It is a familiar doctrine that the quantity of money is irrelevant, that things go on in much the same way whether money is abundant or scarce, the only difference being that in the one case prices are high and in the other, low; that, in particular, it is a gross fallacy to connect the rate of interest with the amount of money, since (as many writers would put it) the rate of interest depends on the amount of _capital_ rather than _money_. At the opposite extreme, we have writers like Brooks Adams (_Law of Civilization and Decay_), who see the fate of nations and the progress of civilization resting on the abundance or scarcity of money. Fisher takes the first position in its extremest form.[230] The truth, I think, is intermediate. The effects of the New World discoveries of gold and silver after the voyage of Columbus on trade and industry were tremendous. Trade was enormously increased. Walker, in his _Inter__national Bimetallism_,[231] asking, from the standpoint of a quantity theorist, why prices only increased 200% while money increased 470%, admits that the chief reason was the increase in trade, due in large part to the very increase in money itself. Sombart, in his _Der Moderne Kapitalismus_,[232] finds in this influx of money a tremendous source of capitalistic accumulations, (a) for the Conquistadores, (b) for the handicraftsmen whose prices rose faster than their costs, (c) for tenants whose rents were fixed in money, (d) for landowners, whose rents were fixed in kind [a point not obviously true], and (e) for bankers, as the Fugger. An increase of capital, savings that would otherwise not have been made, must have profoundly modified the whole industrial system, and greatly increased both industry and commerce. If it be objected that effects of this sort are not usual, that they came in a world which had been starved for money, and which, by means of the enormous increase in money was able to pass from a "natural" to a money economy, I reply that the difference between such a case and the usual effects of an increase of money are in degree rather than in kind. The world of Columbus' day was in part on a money economy, and the world to-day, despite Professor Fisher's emphatic denial,[233] still employs a great deal of barter, or equivalents of barter. I shall revert to this point later. But even this consideration would not rob Sombart's points of their significance for modern conditions. Further, we have an even more striking case, on Walker's own showing, in the effects of the Californian and Australian[234] gold discoveries in the 19th Century on trade, industry, and speculation.[235]