wealbk01-第11章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



universal；　as　well　as　the　only　accurate　measure　of　value；　or　the

only　standard　by　which　we　can　compare　the　values　of　different

commodities　at　all　times；　and　at　all　places。　We　cannot　estimate；

it　is　allowed；　the　real　value　of　different　commodities　from

century　to　century　by　the　quantities　of　silver　which　were　given

for　them。　We　cannot　estimate　it　from　year　to　year　by　the

quantities　of　corn。　By　the　quantities　of　labour　we　can；　with　the

greatest　accuracy；　estimate　it　both　from　century　to　century　and

from　year　to　year。　From　century　to　century；　corn　is　a　better

measure　than　silver；　because；　from　century　to　century；　equal

quantities　of　corn　will　command　the　same　quantity　of　labour　more

nearly　than　equal　quantities　of　silver。　From　year　to　year；　on　the

contrary；　silver　is　a　better　measure　than　corn；　because　equal

quantities　of　it　will　more　nearly　command　the　same　quantity　of

labour。

　　　　　But　though　in　establishing　perpetual　rents；　or　even　in

letting　very　long　leases；　it　may　be　of　use　to　distinguish　between

real　and　nominal　price；　it　is　of　none　in　buying　and　selling；　the

more　common　and　ordinary　transactions　of　human　life。

　　　　　At　the　same　time　and　place　the　real　and　the　nominal　price　of

all　commodities　are　exactly　in　proportion　to　one　another。　The

more　or　less　money　you　get　for　any　commodity；　in　the　London

market　for　example；　the　more　or　less　labour　it　will　at　that　time

and　place　enable　you　to　purchase　or　command。　At　the　same　time　and

place；　therefore；　money　is　the　exact　measure　of　the　real

exchangeable　value　of　all　commodities。　It　is　so；　however；　at　the

same　time　and　place　only。

　　　　　Though　at　distant　places；　there　is　no　regular　proportion

between　the　real　and　the　money　price　of　commodities；　yet　the

merchant　who　carries　goods　from　the　one　to　the　other　has　nothing

to　consider　but　their　money　price；　or　the　difference　between　the

quantity　of　silver　for　which　he　buys　them；　and　that　for　which　he

is　likely　to　sell　them。　Half　an　ounce　of　silver　at　Canton　in

China　may　command　a　greater　quantity　both　of　labour　and　of　the

necessaries　and　conveniences　of　life　than　an　ounce　at　London。　A

commodity；　therefore；　which　sells　for　half　an　ounce　of　silver　at

Canton　may　there　be　really　dearer；　of　more　real　importance　to　the

man　who　possesses　it　there；　than　a　commodity　which　sells　for　an

ounce　at　London　is　to　the　man　who　possesses　it　at　London。　If　a

London　merchant；　however；　can　buy　at　Canton　for　half　an　ounce　of

silver；　a　commodity　which　he　can　afterwards　sell　at　London　for　an

ounce；　he　gains　a　hundred　per　cent　by　the　bargain；　just　as　much

as　if　an　ounce　of　silver　was　at　London　exactly　of　the　same　value

as　at　Canton。　It　is　of　no　importance　to　him　that　half　an　ounce　of

silver　at　Canton　would　have　given　him　the　command　of　more　labour

and　of　a　greater　quantity　of　the　necessaries　and　conveniences　of

life　than　an　ounce　can　do　at　London。　An　ounce　at　London　will

always　give　him　the　command　of　double　the　quantity　of　all　these

which　half　an　ounce　could　have　done　there；　and　this　is　precisely

what　he　wants。

　　　　　As　it　is　the　nominal　or　money　price　of　goods；　therefore；

which　finally　determines　the　prudence　or　imprudence　of　all

purchases　and　sales；　and　thereby　regulates　almost　the　whole

business　of　common　life　in　which　price　is　concerned；　we　cannot

wonder　that　it　should　have　been　so　much　more　attended　to　than　the

real　price。

　　　　　In　such　a　work　as　this；　however；　it　may　sometimes　be　of　use

to　compare　the　different　real　values　of　a　particular　commodity　at

different　times　and　places；　or　the　different　degrees　of　power

over　the　labour　of　other　people　which　it　may；　upon　different

occasions；　have　given　to　those　who　possessed　it。　We　must　in　this

case　compare；　not　so　much　the　different　quantities　of　silver　for

which　it　was　commonly　sold；　as　the　different　quantities　of　labour

which　those　different　quantities　of　silver　could　have　purchased。

But　the　current　prices　of　labour　at　distant　times　and　places　can

scarce　ever　be　known　with　any　degree　of　exactness。　Those　of　corn；

though　they　have　in　few　places　been　regularly　recorded；　are　in

general　better　known　and　have　been　more　frequently　taken　notice

of　by　historians　and　other　writers。　We　must　generally；　therefore；

content　ourselves　with　them；　not　as　being　always　exactly　in　the

same　proportion　as　the　current　prices　of　labour；　but　as　being　the

nearest　approximation　which　can　commonly　be　had　to　that

proportion。　I　shall　hereafter　have　occasion　to　make　several

comparisons　of　this　kind。

　　　　　In　the　progress　of　industry；　commercial　nations　have　found

it　convenient　to　coin　several　different　metals　into　money；　gold

for　larger　payments；　silver　for　purchases　of　moderate　value；　and

copper；　or　some　other　coarse　metal；　for　those　of　still　smaller

consideration。　They　have　always；　however；　considered　one　of　those

metals　as　more　peculiarly　the　measure　of　value　than　any　of　the

other　two；　and　this　preference　seems　generally　to　have　been　given

to　the　metal　which　they　happened　first　to　make　use　of　as　the

instrument　of　commerce。　Having　once　begun　to　use　it　as　their

standard；　which　they　must　have　done　when　they　had　no　other　money；

they　have　generally　continued　to　do　so　even　when　the　necessity

was　not　the　same。

　　　　　The　Romans　are　said　to　have　had　nothing　but　copper　money

till　within　five　years　before　the　first　Punic　war；　when　they

first　began　to　coin　silver。　Copper；　therefore；　appears　to　have

continued　always　the　measure　of　value　in　that　republic。　At　Rome

all　accounts　appear　to　have　been　kept；　and　the　value　of　all

estates　to　have　been　computed　either　in　asses　or　in　sestertii。

The　as　was　always　the　denomination　of　a　copper　coin。　The　word

sestertius　signifies　two　asses　and　a　half。　Though　the　sestertius；

therefore；　was　originally　a　silver　coin；　its　value　was　estimated

in　copper。　At　Rome；　one　who　owed　a　great　deal　of　money　was　said

to　have　a　great　deal　of　other　people's　copper。

　　　　　The　northern　nations　who　established　themselves　upon　the

ruins　of　the　Roman　empire；　seem　to　have　had　silver　money　from　the

first　beginning　of　their　settlements；　and　not　to　have　known

either　gold　or　copper　coins　for　several　ages　thereafter。　There

were　silver　coins　in　England　in　the　time　of　the　Saxons；　but　there

was　little　gold　coined　till　the　time　of　Edward　III　nor　any　copper

till　that　of　James　I　of　Great　Britain。　In　England；　therefore；　and

for　the　same　reason；　I　believe；　in　all　other　modern　nations　of

Europe；　all　accounts　are　kept；　and　the　value　of　all　goods　and　of

all　estates　is　generally　computed　in　silver：　and　when　we　mean　to

express　the　amount　of　a　person's　fortune；　we　seldom　mention　the

number　of　guineas；　but　the　number　of　pounds　sterling　which　we

suppose　would　be　given　for　it。

　　　　　Originally；　in　all　countries；　I　believe；　a　legal　tender　of

payment　could　be　made　only　in　the　coin　of　that　metal；　which　was

peculiarly　considered　as　the　standard　or　measure　of　value。　In

England；　gold　was　not　considered　as　a　legal　tender　for　a　long

time　after　it　was　coined　into　money。　The　proportion　between　the

values　of　gold　and　silver　money　was　not　fixed　by　any　public　law

or　proclamation；　but　was　left　to　be　settled　by　the　market。　If　a

debtor　offered　payment　in　gold；　the　creditor　might　either　reject

such　payment　altogether；　or　accept　of　it　at　such　a　valuation　of

the　gold　as　he　and　his　debtor　could　agree　upon。　Copper　is　not　at

present　a　legal　tender　except　in　the　change　of　the　smaller　silver

coins。　In　this　state　of　things　the　distinction　between　the　metal

which　was　the　standard；　and　that　which　was　not　the　standard；　was

something　more　than　a　nominal　distinction。

　　　　　In　process　of　time；　and　as　people　became　gradually　more

familiar　with　the　use　of　the　different　metals　in　coin；　and

consequently　better　acquainted　with　the　proportion　between　their

respective　values；　it　has　in　most　countries；　I　believe；　been

found　convenient　to　ascertain　this　proportion；　and　to　declare　by

a　public　law　that　a　guinea；　for　example；　of　such　a　weight　and