How Goods are valued. Of Barter, of silver; Its Value as a Mettal, its Qualities fitting it for Money, and the Additional Value it received from being us'd as Money.
Goods have a Value from the Uses they are apply'd to; And their Value is Greater or Lesser, not so much from their more or less valuable, or necessary Uses: As from the greater or lesser Quantity of them in proportion to the Demand for them. Example. Water is of great use, yet of little Value; Because the Quantity of Water is much greater than the Demand for it. Diamonds are of little use, yet of great Value, because the Demand for Diamonds is much greater, than the Quantity of them.
Goods of the same kind differ in Value, from any difference in their Quality. (Ex.) One Horse is better than another Horse. Barley of one Country is better than Barley of another Country.
Goods change their Value, from any Change in their quantity, or in the Demand for them. (Ex.) If Oats be in greater Quantity than last year, and the Demand the same, or lesser, Oats will be less valuable.
Mr Lock sayes, The Value of Goods is according to their Quantity in Proportion to their Vent. The Vent of Goods cannot be greater than the Quantity, but the Demand may be greater: (Ex.) If the Quantity of Wine brought from France be a 100 Tunn, and the Demand be for 500Tunn, the Demand is greater than the Vent; and the 100 Tunn will sell at a higher Price, than if the Demand were only equal to the Vent. So the Prices of Goods are not according to the Quantity in Proportion to the Vent, but in Proportion to the Demand.
Before the use of Money was known, Goods were exchang'd by Barter, or Contract; and Contracts were made payable in Goods.
This State of Barter was inconvenient, and disadvantageous. 1. He who desir'd to Barter would not always find People who wanted the Goods he had, and had such Goods as he desir'd in Exchange.
2. Contracts taken payable in Goods were uncertain, for Goods of the same kind differ'd in value.
3. There was no measure by which he Proportion of Value Goods had to one another could be known.
In this State of Barter there was little Trade, and few Arts-men.
The People depended on the Landed-men. The Landed-men labour'd only so much of the Land as serv'd the occasions of their Families, to barter for such necessaries as their Land did not produce; and to lay up for Seed and bad Years. What remain'd was unlabour'd; or gifted on condition of Vassalage, and other Services.
The Losses and Difficulties that attended Barter, would force the Landed-men to a greater consumption of the Goods of their own Product, and a lesser Consumption of other Goods; or to supply themselves, they would turn the Land to the product of the several Goods they had occasion for; tho only proper to produce of one kind. So, much of the Land uas unlabour'd,what was labour'd was not employ'd to that by which it would have turn'd to most Advantage, nor the People to the Labour they were most fit for.
Silver as a Metal had a value in Barter, as other Goods; from the Uses it was then apply'd to.
As Goods of the same kind differ'd in value, so Silver differ'd from Silver, as it was more or less fine.
Silver was lyable to a change in its Value, as other Goods, from any change in its Quantity, or in the Demand for it.
Silver had Qualities which fitted it for the use of Money.
1. It could be brought to a Standard in Fineness, so was certain as to its Quality.
2. It was easie of Delivery.
3. It was of the same value in one Place that it was in another;or differ'd little, being easie of carriage.
4. It could be kept without Loss or Expense; taking up little Room, and being durable.
5. It could be divided without Loss, an Ounce in four Pieces, being equal in Value to an Ounce in one Piece.
Silver having these Qualities, 'its reasonable to think it was used as Money, before it was coin'd. What is mean't by being used as Money, is, that Silver in Bullion was the Measure by which Goods were valued: The Value by which Goods were exchanged: And in which Contracts were made payable.
He who had more Goods than he had use for, would choose to barter them for Silver, tho he had no use for it; Because, Silver was certain in its Quality: It was easie of delivery: It could be kept without Loss or Expense: And with it he could purchase other Goods as he had occasion, in Whole or in Part, at Home or Abroad, silver being divisible without Loss, and of the same Value in different Places.
(Ex.) If A.B. had a 100 Sheep, and desired to exchange them for Horses; C.D. had 10 Horses, which were equal to, or worth the 100sheep, and was willing to exchange: But as A.B. had not present occasion for the Horses, rather than be at the Expense of Keeping them, he would barter his Sheep with E.F. who had the Value to give in Silver, with which he could purchase the Horses at the time he had occasion.
Or if E.F had not Silver, but was satisfied to give his Bond for he Silver, or the Horses, payable at the time A.B. wanted them; A.B.
would choose to take the Bond payable in Silver, rather than in Horses: Because Silver was certain in Quality, and Horses differ'd much. So Silver was used as the value in which Contracts were made payable.
