The second effect of the appreciation of gold, in checking industrial progress and promoting industrial depression, has been less insisted on in the United States than in European countries. The classic economists had generally reasoned that a general rise or fall in prices was indifferent, except in regard to the relations of debtor and creditor. If money became scarce, if its value rose and all prices fell, every producer, to be sure, would receive a smaller money income than before, and would have a smaller money capital. But he would be able to buy as many commodities and as much labor as before, and would be in reality just as rich and prosperous. In the middle of the eighteenth century, when economic thought was just beginning to assume its modern form, David Hume had argued that though a fall in prices is at bottom indifferent to everybody (except as debtor or creditor), it would yet, in its effects on men's spirits and expectations, which are all connected with money and with terms of money, exert a depressing influence on industry, and would so be harmful; while rising prices, though also really indifferent to all, would stimulate hope and confidence, and so arouse to more active exertion and more plentiful production. The younger Mill, in his _Political Economy_, thought it worth while to enter on a careful refutation of Hume's reasoning. But the bimetallists of our time are disposed to agree with the shrewd Scotchman. They say that the active manager of industry, the business man or _entrepreneur_, in the first place is always more or less in debt; in the second place, is always buying labor, or materials, or goods, with the intention of selling a product at a later date at an advance in price. He habitually measures his gains in terms of money, and not in terms of the commodities he can buy with the money. In times when prices are falling, he finds it harder to meet his debts, and to dispose of his goods in hand at a money advance over what they cost him. But the business man, or entrepreneur, in our day is the director and initiator of industry. He employs labor, borrows capital, sets the wheels of industry in motion; it is his expectations and fears and hopes which determine primarily whether the investment of capital shall take place in large or small amount, and whether the machinery of production shall move smoothly and effectively, or slowly, hesitatingly, inefficiently. The argument certainly does not lack plausibility; nor can it be said to have often been squarely met. No doubt it takes the form, in the United States, more frequently of confused encomiums on the inspiriting effects of plentiful money, than of direct reasoning as to the ill effects of too little money, such as I have endeavored to state with fairness in the preceding sentences. Yet it does not lack weighty backing. So eminent an economist as President Francis A. Walker has ... insisted on the evils of a deficient supply of money as strangling the