Page:Stabilizing the dollar, Fisher, 1920.djvu/136

82 value or general purchasing power than is a pound of sugar or a dozen eggs. It is almost as absurd to define a unit of value, or general purchasing power, in terms of weight, as to define a unit of length in terms of weight, to define a yardstick as, let us say, any stick which weighs an ounce.

What good does it do us to be assured that our dollar weighs just as much as ever? Does this fact help us in the least to bear the high cost of living? What we really want to know is whether the dollar buys as much as ever. We want a dollar which will always buy the same aggregate quantity of bread, butter, beef, bacon, beans, sugar, clothing, fuel, and the other essential things for which we spend it.

There used to be a song about a shopkeeper who, being asked the price of a box of socks, replied, "One dollar a box." "I'll take the box," said the customer, handing over his dollar; whereupon the shopkeeper took out the socks and handed over the box. " I sold you the box, not the socks," said he!

Our dollar is somewhat like that box. It keeps its form, but loses its content. The removal, in this case, is not intentional or committed by one of the parties to the contract, but so much the worse!—for the injured party has no recourse. It is as though the buyer of the box of socks were forced to agree in advance to let a bystander remove or insert socks ad libitum.

What is needed is to stabilize, or standardize, the dollar just as we have already standardized the yardstick, the pound weight, the bushel basket, the pint cup, the horsepower, the volt, and indeed all the units of commerce except the dollar. All these units of