Is it not true, then, that there is _some_ sort of relation between gold production and world prices? It is. Gold is like other commodities. Its value tends to sink as its quantity is increased. As its value sinks, prices tend to rise. As to the elasticity in the value-curve for gold, I think it will be best to reserve discussion till a later chapter,[372] in Part III. We shall there find reason for thinking that gold has much greater elasticity in this respect than most other commodities. That its value should fall _proportionately_ with an increase in its quantity, I should not at all conclude. Even if its value did sink proportionately with an increase, prices would rise proportionately only if the values of goods remained unchanged. But why do we need a _quantity theory_ of _money_, with all its artificial assumptions, and its law of strict proportionality, to enable us to assert the simple fact that gold, like other commodities, has a value not independent of its quantity? What theory of money would deny it? Surely not the commodity or bullionist theory. For that theory, which seeks the explanation of the value of money in the value of gold in the arts, it would go without saying that an increase in the supply of gold for the arts would lower its value there and consequently, its value as money. Surely the theory which I shall maintain in Part III of this book will not deny that increased gold production tends to lower the value of money, and consequently to raise prices. With the "quantity theorist" who is content with this conclusion, I have no quarrel--unless he claims this obvious truth as the unique possession of the quantity theory! CHAPTER XIX STATISTICAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE QUANTITY THEORY--THE REDISCOVERY OF A BURIED CITY