Watson's Magazine, Vol. IV, No. 1, March, 1906Various
General
Watson's Magazine, Vol. IV, No. 1, March, 1906
Various
United States -- Politics and government -- Periodicals
The Rothschilds in Europe are the “Power” that controls the volume of
money in every one of the European countries, and the result is they are
the “absolute masters of the industries and commerce” of every government
in Europe.
Furthermore, it can be safely said that through their agent, August
Belmont, and his clique in New York, they are aiming to become the
“absolute masters of our industries and commerce” here in the United
States.
Can it be possible that an American President would join in this crusade
against the best interests of the American people? It would really appear
so, for Theodore Roosevelt in his recent message to Congress recommends
retiring of the greenbacks and “redeeming” the silver dollars in gold.
That means that our gold coin shall be our only perfect money, with
National Bank notes (the debts of the banks, drawing double interest,
once on the bonds deposited to secure the notes, and again on the notes;
for no bank note passes over the counter of the bank issuing it, until
interest is paid in advance), as a substitute for money; thus giving the
banks the power to increase or diminish our volume of money, just as it
may suit their sweet will and avaricious purposes.
At this point of the discussion we are told that we must have a standard
of value, and that gold is a never-varying standard of value the world
over. In reply to that I find in Sir Frederick Eden’s table of English
money, from the Conquest in 1066 down to 1601, that in 1551 gold was
worth only 4 shillings 7½ pence per ounce in London—a little over one
dollar of our money; and in Doubleday’s “Financial History of England,”
page 277, that in 1813 gold was worth 5 pounds 10 shillings an ounce in
London—twenty-seven dollars and a half in our money. Does that look as
though gold was a never-varying standard of value?
Besides, there is and can be no such thing as a “standard of value.” We
can have a standard for quantity, gravity, and extension, but not of
value. We have the gallon, the bushel, the pound and ton, the yard, rod
and mile, but where is the unit for value?
Some may say; “Why the dollar is the unit of value”—not correct. The
dollar is the unit in the expression of price; and, as we have seen,
price is the ratio, so the word dollar is not a unit of value. Not until
we can measure an idea with a quart cup, measure it with a foot rule,
or put it in the scales and weigh it, can we have a measure of value;
for remember, value is an idea, an action of the mind, and what has
civilization invented to measure an idea with?
Value is human estimation of desirable things, which are limited in
quantity, or which require sacrifice to obtain.
There we have a full, clear and scientific definition of value, “Human
estimation”—clearly an action of the mind—an idea.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account