While such writers do not deny the truth of the fundamental principles we have already considered, they either forget or ignore them. Notable among such writers is Mr. David A. Wells, and as his views may be taken as representative of many others, some statements from his article in _The Forum_ for October, 1893, previously mentioned, are here selected for criticism. In the beginning of that article, as well as in his work, "Recent Economic Changes," he clearly recognizes and states that there has been a great and universal decline in the prices of a variety of commodities within the last thirty years. He claims, however, that such a general fall of prices does not prove that the value of gold has increased, for the reason that, as he endeavours to show, such fall in prices was caused by lowered labour cost of production, due to improved machinery, better methods, greater division of labour, etc. All these facts may be freely admitted; the error lies in supposing that it makes any difference what the cause is. Since value is a relation, it will be altered by a change in either of the terms between which that relation exists, and it is immaterial whether a day's labour produces more commodities in general, and the same amount of gold, or a less amount of gold, and the same amount of commodities in general, as compared with some former period. The value of gold, other things being the same, is greater in both cases. The fact remains that if gold exchanges for more commodities in general than formerly, its value has risen. It is not clear what Mr. Wells' conception of value is, on which his arguments are based. He, however, seems to regard the labour that a commodity will purchase as the measure of its value, since he says, in the magazine article: "And then, in respect to the one thing that is everywhere purchased and sold for money to a greater extent than any other, namely labour, there can be no question that its price _measured in gold_ has increased in a marked degree everywhere in the civilized world during the last quarter of a century." "Measured by the price of labour, therefore, gold has unquestionably depreciated; and can anybody suggest a better measure for testing the issue?" The fallacy of using labour in any form as a test of value was pointed out in the chapter on value. That the labour a commodity will purchase is not in any way a standard of value, as between two different periods, has been shown by almost every economist from Ricardo down to the present time. The above quotations, in connection with the following from the same article, bring to light an important phase of the subject, which it may be well to make clear. Mr. Wells remarks:--