of　it；　…　allowed；



but　money　is　wanted　still　less；　and　the　proof　is；　that　a　hundred



pounds　worth　of　coffee　will　sell　for　more　than　a　hundred　pounds



worth　of　money。　The　only　proof　which　we　can　possess　of　the



relative　cheapness　of　money　in　two　places；　is　by　comparing　it



with　commodities。　Commodities　measure　the　value　of　money　in　the



same　manner　as　money　measures　the　value　of　commodities。　If　then



commodities　will　purchase　more　money　in　England　than　in　France；



we　may　justly　say　that　money　is　cheaper　in　England；　and　that　it



is　exported　to　find　its　level；　not　to　destroy　it。　After　comparing



the　relative　value　of　coffee；　sugar；　ivory；　indigo；　and　all　other



exportable　commodities　in　the　two　markets；　if　I　persist　in



sending　money；　what　further　proof　can　be　required　of　money　being



actually　the　cheapest　of　all　these　commodities　in　the　English



market；　in　relation　to　the　foreign　markets；　and　therefore　the



most　profitable　to　be　exported？　What　further　evidence　is



necessary　of　the　relative　redundance　and　cheapness　of　money



between　France　and　England；　than　that　in　France　it　will　purchase



more　corn；　more　indigo；　more　coffee；　more　sugar；　more　of　every



exportable　commodity　than　in　England？



　　　　I　may；　indeed；　be　told　that　the　Reviewer's　supposition　is　not



that　coffee；　sugar；　indigo；　ivory；　etc。　etc。　are　cheaper　than



money；　but　that　these　commodities　and　money　are　equally　cheap　in



both　countries；　that　is　to　say；　that　one　hundred　pounds　sent　in



money；　or　invested　in　coffee；　sugar；　indigo；　ivory；　etc。　etc。



will　be　of　equal　value　in　France。　If　the　value　of　all　these



commodities　were　so　nicely　poised；　what　would　determine　an



exporter　to　send　the　one　in　preference　to　the　other；　in　exchange



for　corn；　in　relation　to　which　they　are　all　cheaper　in　England？



If　he　sends　money；　and　thereby　destroys　the　natural　level；　we　are



told　by　the　Reviewers　that　money　would　on　account　of　its



increasing　quantity　in　France；　and　its　decreasing　quantity　in



England；　become　cheaper　in　France　than　in　England；　and　would　be



re…imported　in　exchange　for　goods　till　the　level　were　restored。



But　would　not　the　same　effects　take　place　if　coffee　or　any　of　the



other　commodities　were　exported；　whilst　they　were　equally



valuable　in　relation　to　money　in　both　countries？　Would　not　the



equilibrium　between　supply　and　demand　be　destroyed；　and　would　not



the　diminished　value　of　coffee；　etc。　in　consequence　of　their



increased　quantity　in　France；　and　their　increased　value　in



England；　from　their　diminished　quantity；　produce　their



re…importation　into　England？　Any　of　these　commodities　might　be



exported　without　producing　much　inconvenience　from　their　enhanced



price；　whereas　money；　which　circulates　all　other　commodities；　and



the　increase　or　diminution　of　which；　even　in　a　moderate



proportion；　raises　or　falls　prices　in　an　extravagant　degree；



could　not　be　exported　without　the　most　serious　consequences。　Here



then　we　see　the　defective　principle　of　the　Reviewers。　On　my



system；　however；　there　would　be　no　difficulty　in　determining　the



mode　in　which；　in　a　case　so　extremely　improbable；　as　that　of　an



equal　value　in　both　countries；　for　all　commodities；　money



included；　and　corn　alone　excepted；　the　returns　would　be　made　so



as　to　preserve　the　relative　amount　and　the　relative　value　of



their　respective　currencies。



　　　　If　the　circulating　medium　of　England　consisted　wholly　of　the



precious　metals；　and　were　a　fiftieth　part　of　the　value　of　the



commodities　which　it　circulated；　the　whole　amount　of　money　which



would　under　the　circumstances　supposed　be　exported　in　exchange



for　corn；　would　be　a　fiftieth　part　of　the　value　of　such　corn：　for



the　rest　we　should　export　commodities；　and　thus　would　the



proportion　between　money　and　commodities　be　equally　preserved　in



both　countries。　England；　in　consequence　of　a　bad　harvest；　would



come　under　the　case　mentioned　at　page　＇53＇　of　this　work；　of　a



country　having　been　deprived　of　a　part　of　its　commodities；　and



therefore　requiring　a　diminished　amount　of　circulating　medium。



The　currency　which　was　before　equal　to　her　payments　would　now



become　superabundant　and　relatively　cheap；　in　the　proportion　of



one　fiftieth　part　of　her　diminished　production；　the　exportation



of　this　sum；　therefore；　would　restore　the　value　of　her　currency



to　the　value　of　the　currencies　of　other　countries。　Thus　it



appears　to　be　satisfactorily　proved　that　a　bad　harvest　operates



on　the　exchange　in　no　other　way　than　by　causing　the　currency



which　was　before　at　its　just　level　to　become　redundant；　and　thus



is　the　principle　that　an　unfavourable　exchange　may　always　be



traced　to　a　relatively　redundant　currency　most　fully　exemplified。



　　　　If　we　can　suppose　that　after　an　unfavourable　harvest；　when



England　has　occasion　for　an　unusual　importation　of　corn；　another



nation　is　possessed　of　a　superabundance　of　that　article；　〃but　has



no　wants　for　any　commodity　whatever；〃　it　would　unquestionably



follow　that　such　nation　would　not　export　its　corn　in　exchange　for



commodities：　but　neither　would　it　export　corn　for　money；　as　that