• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 309 0

States, was unquestionably a major scholarly contribution and was cited by both proponents and opponents of bimetallism. Yet Laughlin was also a highly active leader of the hard-money opposition to the free-silver movement. In that capacity, he was dogmatic and demagogic. Monetary scholars like Francis A. Walker and Irving Fisher almost surely shared his opposition to specific proposals of the populist advocates of free silver, yet they were apparently embarrassed by his dogmatism and by what they considered—in my view, correctly—his bad economics, since they went out of their way to dissociate their views from his.

An example for Great Britain is Sir Robert Giffen, immortalized by Alfred Marshall in the "Giffen paradox." Popular articles by Giffen on the subject, dating from 1879 to 1890, were republished in a book entitled The Case Against Bimetallism ([1892] 1896). Whatever the basis for his high repute may have been, the book provides ample evidence that it was not his command of monetary theory.*

Views about Actual Bimetallic Proposals

Most scholars who were persuaded that bimetallism is in principle preferable to monometallism opposed the particular practical proposals for bimetallism that were at the center of the political debate. They did so for two sets of reasons, the lure of still better reforms and practical considerations.

The Better versus the Good: W. Stanley Jevons ([1875] 1890, pp. 328–33) favored a tabular standard, under which the monetary unit, at least for long-term contracts, would be adjusted for changes in general prices—the system that has come to be called indexation.

Alfred Marshall, who also favored a tabular standard, regarded it as an impracticable ideal except for long-term contracts. He supported what F. Y. Edgeworth labeled symmetallism as a less extreme departure from a gold standard than a thoroughgoing tabular standard would be, yet preferable to bimetallism (Marshall 1926, [>], [>]).† A symmetallic standard is one in which the monetary unit would be a composite of two metals, "a unit of gold and so many units of silver—a linked bar on which a paper currency may be based" (Edgeworth 1895, p. 442).

Under a bimetallic standard, the relative price of the two metals is fixed, but the relative quantities used as money are variable. Under a symmetallic standard, the relative quantities of the metals used as money are fixed and the relative price is variable; hence, there is no danger that a legal symmetallic standard will be converted into a de facto monometallic standard.

Léon Walras (1954, p. 361) favored a gold standard with a "silver regulator" managed by the monetary authorities so as to keep prices stable.

Irving Fisher (1913, p. 495) favored a "compensated dollar," or a system under which the gold equivalent of the dollar would be varied to keep a broad-based price index constant; that is, the weight in gold of the dollar would be changed "to compensate for the [change] in the purchasing power of each grain of gold."

Francis A. Walker opposed unilateral U.S. adoption of bimetallism but favored international bimetallism—that is, an agreement by a substantial number of countries to adopt a single legal gold-silver price ratio.* Essentially all the responsible supporters of bimetallism, even those in favor of its unilateral adoption by a single country, preferred international bimetallism. This sentiment was reflected in a series of international conferences on the subject, all of which ended in failure.

Practical Considerations: One important practical consideration was the proposed legal gold-silver price ratio. As Fisher pointed out, a range of legal ratios was consistent with the maintenance of a bimetallic currency. However, if different countries adopt different ratios, it is clear that only one can be effective. While I believe that 16 to 1 was feasible for the United States in 1873, I have argued in chapter 5 that by 1896 it was almost surely too late to undo the damage. And contemporary writers expressed similar views. Writing in 1896, Walker (1896b, [>]) says:

While