It is important to keep clearly in mind the distinction between capital and money. That Mr. Wells has not always done so, the following quotation will show:-- "Nobody, furthermore, has ever yet risen to explain the motive which has impelled the sellers of merchandise all over the world, during the last thirty years, to take lower prices for their goods in the face of an unexampled abundance of capital and low rate of interest, except upon the issue of the struggle between supply and demand." Capital is accumulated wealth devoted to the production of more wealth; money is merely a medium for the exchange and transfer of wealth: they are not synonymous terms. An abundance of capital may exist with a small amount of money (relative to the demand) and consequent low prices, or with a large amount of money and high prices: they have no connection. The rate of interest, also, has nothing to do with the question. Interest is determined by the amount of capital seeking investment in loans, relative to the demand, and in a time of relative contraction of the volume of money, and consequent falling prices, will, as a rule, be low, since there is less inducement for men to borrow capital to engage in business, and more men wishing to lend. The risks of business are much increased at such a time, and the profits much lessened, and as the rate of interest is determined by the profits of business in general, it will be low also. Mr. Wells, indeed, has recognized this fact elsewhere in his writings, but has evidently forgotten it in the above quotation. The accumulation of money in banks in times of depression indicates not too much money, but a general belief that its value is rising, or a fear that it will rise; testifying, if to anything, to too little money, in fact. Men do not hold a thing that brings no income unless they expect to profit by its rise. As to the main point of the above quotation, certainly men accept lower prices for merchandise because of the issue between supply and demand, but the supply of money is as much involved in the calculation as the supply of merchandise. Men accept lower prices--that is less gold--for commodities in general, because gold has increased in value. Mr. Wells further says:-- "No one has ever named a single commodity that has notably declined in price within the last thirty years, and satisfactorily proved, or even attempted to prove, that its decline was due to the appreciation of gold." No one, of course, could prove by the decline in price of a _single_ commodity that money or gold had appreciated; but when a writer admits, as Mr. Wells has done so clearly, that prices in general have fallen, no proof is needed; the statements are but different ways of saying the same thing.