Has Money Appreciated

'An argument that has been made in opposition to the gold standard of value takes this shape: Suppose a man engaged ia making boots and shoes borrowed twenty years ago $10,000 to carry on his business. At that time $10,000 would purchase 2000 pairs of shoes. During the past twenty years the manufacturer has been hijingr up money with which to pay off his debt, and has now put aside the needed suin. But, before paying it, he discovers that now the $10,000 whieh he borrowed in, say, 1876, instond of buying qnly 2000 pairs of shqes, will buy 4000 pairs, and he says to hinaself: "Is it right that I shcrnld, by putting this sum into my creditor's hands, give him an opportunity, at my expense, to purchase twice as much as he could bef oro? My creditor should be content with what would be equivalent to the original loan - that is, the equal of the price of 2000 pairs of shoes, or $5000- tor the advance in the purchasing power of money that has taken place must represent an unwarrantable appreciation in its exchangeablc valué, due to a contraction in the quantity of available gold." The above, we say, is an example of an argument that is frequently made, and possesse obme degree of plausibility. As a matter of fact, there is very little ground upon which to rest such a plea. It is true that boots and shoes have declined in value during the last twenty years. It is somewhat difficult to say how much, because styles have materially changéd in the interval. But, assuming that a change equivalent to what we have referred to above has taken place, in what way has it been brought about? Those who know anything concerning the boot and shoe business must be aware that in the last twenty years enormoua improvements in production have taken jilace, due to the introduction of various kinds of machinery and the better organization of workshops. This has enormously reduced the cost of making shoes. This reduction in cost bas made itself evident in the market price of shoes. But are those who purchase shoes for their own or their family's use to continue to pay the old price of $5 a pair, when the shoes can be made at half the price they could twenty years ago? 'Even when sold at $2.50 a pair th'e manufacturer malees a handsome proöt, while the operatives in the factory earn considerably more per week for their services than thcy did in ÍÜ7H. Under these circumstances are not the consumera of boots and shoes to have some benefit from the reduction? Yet Luc rt.-uiujjuuii ui uiose v, no matte the argument we stated at first is that all the benefit should go to the manufacturor, and that the drop in the market price of shoes is due not to improvemejiis in machinery, administration and thif more effeetive ïitilization of labor, bat to a contraction in the currency. But if it could bo made out to be honest ítaí the creditor who had loaned $10,000 shoiilJ now be paid $5000. iK canse at the end of twenty yoars ■., eonld buy 4000 pairs oC shoes astead rj 2000 pairs of shoes for th nioney origj. n;il!y Icnt, lot us see how snch a trans. action would, oud. The eredltor may pus. sibly have been waiting for Ins n in order to invost it when hc obtained i in tlio purchase of a piece of Ufnd. Twimity yetiTa ago there was au opportunity io obtain the liouse and land oí a sal tory character for $10,00ü: bul, in the] majority of instancea, to purchase eame houso now, or one of nn eqnally satisfáctory character, it would bc nei eg. ! sary to pay not $10,000, but $12.000. or eren $15,000; in other words, rea! estáte instead of contracting in T.alue in the twenty years has constantly apprecintcd kSO that if the creditor is paid $10,000 iil gold ho oaimot use it in the purcha rea] estáte in as satisfactory a man:. he could it tho time lio first made ths loan. It' the debtor jvej"e to pay him $5000 instead of $10,000, it would h0 on the basis of land values notlnng loss than downright robbery. Ur, snppose, havmg grown old, the ereditor wishes to live on the income of hi.s $10,000. Twenty years ago he conld have safoly investcd it and reeeived foj its use $600 a year. He eannói now safely invest his money so is to obtnin more than $400 a year. Is this i reason why he should be paid $5000 rnthcr than $10,000? If he uses the pril instead of the interest as a menu paying his expenses, he finds thal rent costs him more than it did years ago, the cook whom he hires, wlib was content with $3.50 a weck twenty years ago, now wants $5; the ehatnbevmaid deninnds $4 n week, when tweuty years ago she had $3, and so on through all the list of domestic service. In various direetions, insten d of ha greaterpurchasingpowcr .10,0(10 has now less purchasing power than it had in 1876. Cloarly, uoder suoh drenmatances, because, in eonsequenoe of improveinents in productive machiiiery nnd enormpua reductions in the eost of I portation, the prices either of sho wheat have been reduced, it does not follow that there has been any real appreciation in the purchasing power of money when ono takes inlo account all of the uses in the way of purchase that are made ot