[134] David Ricardo: “On the Principles of Political Economy, etc.” p. 77. “Their value [of metals] [like that of all other commodities], depends on the total quantity of labour necessary to obtain the metal, and to bring it to market.” [135] 1 p. 77, 180, 181. [136] Ricardo, l. c. p. 421. “The quantity of money that can be employed in a country must depend on its value: if gold alone were employed for the circulation of commodities, a quantity would be required, one fifteenth only of what would be necessary, if silver were made use of for the same purpose.” See also Ricardo’s: “Proposals for an Economical and Secure Currency,” London, 1816, p. 89, where he says: “The amount of notes in circulation depends on the amount required for the circulation of the country; which is regulated ... by the value of the standard [of money], the amount of payments, and the economy practised in effecting them.” [137] Ricardo, “Principles of Political Economy”, p. 432. [138] David Ricardo, “Reply to Mr. Bosanquet’s Practical Observations, etc.” p. 49. “That commodities would rise or fall in price, in proportion to the increase or diminution of money, _I assume as a fact which is incontrovertible_.” [139] David Ricardo, “The High Price of Bullion,” etc. “Money would have the same value in all countries.” p. 4. In his Political Economy Ricardo modified this statement, but not in a way to affect what has been said here. [140] l. c. p. 3-4. [141] l. c., p. 4. [142] Ricardo, l. c., p. 11-12. [143] Ricardo, l. c., p. 14. [144] l. c., p. 17. [145] 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 superabundant 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 unfavorable harvest, when England has occasion for an unusual importation of corn, another nation is possessed of a superabundance of that article, but has no wants for any commodity whatever, it would unquestionably follow that such nation would not export its corn in exchange for commodities: _but neither would it export corn for money_, as that is a commodity which no nation ever wants absolutely, but relatively.” l. c., p. 75. Pushkin in his hero poem makes the father of his hero incapable of comprehending that commodities are money. But that money is a commodity, the Russians have understood from times of yore as is proven not only by the English corn imports in 1838-1842, but by the entire history of their commerce.