Chapter 6 Chapter V Labor and Money Prices of Commodities

Before the division of labor is fully established, the extent to which a person enjoys the necessities, conveniences, and entertainments of life reflects his level of wealth.However, since the division of labor was established, most of the goods that each person needs come from the labor of others.Therefore, the measure of the level of wealth and poverty becomes the amount of labor that a person can control, that is, the amount of labor that he can buy.A person possesses a good that he does not want to consume, and then exchanges it for something else.The value of this commodity is then equal to the quantity of labor which he can purchase or command.The true measure, therefore, of the exchangeable value of all commodities is labour.

The true price of any good, or the real cost of acquiring it, is the labor and trouble of obtaining it.Its true value to a man, if he possesses it, and would exchange it for something else, is equal to the toil and trouble which he will save himself by possessing it.Money or goods are equivalent to labour, and can be used to buy things as we obtain them by our own labour, and save us a considerable amount of labour.Because they contain a certain amount of labor value, we can exchange them for other items with the same amount of labor value.As the primary price, labor can initially be used to purchase all goods and wealth.In the world, what is used to buy wealth is labor, not gold and silver.The value of labor, therefore, is equal to the quantity of labor which a person who possesses wealth and is willing to exchange for other things buys or disposes of it.

Hobbes said that wealth is power.In fact, it is not after acquiring or inheriting a large amount of property that people have political power, whether it is civil or military.Property is only a means of obtaining political power, not a decisive factor, and people may not be able to obtain political power by relying on it.The power which property affords to its possessor is nothing but purchasing power, power over every kind of labor or the produce of labour, which is presently on the market.Moreover, the size of this dominion is exactly proportional to the size of his property.That is to say, the size of property restricts the amount of other people's labor or labor products that he can buy or control.The exchange value of a commodity must necessarily be equal to the quantity of labor at its disposal.

Labor can be used to measure the exchange value of all commodities, but not the value of all commodities.It is often difficult for us to determine the proportion of two different quantities of labor, because there are many factors that determine this proportion.In the analysis, in addition to considering the time spent on the two kinds of work, also consider the difference in their degree of difficulty and delicacy.The same work in an hour may involve a greater quantity of labor in the difficult work than in the easy one.Even one hour of work that requires ten years of study may contain more labor than a month of common business.

Finding an accurate measure of difficulty and delicacy, however, is not so easy.When people exchange, they roughly adjust the degree of difficulty and delicacy through market bargaining, so that they are generally equal to each other, without using any precise scale.This, although not accurate enough for day-to-day transactions, is sufficient.Of course, the above-mentioned degrees of difficulty and finesse are usually taken into account when people exchange different products of labor. Moreover, when there are many kinds of commodities, the exchange is usually between commodities; when there are few commodities, commodities are exchanged for labor.In estimating the exchange value of a commodity, therefore, the measure is naturally the quantity of another commodity which it has purchased, and not the quantity of labor which it has purchased.Moreover, "a certain amount of a particular commodity" is easier to understand than "a certain amount of labor".Because the former is an object that people can see and touch; while the latter is just a concept, very abstract, even if it can be fully understood by people, it is not as obvious and natural as a concrete object.

With the development of society, the barter exchange stopped, and currency became the general medium of commodity exchange, and people began to exchange commodities for currency.At this time, if the butcher needs bread or ale, he will first take the beef or mutton to the market, exchange it for currency, and then go to the bakery or tavern, and use the currency to buy bread or ale.The amount of bread or ale he can buy depends on the amount of money he gets from selling beef and mutton.The value of beef and mutton to the butcher, therefore, is naturally the quantity of money for which it can be exchanged, and not the equivalent quantity of bread and ale.In the same way, three or four pence a pound is more proper in speaking of the value of cattle meat than three or four catties of bread, and three or four quarts of ale.Therefore, when people calculate the exchange value of commodities, they mostly use the amount of money as the yardstick, rather than the amount of labor or other commodities that it can exchange for.

In fact, although gold and silver are general media, like all other commodities, their value and ease of purchase will change with time.In a certain period of time, the factors that determine the amount of labor or other commodities that gold and silver can command are often the output of famous gold and silver mines that have been discovered at that time.In the sixteenth century, the value of gold and silver in Europe dropped sharply, almost to one-third of the original price, because people discovered many gold and silver mines in America.The reason for this analysis is that after the discovery of a large amount of gold and silver, the amount of labor required for gold and silver to be listed is relatively reduced, and the labor that it can buy or control is also correspondingly reduced.However, the discovery of a large amount of gold and silver this time is only the biggest change in the history of gold and silver value, but it is not the only change in history.

We know that the correct measure for measuring the quantity of other things must not itself be constantly changing.For example, the distance of one step, the amount of things grasped by one hand, and the length of two arms folded will vary from person to person, so they cannot be used as a scale to measure other objects.The same applies to commodities whose value is constantly changing.Labor, however, is another matter.For labor itself is indifferent. For workers, no matter when and where, the same amount of labor has the same value.Laborers of equal energy and proficiency must sacrifice the same amount of comfort, liberty, and happiness in their labor; the price he pays for his labor determines the quantity of goods he can buy.

In fact, the quantity of goods that can be purchased by the same labor is also different in different periods, sometimes more and sometimes less.But this change is only a change in the value of the goods; the value of the labor which buys them is not thereby changed.Goods are always and everywhere expensive, so long as they are difficult to buy or require great labor to obtain; conversely, whenever a good is easy to buy or get, it must be cheap.Therefore, only labor can estimate and compare the value of various commodities at any time and anywhere.No matter when and where, the value of labor does not change, it is the real price of commodities.As for money, it is only the nominal price of commodities.

Equal amounts of labor are generally of equal value to the laborer; but to the employer who employs the laborer, the value of the equal amount of labor varies from time to time.For, at different times, the quantity of goods required by the employer to purchase labor is different.For him, therefore, labor, like every other commodity, is subject to constant changes in its price.The price of a certain labor is high if it requires a great deal of goods to acquire it;In other words, when the price of labor is high, the price of goods is low; when the price of labor is low, the price of goods is high.

Therefore, it can be said in layman's terms that the price of labor can also be divided into real price and nominal price, which is the same as commodities.The real price of labour, is a definite quantity of the necessaries and conveniencies of life, equal in quantity to labour.The nominal price of labor is a definite amount of money, which is not necessarily equal to the amount of labour.Only the real price of labor can determine the wealth of workers and the level of labor remuneration; nominal price does not have this function. The distinction between real and nominal prices of labour, is of great importance both theoretically and practically.In general, the value of the same real price is equal, but the value of the same nominal price may be greatly different.The cause of this difference is often the variation in the value of gold and silver.Therefore, if a person wants to rent land permanently, he cannot rent a certain amount of money which may change.Otherwise, there is no guarantee that the value of the land will remain unchanged forever.The value change of a certain amount of currency is generally divided into two types.First, the amount of gold and silver contained in coins of the same name varies over time.Second, in different eras, the value of the same amount of gold and silver will also be different. One of the means of benefiting the country, in the opinion of its rulers, is to reduce the amount of pure metal contained in the coin.It is not conducive to their rule to increase the amount of pure metal contained in the coin.There is no doubt that nations are gradually reducing the amount of pure metal contained in their coinage.It is because of this change that the value of money-rent falls. The reason why the value of gold and silver in Europe has been lowered is because the mines of America have been discovered.At that time, although there were no definite arguments, many people made the same speculation: the value of gold and silver would continue to decline for a long time.In this case, it would not increase the value of the money-rent if it were not so many pounds of coin, but so many ounces of pure silver, or silver of a certain color.It is this conjecture which lowers the value of money-rent. Compared with money rent, corn rent can maintain its original value better, even when the coinage is consistent.Elizabeth, in the eighteenth year of her reign, made this provision for the rent of the land: two-thirds of the rent of the colleges of the country was paid in money, and one third in corn.If you are not willing to pay the one-third of the grain rent, you can convert it into money according to the current price of grain. At that time the money converted from corn represented a third of the total rent; but now, Dr. Braxton says, this third is actually twice as much as the other two thirds.According to this calculation, the currency rent of each college should be reduced to a quarter of the original value, or a quarter of the original grain.However, the British mint has remained largely unchanged to this day.The same amount of coin, whether it is pounds, shillings, or pence, contains almost the same amount of pure silver.It can be deduced from this that the fall in the price of silver has caused the fall in the value of money rent. If, then, the quantity of pure silver contained in the coin had diminished, the loss of money-rent would have been still greater.The French coin is much larger than the Scotch coin, and the Scottish coin is also larger than the English coin, in the variation of silver content.In this calculation, the formerly valuable land rent is now worth almost nothing. This is not the case with an equal amount of corn, which is the means of subsistence of the labourer.Even in two periods widely separated, an equal quantity of corn seems to have been a greater probability of purchasing an equal quantity of labour, than an equal quantity of gold, silver, or other commodities.It is therefore more probable that equal quantities of corn will remain the same in real price during two periods widely separated.In other words, those who have corn have an advantage over those who have money in purchasing or commanding an equivalent amount of labor from others.Of course, I can only say that an equal amount of corn is more probable than an equal amount of other commodities in purchasing or commanding an equal amount of labour, but I cannot say that it is entirely probable.For it is impossible to buy or command an equal amount of labour, with an equal amount of corn, without any loss. As mentioned later, the means of subsistence (the real price of labor) of laborers are very different in different periods, the most in progressive societies, the second in static societies, and the least in regressive societies.The purchase of the means of subsistence with any other commodity than corn may, at any given time, purchase a considerable quantity of labour.The only factor capable of affecting the rent in corn, therefore, is the variation in the quantity of labor which a given quantity of corn can purchase.But in calculating the rent of ground in terms of other commodities than corn, additional account must be taken of changes in the quantity of corn which can be exchanged for this commodity. However, there is one more thing we need to pay attention to.The real value of corn-rent varies much less from the perspective of centuries than money-rent, and much more from the perspective of age.In a later chapter we shall show this in greater detail: the money-price of labor does not fluctuate in unison with the money-price of corn from year to year.The money-price of corn, deviates from its average or common price from time to time, undergoing momentary or accidental variations; whereas the money-price of labour, which does not fluctuate very much, seems to conform to the average or common price of corn.The average or common price of corn is affected by the price of gold and silver, the quantity of gold and silver mines that produce, the quantity of labor necessary to bring the gold and silver to market, and the quantity of corn which the society as a whole must consume.This point will be introduced in detail later. From the point of view of the century, the price of silver changes sometimes very greatly;As the price of silver has remained almost constant for so long, the average or common price of money, while little or no other state of society has changed; and the money price of labour, no doubt, has remained constant. .However, owing to temporary or occasional fluctuations in the money price of corn, it is not uncommon for corn to be twice as expensive this year as it was last year.For example, the price of the same variety of corn which is twenty-five shillings the quarter today may be fifty shillings the quarter next year. When, however, the price of corn rose from twenty-five shillings to fifty shillings the quart, the nominal and real value of corn-rent increased accordingly, and doubled as before.In other words, corn-rent can command twice as much labor or other goods as before.The money-prices of labor, and most other commodities, however, do not follow these changes. It can be seen that only labor is the universal and correct measure of value.In other words, no matter when and where, labor can be used as the standard to compare the value of various commodities.The measure of the real value of a thing, therefore, cannot be the quantity of silver for which it can be exchanged within a century, nor the quantity of corn for which it can be exchanged within a year.But its true value may be ascertained with the most exactness, whether measured by centuries or years, by the quantity of labor for which it is exchanged.On the scale of centuries, an equal quantity of corn is more likely to govern an equal quantity of labor than an equal quantity of silver, and therefore corn is a better measure of value; Silver is smaller, so silver is more suitable as a measure of value. In establishing perpetual rents, or in concluding long-term leases, the distinction between real and nominal prices is of some use; but in the ordinary course of business, the distinction is not necessary. As long as the time and place are the same, the real price of all items is directly proportional to the nominal price.In the London market, for example, the more money is sold for a commodity, the greater is the quantity of labor which it can purchase or command; The less labor is purchased or commanded.Therefore, money is the correct measure of the exchange value of all commodities if and only if the time and place are the same. When two places are far apart, the real price of commodities is no longer in proportion to the price of money.For merchants who smuggled goods back and forth, the monetary price of goods was more important.That is, he considers only the difference in the quantity of gold and silver expended in buying and selling the same commodity.The same amount of labor or daily necessities and conveniences can be purchased with only half an ounce of silver in Guangzhou, China, but one ounce or more in London.A certain article, therefore, which a Canton merchant sells for a half ounce of silver, may be of greater value and importance than that which a London merchant sells for an ounce of silver.At this time, if this commodity in Guangzhou is purchased by a London merchant for half an ounce of silver, and then sold in London at the price of an ounce of silver, then this transaction will allow the London merchant to obtain a 100% profit.At this time, the price of silver in London and Guangzhou are almost the same.However, to this merchant, even if half an ounce of silver in Canton can command more labor or necessities and conveniences than an ounce of silver in London, that is not the most important thing.What he hopes to obtain is that spending one ounce of silver in London can command twice the amount of labor or daily necessities and conveniences that can be commanded by half an ounce of silver in Guangzhou. Nominal prices (prices in money) determine the propriety of almost all buying and selling in everyday life, so naturally people pay more attention to nominal prices than to real prices. However, this is not to say that the real value of the commodity does not need to be discussed.This book will compare the different real values ​​of specific commodities at different times and in different places as needed.In other words, a specific commodity can provide its owner with different abilities to control the labor of others at different times, and its real value must be compared at this time.In this way, we are really comparing different quantities of labor purchased by different quantities of gold and silver, and not just different quantities of gold and silver from the sale of particular commodities.But when both time and distance are great distances, it is not always possible to know the current price of labour.Although the current price of grain is rarely recorded formally, it is generally well remembered by people (especially historians and writers).Since the fluctuation ratio of the current price of grain and the current price of labor is generally the most approximate (not the same ratio), we can generally safely use the current price of grain for comparison to obtain the approximate current price of labor.Below, I'll make a couple of similar comparisons. With the advancement of industry, commercial countries began to use several metal coins at the same time for convenience.For example, gold coins are used for large payments; silver coins are used for moderate purchases; copper coins or even lower metal coins are used for smaller purchases.Of these three groups of metals, one will often be specially chosen as the principal measure of value.The metals chosen are generally those of the first kind to be employed as mediums of commerce.Because this kind of metal was already the standard currency when no other currency was available, and it was naturally used later. It is said that Rome had only copper coins before the outbreak of the Second Punic War, and did not start minting silver coins until five years before the outbreak of the Second Punic War.Later, the measure of value in the Roman Republic was copper coins.For, notwithstanding the appearance of silver coins in Rome, some aspounds or Sesterces appeared in all the accounts of the country.The sesterce is the unit of silver coin, 1 sesterce = 2.5 aspes.Although the sesterce is a unit of measurement for silver coins, its value is often calculated in copper coins.Thus, in Rome, if a person was in debt, he was said to be "owing others a lot of copper." And those northern nation-states built on the ruins of the Roman Empire seemed to have only silver coins, and even a few years later there were no gold or copper coins.The same is true of England. When the Saxons took over the country, there were only silver coins in the area. It was not until Edward III that a small amount of gold coins appeared, and there were only copper coins after James I. On this ground, therefore, I may believe that all accounts, goods, and property are valued in silver in England, and in the rest of modern Europe.In expressing how much a man has, it is not how many guineas of gold he possesses, but how many pounds of pure silver he has. I believe that regardless of the country, the metal coinage that is considered to be the standard of value is used as the legal means of payment.For example, in England, even though gold coins have been around for a long time, they are still not used as legal tender.The value ratio of gold coins and silver coins can only be determined by the market, not by laws or announcements.Therefore, the creditor can refuse the debtor to use gold coins to repay the debt, or accept gold coins at a gold price agreed by both parties. Now, copper coins are no longer legal tender and can only be exchanged for some small silver coins.Therefore, in this case, the nominal difference between standard and non-standard metals is no longer their only difference. Gradually, people got used to using multiple coins at the same time, and knew how to convert various coins in proportion to their value.At that time, I believe most countries felt the convenience brought by this ratio.Therefore, they legally stipulate this ratio.For example, what fineness and weight of guineas should be exchanged for twenty-one shillings.In addition, it also stipulates that large amounts of debts can be repaid in shillings as legal tender.Therefore, in the state where the legal ratio is fixed, there is only a nominal difference between standard and non-standard metals. However, when the legal ratio changes, the nominal difference between standard and non-standard metals is no longer the only difference between them—at least I think this difference is not the only one. For example, when all accounts and debts are recorded in silver coins, and the legal value of a guinea is changed (whether it falls from twenty-one shillings to twenty, or rises to twenty-two shillings) When the same amount of silver was used to repay old debts, the nominal difference was very great.When the guinea is less than twenty-one shillings, a larger amount of gold is required to pay for the equivalent; and when the guinea is higher than twenty-one shillings, a smaller amount of gold is required to pay. just work.In this case, silver prices appear to be less volatile than gold prices. At this time, the measure of value of all things seemed to be silver instead of gold.The value of gold depends on the amount of silver it can exchange for, while the value of silver does not.The reason for this difference is that people are used to using silver coins to record the amount of accounts. Conversely, if a man owed a Drummond promissory note for twenty-five or fifty guineas, he could still pay the same amount in gold even after the statutory ratio had been changed.If he pays in silver coins, the amount of silver coins must vary according to the legal ratio, and even vary greatly.As far as the payment of this promissory note is concerned, the price of gold seems to be more stable than that of silver.At this time, the measure of value of all things seemed to be gold instead of silver.Therefore, if the amounts in all books, deeds, and bonds were recorded in gold coins, then gold would be considered the standard or measure of value. When the different metals have different values, the metal which governs the value of all the coins is that which is most expensive, if the legal ratio of exchange remains the same.For example, if calculated by constant balance (sixteen ounces to one pound), the weight of the British twelve-pence copper coin should be equal to the weight of half a pound of copper; Worth sevenpence in silver.However, the law stipulates that the twelvepence copper coin can be exchanged for one shilling, so twelvepence is worth one shilling again, and can be exchanged at any time.That is to say, before the recent reform of the gold coin, British gold coins, at least those circulating in and about London, had not been so inferior to the standard weight as most silver coins, and even worn twenty-one shillings were not Still equal to a guinea. Recently, in order to make British gold coins worth as much as other countries' common coins, the British government has also taken relevant legal measures, stipulating that the government should accept gold coins according to their weight within the validity period of this order, so that they are close to the standard weight. ; while worn silver pieces continue to circulate in the market in a worn and worn condition, and twenty-one shillings are still considered worth a guinea of ​​fine gold.This reform of gold coins obviously increased the ability of silver coins to be exchanged for gold coins. When the British Mint minted coins, a pound of gold was minted into forty-four and a half guineas.Thus, on the basis that one guinea is equal to twenty-one shillings, one pound of gold can be minted into forty-six pounds, fourteen shillings and sixpence.An ounce of gold, therefore, is worth three pounds, seventeen shillings, and ten halfpence in silver.In addition, England has never levied seigniorage, and every piece of gold weighing one pound or one ounce of standard gold bullion can be exchanged for the same amount of coinage.The price of English gold coin, therefore, is what is called the mint price of gold—three pounds seventeen shillings ten halfpence an ounce. For many years before the gold coin reform in Britain, the price of standard gold bullion in the market was more than three pounds and eighteen shillings per ounce, and it was common to be three pounds and nineteen shillings, or even four pounds.However, the four pound gold coins of the time were basically worn out and rarely contained the full value of an ounce of standard gold.Since the reformation of the gold coin, the market price of standard gold bullion has seldom exceeded even three pounds seventeen shillings sevenpence an ounce, below, and never above, the mint price before the reformation. But at the time of payment, the market value of gold and silver coins is the same.The reform of the gold coin, therefore, increased not only the value of the gold coin, but also that of silver, with which it could be compared.The value of gold or silver coins, however, does not increase so much as that of most other goods.Because the price of most other goods is also affected by many other factors. When the English Mint minted coins, it cast a pound of standard silver bullion into a silver coin of sixty-two shillings.The so-called mint price of English silver, therefore, is five shillings and twopence an ounce.When the mint exchanges standard silver bullion with people, it pays the amount of silver coins at this price.Before the gold coin reform, the market price of an ounce of standard silver bullion often fluctuated between five shillings and fourpence to five shillings and eightpence, and the most common one seemed to be five shillings and sevenpence.Since the gold coin reform, the market price of an ounce of standard silver bullion has dropped all the way to five shillings and five pence, five shillings and four pence, and even five shillings and three pence, rarely exceeding five shillings and five pence. Of course, the reform of gold coins also affected silver coins, which reduced the market price of silver bullion a lot, but it was never as low as the mint price.In the case of England's coinage, which differs in the ratio of the metals it combines, as the ratio of copper far exceeds its real value, so the ratio of silver is also slightly lower than its real value.In England, about fifteen ounces of pure silver are needed to exchange for one ounce of pure gold; while in European markets, such as France and the Netherlands, only about fourteen ounces of pure silver are needed to exchange for one ounce of pure gold, which is higher than that of silver. Compare prices in England. However, the price of copper bullion has not been increased by the high relative price of copper, even in England.Similarly, the price of silver bullion did not drop due to the low exchange rate of silver coins, but still maintained its proper exchange ratio with gold and silver.Until William III reformed the silver coin, the price of silver bullion remained slightly above the mint price.Locke believes that the reason for the high price of silver is that the export of silver bullion is allowed but the export of silver coins is prohibited.For, by permitting the exportation of silver bullion, by reducing the quantity of silver bullion in the country, there is a corresponding increase in the domestic demand for silver coin, and the number of ordinary buyers and sellers in the country who want silver coin must be greater than the number who want silver bullion for exportation or for other purposes. much. But when we take the same step with gold bullion, by permitting the exportation of gold bullion and prohibiting the exportation of gold coin, the price of gold bullion is lower than the mint price.The gold coin was then, as now, considered unreformable, and governed the real value of all coinage, and was valued much higher than the silver coin.The price of silver bullion, which had not before been lowered to the mint price by the reformation of the silver coin, will not be lowered now by any like reformation. A guinea would buy, at today's rates, less bullion than it would buy in silver, if the silver piece had been of about the same standard weight, as the gold piece.If the silver coin is of sufficient value, it can be first melted into silver bullion, exchanged for the equivalent value of gold coins, and then the gold coins can be exchanged for more silver coins.There seems to be only one way to prevent people from making such profits is to change the ratio of gold to silver. If we want to prevent the above profit-seeking phenomenon, we can make the exchange rate of silver coins higher than the current exchange rate of gold and silver coins, and make them like copper coins, which can only be exchanged for shillings, and can no longer serve as legal tender.If this is the case, high-price silver will be like today's high-price copper, and it will definitely not let any creditors suffer, but the bankers will suffer.For, when there is a run on a bank, the bankers, in order to delay the immediate payment, often pay the depositors in the smallest sixpence pieces.And once the high-price silver regulation is implemented, bankers can no longer take this dishonorable method, but must ensure that there is a large amount of cash in the safe at all times.This regulation is naturally very unfavorable to the bankers, but it greatly protects the interests of creditors. Of course, even a fine gold coin worth three pounds seventeen shillings ten halfpence (the mint price of gold) does not necessarily contain more than an ounce of standard gold.It has been thought, therefore, that three pounds seventeen shillings ten and a halfpenny can at best be exchanged for an ounce of gold bullion.However, when in use, gold nuggets are not as convenient as gold coins; moreover, even if you can take gold nuggets to the mint for free to exchange for gold coins, it often takes several weeks.Now, the mint was busier and the minting time was extended by several months.Such a delay would be equivalent to taking a small seigniorage, which would increase the value of the gold coin, instead of being equal to the value of the same amount of gold bullion.So, if the English silver coin could maintain its proper parity with gold, then even without the silver coin reform, the price of silver bullion would be lower than the mint price, and even worn silver coins could be exchanged at this gold-silver parity bullion. If a small seigniorage on the holders of gold and silver bullion would make the gold and silver coin more valuable than an equal amount of gold and silver bullion, it would be necessary to increase the value of the gold and silver work in proportion to the tax.For example, when manufacturing gold and silver utensils, the value of the utensils will be increased according to the manufacturing cost.In this way, the value of coins is higher than that of gold and silver bullion, which can prevent the phenomenon of melting and exporting coins.Even if some special circumstances arise and some currencies need to be exported urgently, most of these currencies will flow back to the country in the near future.For in foreign countries the coin can only be sold by the weight of the bar; but at home the coin has a purchasing power in excess of its weight.People will naturally bring these exported currencies back to China for profit.It is said that since France collected 8% seigniorage, the currency exported from the country will automatically flow back. Gold and silver bars will be worn to varying degrees during gilding, gilding, edging and embroidery, and sea and land transportation; even coins and utensils will be worn.Its market price, therefore, varies from time to time, just as that of every other commodity varies from time to time for this reason.Those countries which have no mines, to replace this loss and consumption, have to continually import gold and silver.I believe that the importers of gold and silver will try to import gold and silver according to the needs of the market, just as other merchants try to meet the needs of the market at the time. It is inevitable, however, that the quantity of gold and silver which they imported was sometimes more or less than the prevailing market demand.No matter how thoughtful they are, it is difficult to avoid this situation.If more gold and silver bars are imported than demanded, the importers of gold and silver will sell them directly at home, even if the price is slightly lower than the normal price, in order to avoid the danger and difficulty of re-exporting; With fewer bars than needed, they were able to sell them at a higher than normal market price. The market price of gold and silver bullion is generally unstable due to the influence of occasional fluctuations in demand.If the market price of gold and silver bullion can be kept stable for several years, and the market price is slightly higher or lower than the mint price, then we can say that the value of the coin will be consistently higher or lower than that in the mint. The amount of pure gold or pure silver that should be contained must be related to its own situation.Only stable and continuous causes lead to stable and continuous effects. No matter in any country, at a specific time and place, if the characteristics of the common coinage meet the standards of currency, currency can become an accurate measure of value.That is, if a coin contains the amount of pure gold or silver it should contain, it can be used as a measure of value like money. 比方说，如果英国的四十四个半几尼正好等于一磅的标准金，也就是十一盎司纯金和一盎司合金，那么在某一特定时间和地点，这种金币就可以作为衡量商品实际价值的尺度。可是，如果这四十四个半几尼受到了不同程度的磨损消耗，其所含的标准金不足一磅重，那么再用它作价值尺度，就难免会出差错。 实际上，市场上也没有那么多适合作标准的度量衡。所以，商人们总是凭着一般经验，以他们认为标准的那种度量衡为标准来调整自己商品的价格。在铸币紊乱的场合，商人们也是以经验觉察到的铸币实际含量来调整商品价格的。对商人们来说，铸币应当含有的纯金或纯银量并不实用。 我所说的商品货币价格无关哪种铸币，只是指出售这种商品所得的纯金或纯银量。打个比方，在我看来，爱德华一世时代的六先令八便士和今天的一镑，货币价格相同。因为，经过判断，它们所含的纯银分量几乎相同。