parts? And here there are two observations to be made. First,--It is a very unimportant circumstance whether there be much or little cash in the world. If there is much, much is required; if there is little, little is wanted, for each transaction: that is all. The second observation is this:--Because it is seen that cash always reappears in every exchange, it has come to be regarded as the _sign_ and the _measure_ of the things exchanged. B. Will you still deny that cash is the _sign_ of the useful things of which you speak? F. A louis[6] is no more the sign of a sack of corn, than a sack of corn is the sign of a louis. B. What harm is there in looking at cash as the sign of wealth? F. The inconvenience is this,--it leads to the idea that we have only to increase the sign, in order to increase the things signified; and we are in danger of adopting all the false measures which you took when I made you an absolute king. We should go still further. Just as in money we see the sign of wealth, we see also in paper money the sign of money; and thence conclude that there is a very easy and simple method of procuring for everybody the pleasures of fortune. B. But you will not go so far as to dispute that cash is the _measure_ of values? F. Yes, certainly, I do go as far as that, for that is precisely where the illusion lies. It has become customary to refer the value of everything to that of cash. It is said, this is _worth_ five, ten, or twenty francs, as we say this _weighs_ five, ten, or twenty grains; this _measures_ five, ten, or twenty yards; this ground _contains_ five, ten, or twenty acres; and hence it has been concluded, that cash is the _measure_ of _values_. B. Well, it appears as if it was so.