died away. Nobody understood how it was, but everyone knew that, although he had more money than before, he was not so well off. The money had lost a great part of its purchasing power; it was more difficult than formerly to obtain supplies of the necessaries and comforts of life. It is not difficult for us to see how this happened; they had sent away the things that really support life and add to its enjoyments; they had parted with the food and clothing that a month's labour from the whole population had been able to produce. And what had they received in return? That which would feed no hungry mouths, and cover no bare backs. The gold that was brought to them would have tended to produce a rise in prices even if it had been a free gift and if no commodities had been sent away in exchange for it. But now that the available supply of commodities for home consumption was reduced whilst the supply of money was increased, of course money became relatively less valuable; and when money and commodities were exchanged—or in other words, when purchases
Page:Tales in Political Economy by Millicent Garrett Fawcett.djvu/97
IV.]
FOREIGN TRADE.
87
