Agriculture requires but very few exchanges, and can, therefore, be carried on with very little money. Manufactures, on the other hand, require a great many exchanges, and can, therefore, be carried on (except in a very feeble way), only by the aid of a great deal of money. The consequence is, that the people of all those nations, that have but little money, are engaged mostly in agriculture. Very few of them are manufacturers. Being mostly engaged in agriculture, each one producing the same commodities with nearly all the others; and each one producing all he wants for his own consumption, there is no market, or very little market, for agricultural commodities; and such commodities, consequently, bear only a very small price. Manufactured commodities, on the other hand, are very scarce and dear, for the sole reason that so few persons are engaged in producing them. But let there be an increase of currency, and laborers at once leave agriculture, and become manufacturers. As manufactured commodities usually bring much higher prices than agricultural, in proportion to the labor it costs to produce them, men usually leave agriculture, and go into manufacturing, to the full extent the increased currency will allow. The consequence is that, under an abundant currency, manufactures become various, abundant, and cheap; where before they were scarce and dear. But while, on the one hand, manufactures are thus becoming various, abundant, and cheap, agricultural commodities, on the other hand, are rising: and why? Not because the currency is depreciated, but simply because so many persons, who before--under a scanty currency--were engaged in agriculture, and produced all the agricultural commodities they needed, and perhaps more than they needed, for their own consumption, having now left agriculture, and become manufacturers, have become purchasers and consumers, instead of producers, of agricultural commodities. Here the same cause--abundant currency--that has occasioned a _rise_ in the prices of agricultural commodities, has produced a _directly opposite effect_ upon manufactures. It has made the latter various, abundant, and cheap; where before they were scarce and dear. On the other hand, when the currency contracts, manufacturing industry is in a great degree stopped; and the persons engaged in it are driven to agriculture as their only means of sustaining life. The consequence is, that manufactured commodities become scarce and dear, from non-production. At the same time, agricultural commodities become superabundant and cheap, from over-production and want of a market. Thus an abundant currency, and a scanty currency, produce directly opposite effects upon the prices of agricultural commodities, on the one hand, and manufactures, on the other.