740 RKADINllS IN Kl'RAL KCONOMICS 



standard of value to be desirable from the point of view of the 

 farmer, it is consequently by no means certain that its advan- 

 can be realized by the free coinage of silver. Moreover, in 

 view of the analysis offered above of the appreciation of gold, 

 what the farmer might hope to gain from a currency based upon 

 a depreciating money metal is at best of doubtful importance. 



This, then, is our principal conclusion : The independent, free, 

 and unlimited coinage of silver by the United States at the ratio 

 of 1 6 to i will not promote the prosperity of the American farmer. 

 Passing to a silver standard will only temporarily lighten the bur- 

 den of mortgage debt resting upon farms. Those farmers whose 

 debts are payable in gold would not even experience temporary 

 relief. During the transition to the new standard, moreover, de- 

 linquent debtors would be more or less seriously embarrassed by 

 the disposition of their creditors to enforce immediate payment. 

 The rise of prices, by increasing the cost of living, would un- 

 doubtedly curtail for many years the consuming power of the 

 wage-receiving class, and thereby lessen somewhat the demand 

 for the products of the farm. That higher prices for his prod- 

 ucts, in terms of a cheaper monetary standard, can enable the 

 farmer in the long run to command more of the material com- 

 forts of life than he would enjoy under the present standard is 

 a proposition difficult to understand. Violent fluctuations in prices 

 under a silver standard, whether due to over-production, commer- 

 cial depressions, or any other cause, would probably be no less 

 frequent, and the losses thereby inflicted upon agricultural indus- 

 try no less disastrous than at present. Steadiness of purchasing 

 power is one of the marks of a sound monetary system, and 

 there is no reason to believe that a currency based upon silver 

 is superior for this purpose to one based upon gold. 



An export bounty upon agricultural staples. Whatever ac- 

 quaintance the public may have with this proposition is due very 

 largely to the energy, enthusiasm, and time devoted to its advo- 

 cacy by one man, Mr. David Lubin of Sacramento, California. 

 According to Mr. Lubin, our protective tariff system is mainly 

 responsible for the economic difficulties of the American farmer. 

 The producer of agricultural staples, he contends, receives 



