_Second Aspiring Political Economist._ "Got to say?" Why, ask LEVIN of Cambridge what he thinks of him. LEVIN backs up GIFFEN in every word he says, and I agree with both of them. How can you have two standards? (_Explicitly._) The thing is preposterous. _First Aspiring Political Economist._ It is all very well to lay down the law in that fashion, but it will not dispose of facts. You may quote GIFFEN, or LEVIN, or anyone you like, but they will not be able to do away with the circumstance, that prices are regulated by the quantity of money in circulation (_with a little hesitation_); at least, that is what I understand the other side to maintain. _Second Aspiring Political Economist._ Sheer nonsense. How does the quantity of money you possess affect the price you pay for a commodity? The fact of your having twenty sovereigns in your purse won't make your butcher charge you an extra halfpenny a pound for a leg of mutton! That must be clear to any fool! _First Aspiring Political Economist._ But you don't understand. It's numbers that do it. They mean, if thirty millions of people, each have twenty sovereigns a-piece in their purses (_doubtfully_), _then_, I suppose, the butchers would raise the price of their meat. At least, that's what I fancy they imply when they talk of an "artificial currency" raising prices (_with some vagueness_), or is it "artificial prices" creating an increased currency. I couldn't _quite_ follow them in this. But I am sure, whichever of the two views was expressed by M. EMILE DE LAVELEYE, that one had, no doubt, a great deal of sound argument to back it. _Third Aspiring Political Economist._ I think you miss the point. Take an illustration. Say you arrive at a cannibal island with ten thousand complete sets of evening dress clothes, and that another ship, just before the arrival of yours, has taken the last ten-pound-note off the island, how, supposing there was to be a native rush to obtain one of your suits, would the absence of any money to pay for them affect their market value? I mayn't have got it quite correctly, but this, or something like it, is one of the cases that GIFFEN brings forward to prove his point. The matter, however, appears to me to be a little complicated. _Second Aspiring Political Economist._ Not in the least. It proves the humbug of the Bimetallic position up to the hilt. Of course, you must assume, that the cannibals desire to dress in evening clothes. I confess that has to be considered, and then the question lies in a nutshell. There can't be two opinions about it.