rise above or fall below its value as a token of value. Thus we safely land again, by the round-about way of this international complication, at the simple dogma which constituted our starting point.
With what violence to actual facts Ricardo has to explain them in the sense of his abstract theory, a few illustrations will suffice to show. He maintains, e. g. that in years of poor crops, which happened frequently in England during 1800–1820, gold is exported not because com is needed and gold as money is at all times an effectual means of purchase in the world market, but because gold is in such cases depreciated in its value as compared with other commodities and, therefore, the currency of the country in which there has been a failure of crops is depreciated with respect to other national currencies. "In consequence of a bad harvest, a country having been deprived of a part of its commodities . . . the currency which was before at its just level . . . become(s) redundant," and prices of all commodities rise in consequence.[1] Contrary to this paradoxical in-
- ↑ Ricardo, l. c., p. 74–75. "England, in consequence of a bad harvest, would come under the case of a country having been deprived of a part of its commodities, and, therefore, requiring a diminished amount of circulating medium. The currency which was before equal to her payments would now become super-abundant and relatively cheap, in proportion. . . of her diminished production; the exportation of this sum, therefore, would restore the value of her currency to the value of the currencies of other countries." His confusion of money and commodity, and of money and coin borders on the ludicrous in the following passage: "If we can suppose that after an un-
