MONEY FALLACIES. 
375 
of definiteness in the language employed when the apprecia¬ 
tion or depreciation of the money standard or unit is spoken 
of. Many people proceed to reason about it as if there were 
some absolute and invariable standard of value with which 
the particular standard of a country can be compared to de¬ 
termine whether the latter has fallen or risen. There is no 
absolute standard of value; there is nothing but relative 
value. We can compare two values and their ratio is a 
price. Thus the ratio of the value of a quantity of wheat 
to the value of the money unit is the money price of wheat. 
If we invert this ratio we have the wheat price of money; 
but what the value of the money unit is in itself, apart from 
such a relation, is beyond the power of the human reason to 
determine.. We can have as many relative valuations of 
the money unit as there are of exchangeable things to com¬ 
pare it with. We may have the wheat value, the cotton 
value, the silk, iron, copper, silver, or coal value; but when 
the value of the money unit, independently of its ratio to 
the value of other things, is asked for, the question is un¬ 
answerable. So, too, if it is asked whether the gold dollar 
or sovereign has appreciated we can only toss back the ques¬ 
tion and ask, Relatively to what ? If it be asked whether 
the wheat price of the gold unit has appreciated it can be 
answered by comparing the present market quotations of 
wheat with those of any past time. Relatively to most 
commodities, there has been a slow appreciation of gold, or, 
reciprocally, there has been a depreciation of the value of 
most commodities relatively to gold; but whether gold has 
depreciated or appreciated absolutely no man can say. 
Relatively to a few commodities, gold has depreciated. But 
what is of far more importance than any other change of 
this kind is the fact that, relatively to the value of human 
labor, gold has depreciated. 
Another fallacy is that an appreciation in the commodity 
price of gold works hardship upon debtors who are required 
to pay their debts in gold or its equivalent. This fallacy is 
easily exposed. The hardship of paying any debt must ob- 
47—Bull. Phil. Soc., Wash., Vol. 11. 
