cannot be determined by product or output which on one hand may be diminished by friction and on the other hand may be amplified by postponement: it can only be scientifically determined by measureable potentialities after taking into consideration the cost of providing order and facilities.
Partly because of its general desirability and its physical integrity, but chiefly because of its scarcity, which at the beginning of its use almost amounted to a definite limitation of quantity (an essential element in a measure of value), gold, in the days of arbitrary political power, came to be regarded as the most dependable check upon the undue exercise of individuality in those distressing moments when divine right was noticeably out of touch with divine guidance. Gold, in fact, became a token of value much more durable than the King’s favor; and the dour money-lender of that period tried very hard to impress this truth on such of his children as had social aspirations. As for the merchant, the right to call on gold in Amsterdam far outweighed the slowly-moving aid of an ambassador, and was even more potent than the obstructive potentate with whom he had to reckon. Economically, in that golden age when divine right was so calmly misappropriated by mortal men, gold was king of kings, lord of lords and the only ruler of princes. It is no wonder, then, that it was worshipped. It was omnipotent. It is scarcely a cause for wonder that this element of worship, so long ingrained, still lingers in democracy, even though we are quite sure that we have got rid of the personal devils it so capably checked. The real cause for wonder is that we now worship the shadow and not the substance. That this form of worship still lingers may be readily learned by making, in certain conservative circles, a good-natured query in regard to the scientific validity of the gold standard. One is rebuked, not for curiosity but for irreverence.
The substance and body of gold, then—not its image, as today—was rightly regarded as the least impairable reward of effort, and was accepted as a measure of value because it was a most effective measure of individual freedom—freedom to move, freedom to act, and freedom to choose—and this is