The Gold Standard - Not a Fixed and Invariable Measure - By A.J. Warner

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Quinn

A.J. Warner argues that the gold standard is not a fixed, intrinsic, or invariable measure of value. He explains that gold’s value depends on the quantity of gold in circulation and on the presence and volume of other monies (silver and paper). Changes in these monetary surroundings alter the unit value of money, so stability is not inherent in gold alone. He concludes that stability requires regularity in money supply, with the two metals together historically providing more steadiness than either separately.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

The Gold Standard

Gold’s value and quantity

Interaction with silver and paper

No purely gold standard

Denonetization and remonetization

The role of money supply stability

98-84395-6Warner,Adoniram Judson The gold standard,not afixed and invariable.. [S.1.] [189-?] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESPRESEBVATION DIVISION # BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED-EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD 332.4ZWarner,Ardoniranj Jrudson,1834-v.26The gold standard,not a fixed snd invarinblemensure [189-?111.32 om.Caption title.Vol.of pamp.中 RESTBICTIONS ON USE: Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia UniversityLibranies. # TECHNICAL MICROFOBM DATA FILM SIZE: mmREDUCTION RATIO: 12:1 MAGE PLACEMENT:A IA IB IIB DATE FILMED: 4.8-98 INITIALS: 1 TBACKING\#: 31821 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES,BETHLEHEM,PA. 6ongah,18 # THE GOLD STANDARD. NOT A FIXED AND INVARIABLE MEASURE.By A.J.WARNER. The gold standard is constantly spoken of as though it were a measure fixed and invariable.In the recent discussion in the Senate on the silver bill the arguments of those opposed tosilver were based largely on this assumption.The theory of"intrinsic"value is thus made toadhere to gold after it has been given up respeeting everything else,and clouds and pervertsthe whole financial question. If the value of gold were"intrinsic,"then it would make no difference whether there waslittle or much in the world,for its value would always and everywhere be the same.So,ifgold.from any intrinsic quality,constituted a fixed and unvarying standard of value,it wouldmake no difference whether there was much or little of the metal inexistence.A hundredounces would be as much a standard as a million.This is manifestly absurd,and makes clearthe fact that the value of gold as much depends upon quantity,as compared with use,as any-thing else. But not only does the value of gold as money depend on the quantity of gold money inthe world,but upon other kinds of money in use with the gold;for if all other kinds of moneywere destroyed,would anybody contend that the value of gold money left would remain thesame?Or would the gold in that case constitute the same standard as now?Or,if our ownmoney were reduced to gold alone,would the value of a dollar of gold remain the same? England has s100,000,000 of silver and 8150,000,000 of uncovered paper,besides her gold.Ifthe silver and the paper were suddenly eliminated,would the value of gold sovereigns remainthe same,and would the money standard of England remain unchanged?Or,if the moneyvolume of France were cut down to her stock of gold,would not the value of the gold be therebyenormously enhanced? Probably one-third of the world's money is gold,the rest silver and paper.If the silverwere thrown in the sea and the paper burned,would not the value of gold be correspondinglyincreased? On the other hand,writers on econonies agree that if all the gold-using countries shouldeach,at the same time,double its volume of money by the issue of paper or in any other way,no gold would be expelled from any one,but that in every such country the unit value of allmoney,including the gold,would be reduced one-half. Is it not plain,then,that the value of gold,and withit the gold standard,depend not onlyon the quantity of gold money at a given time in existence,but upon other kinds of moneyconeurrently in circulation with it? No country,therefore,has a purely gold standard,for it is plainly one thing to keep moneyat the level of gold and quite another to have a purely gold currency or an unadulteratedgold standard. It is only in the sense that all the currency is at the gold level that any country can be saidto be on the gold standard,and any increase or decrease at any given time of other kinds ofmoney varies this standard. The denonetization of silver has unquestionably operated to enormously enhance the valueof gold and to make of gold a very different standard from

FAQs

Why does Warner reject the idea of gold as an intrinsic, unchanging standard of value?

He argues that gold value would vary if the world’s quantities of gold and other money types changed, making the notion of an unvarying intrinsic measure untenable.

How does Warner say other kinds of money affect gold’s value?

He states that the value of gold depends not only on gold quantity but also on other monies concurrently circulating, so shifting silver or paper volumes changes the gold standard.

What, according to Warner, is required to secure stability in a money standard?

Stability can be secured only through constancy and regularity in money supply, and he claims two metals together have been more stable than either alone due to more regular total supply.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Quinn