ON VARIATIONS IN THE VALUE OF THE MONETARY STANDARD. 271 



out, care be taken to exclude the repetition of the same article in different 

 forms. 



(3) Another foundation may be afforded by a basis which Professor 

 Nicholson (aliud agens, or at lea,st not confining himself to the purpose 

 specified in the present section) has lately laid down in the able and 

 highly original paper which he has contributed to the March number of 

 the ' Journal of the Statistical Society.' The new basis may be described 

 as (the value of) the ' total mass of purchasable " things," ' (' the aggre- 

 gate of purchasable commodities in the widest sense ' of the term). We 

 shall sometimes, for the sake of brevity, describe Professor Nicholson's 

 invention as the capital standard. 



Of these secondary methods the first and second at least have some 

 advantage in respect of convenience over the direct solution. It is quite 

 possible that their disadvantage in respect of inaccuracy should not be 

 very great. The error which we incur by taking some sample commo- 

 dities instead of all the items of national expenditure might be not worth 

 correcting in view of another error with which our calculation is unavoid- 

 ably affected. This is the eiTor incident to the misfit between the con- 

 sumption of the individual and that of the community. As, however 

 individuals resemble each other considerably in respect of consumption, 

 there is reason to believe that this species of defect is not so important 

 here as in the following section, where we are concerned with income 

 derived from production (see below, p. 275). 



Section IV. 

 Determination of a Standard for Deferred Payments ; hased upon the items 

 of national consumption ; calculated to afford to the consumer a value-in- 

 use, varying with the national affluence, after the manner of a sliding 

 scale ; no hypothesis leing made as to the causes of the change in prices 

 (ABcD.) J f • 



We now abandon the idea of a fixed standard, and attempt to 

 construct a sliding scale. ' We have hitherto supposed that the averao-e 

 man in paying or receiving a Unit should give or take the same quantity 

 of wealth. But is it just, is it expedient, that, when the national wealth 

 is increasing, the creditor should demand, the debtor pay, a constant 

 quantity, or quantity proportioned to the increase of general prosperity ? 

 Probably most persons would answer in favour of the former alternative.^ 

 But they might be embarrassed if the prmciple were extended to the case 

 of declining prosperity. Would it seriously be proposed that, if money 

 were depi'eciated by the decrease of goods other than money, the debtor 

 should pay an ever-increasing amount of currency ? This seems to be 



' The idea of a sliding scale may not seem at first sight to be suggested by the 

 question set to us. It will be found, however, to be implicit in much that is written 

 on our subject by the ablest writers — those, for instance, who, in estimating the 

 depreciation of money, dwell upon the fact that the style of living expected in each 

 class of Ufe, the Lebensansprilclie, has become heightened ; those, again, who 

 withnvt entertaining an hypothesis such as that which forms the definition of o?cr 

 section a (below, p. 280), still insist on including among the constituents of the 

 Unit industrial, as distinguished from stipendiary wages, material in addition to 

 finished products, and exports and imports, without reference to the amount of 

 home consumption ; in fine, those who would exclude wages of domestic servants 

 rents, and generally distribution as distinguished from exchange (on the grounds 

 specified in note to p. 263). 



2 Cf. Poulett Scrope, Pol. Eeon. (ed. 1833), p. 410. 



