Thus the factor in Production technically termed Land is represented in Distribution by the Wealth element technically termed Rent; whereas the factor in Production technically termed Labor is represented in Distribution by the Wealth element technically termed Wages. IV. MONEY All allocations of Wealth, from the two primary ones--Wages and Rent--to the least of all that are secondary to either of those two, are made through Trade, and in the course of Trade are measured by comparisons of Value, which is the universal regulator of Trade. And as in Production so in Distribution, for Value measurements Money is the more or less stable yardstick and Money terms the spokesmen. Would we know the Value of Wealth in any of its distributive allotments, we must look for it in terms of Money. Would we know the Value of any of the various kinds and degrees of Labor that have produced it, Money terms offer us the only language we can use or understand. Would we know the Value of any of the various kinds and degrees of Land from which and upon which such Wealth has been produced by Labor--whether identified by the term Rent as in Economics or by such colloquial or business terms as “groundrent,” or “selling price,”--Money is our sole interpreter, defective though it be. Would we place any or all of this information on record, we must do so in terms of Money. What, then, is Money--this prestidigitateur of both Production and Distribution? Is it coin? Is it a promise to pay? Is it a fiat of Value? Is it a magic signal? Before considering whether or not it is coin, let us think of how slightly coin is used in Trade. Before suggesting promises to pay, let us reflect upon the variability and questionability of promises. Before falling back upon “fiat,” let us know somewhat of the wisdom and responsibility behind the “fiat.” If we probe deep, as in these Lessons we have tried to do, shall we not find that the only level of Value is the Labor level? Not Labor time. That varies in Value with individuals. But Labor service or product. And do not the market prices of stable Labor products come as near to the Value level as may be necessary for all the purposes of Trade relations? An absolute level of Value is doubtless as far beyond the possibilities as an absolute sea level. But as we adopt a “mean level” of the sea, why not a “mean level” of Value? And why not express the relations of this level in terms of Money properly stabilized?