WEBVTT

NOTE 11.13. The Fallacy of the Equation of Exchange

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.400
13. The Fallacy of the Equation of Exchange

2
00:00:07.400 --> 00:00:12.920
The basis on which we have been explaining the purchasing power of money and the changes

3
00:00:12.920 --> 00:00:20.440
in and consequences of monetary phenomena has been an analysis of individual action.

4
00:00:20.440 --> 00:00:27.360
The behavior of aggregates, such as the aggregate demand for money and aggregate supply, has

5
00:00:27.360 --> 00:00:31.360
has been constructed out of their individual components.

6
00:00:31.360 --> 00:00:37.840
In this way, monetary theory has been integrated into general economics.

7
00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:43.260
Monetary theory in American economics, however, apart from the Keynesian system, which we

8
00:00:43.260 --> 00:00:50.280
discuss elsewhere, has been presented in entirely different terms in the quasi-mathematical

9
00:00:50.280 --> 00:00:56.660
holistic equation of exchange derived especially from Irving Fisher.

10
00:00:56.660 --> 00:01:02.900
The prevalence of this fallacious approach makes a detailed critique worthwhile.

11
00:01:02.900 --> 00:01:08.580
The classic exposition of the equation of exchange was in Irving Fisher's Purchasing

12
00:01:08.580 --> 00:01:10.300
Power of Money.

13
00:01:10.300 --> 00:01:16.940
Fisher describes the chief purpose of his work as that of investigating the causes determining

14
00:01:16.940 --> 00:01:19.620
the purchasing power of money.

15
00:01:19.620 --> 00:01:25.720
Money is a generally acceptable medium of exchange, and purchasing power is rightly

16
00:01:25.720 --> 00:01:38.660
He explains that the lower the prices of goods, the larger will be the quantities that can

17
00:01:38.660 --> 00:01:44.240
be bought by a given amount of money, and therefore the greater the purchasing power

18
00:01:44.240 --> 00:01:48.940
of money, vice versa if the prices of goods rise.

19
00:01:48.940 --> 00:01:53.740
This is correct, but then comes this flagrant non sequitur.

20
00:01:53.740 --> 00:01:59.940
In short, the purchasing power of money is the reciprocal of the level of prices, so

21
00:01:59.940 --> 00:02:05.940
that the study of the purchasing power of money is identical with the study of price

22
00:02:05.940 --> 00:02:06.940
levels.

23
00:02:06.940 --> 00:02:12.620
From then on, Fisher proceeds to investigate the causes of the price level.

24
00:02:12.620 --> 00:02:20.060
Thus, by a simple in short, Fisher has leaped from the real world of an array of individual

25
00:02:20.060 --> 00:02:41.780
The price level is allegedly determined by three aggregative factors, the quantity of

26
00:02:41.780 --> 00:02:49.700
money in circulation, its velocity of circulation, the average number of times during a period

27
00:02:49.700 --> 00:02:57.500
that a unit of money is exchanged for goods and the total volume of goods bought for money.

28
00:02:57.500 --> 00:03:04.820
These are related by the famous equation of exchange, MV equals PT.

29
00:03:04.820 --> 00:03:09.860
This equation of exchange is built up by Fisher in the following way.

30
00:03:09.860 --> 00:03:13.980
First, consider an individual exchange transaction.

31
00:03:13.980 --> 00:03:18.820
Smith buys 10 pounds of sugar for 7 cents a pound.

32
00:03:18.820 --> 00:03:25.900
We are using dollars and cents here instead of weights of gold for the sake of simplicity,

33
00:03:25.900 --> 00:03:30.100
and because Fisher himself uses these expressions.

34
00:03:30.100 --> 00:03:37.540
An exchange has been made, Smith giving up 70 cents to Jones, and Jones transferring

35
00:03:37.540 --> 00:03:40.320
10 pounds of sugar to Smith.

36
00:03:40.320 --> 00:03:48.300
From this fact, Fisher somehow deduces that 10 pounds of sugar have been regarded as equal

37
00:03:48.300 --> 00:03:57.140
to 70 cents, and this fact may be expressed thus, 70 cents equals 10 pounds multiplied

38
00:03:57.140 --> 00:03:59.660
by 7 cents a pound.

39
00:03:59.660 --> 00:04:06.580
This offhand assumption of equality is not self-evident, as Fisher apparently assumes,

40
00:04:06.580 --> 00:04:09.700
but a tangle of fallacy and irrelevance.

41
00:04:09.700 --> 00:04:16.620
Who has regarded the 10 pounds of sugar as equal to the 70 cents?

42
00:04:16.620 --> 00:04:22.440
By not Smith, the buyer of the sugar, he bought the sugar precisely because he considered

43
00:04:22.440 --> 00:04:26.660
the two quantities as unequal in value.

44
00:04:26.660 --> 00:04:32.460
To him, the value of the sugar was greater than the value of the 70 cents, and that is

45
00:04:32.460 --> 00:04:35.020
why he made the exchange.

46
00:04:35.020 --> 00:04:41.140
On the other hand, Jones, the seller of the sugar, made the exchange precisely because

47
00:04:41.140 --> 00:04:51.140
In other words, the values of the two goods were unequal in the opposite direction, that is, he valued the 70 cents more than he did the sugar.

48
00:04:51.140 --> 00:04:58.140
There is thus never any equality of values on the part of the two participants.

49
00:04:58.140 --> 00:05:07.140
The assumption that an exchange presumes some sort of equality has been a delusion of economic theory since Aristotle.

50
00:05:07.140 --> 00:05:16.140
And it is surprising that Fisher, an exponent of the subjective theory of value in many respects, fell into the ancient trap.

51
00:05:16.140 --> 00:05:27.140
There is certainly no equality of values between two goods exchanged, or, as in this case, between the money and the good.

52
00:05:27.140 --> 00:05:35.140
Is there an equality in anything else, and can Fisher's doctrine be salvaged by finding such an equality?

53
00:05:35.140 --> 00:05:42.440
Equality? Obviously not. There is no equality in weight, length, or any other magnitude.

54
00:05:42.440 --> 00:05:50.140
But to Fisher, the equation represents an equality in value between the money side and

55
00:05:50.140 --> 00:05:58.140
the goods side. Thus, Fisher states, the total money paid is equal in value to the total

56
00:05:58.140 --> 00:06:05.740
The equation thus has a money side and a goods side.

57
00:06:05.740 --> 00:06:08.980
The money side is the total money paid.

58
00:06:08.980 --> 00:06:15.900
The goods side is made up of the products of quantities of goods exchanged multiplied

59
00:06:15.900 --> 00:06:18.920
by respective prices.

60
00:06:18.920 --> 00:06:26.220
We have seen, however, that even for the individual exchange and setting aside the holistic problem

61
00:06:26.220 --> 00:06:35.220
In the realm of total exchanges, there is no such equality that tells us anything about the facts of economic life.

62
00:06:35.220 --> 00:06:42.220
There is no value-of-money side equaling a value-of-goods side.

63
00:06:42.220 --> 00:06:46.220
The equal sign is illegitimate in Fisher's equation.

64
00:06:46.220 --> 00:06:52.220
How then account for the general acceptance of the equal sign and the equation?

65
00:06:52.220 --> 00:06:58.220
The answer is that mathematically the equation is of course an obvious truism.

66
00:06:58.220 --> 00:07:03.720
70 cents equals 10 pounds of sugar times 7 cents per pound of sugar.

67
00:07:03.720 --> 00:07:07.220
In other words, 70 cents equals 70 cents.

68
00:07:07.220 --> 00:07:12.720
But this truism conveys no knowledge of economic fact whatsoever.

69
00:07:12.720 --> 00:07:18.220
Indeed, it is possible to discover an endless number of such equations

70
00:07:18.220 --> 00:07:21.720
on which esoteric articles and books could be published.

71
00:07:21.720 --> 00:07:37.720
Thus, 70 cents equals 100 grains of sand times the number of students in a class divided by 100 grains of sand plus 70 cents minus the number of students in a class.

72
00:07:37.720 --> 00:07:49.720
Then we could say that the causal factors determining the quantity of money are the number of grains of sand, the number of students in the class and the quantity of money.

73
00:07:49.720 --> 00:07:58.520
What we have in Fisher's equation, in short, is two money sides, each identical with the other.

74
00:07:58.520 --> 00:08:03.720
In fact, it is an identity and not an equation.

75
00:08:03.720 --> 00:08:08.520
To say that such an equation is not very enlightening is self-evident.

76
00:08:08.520 --> 00:08:16.120
All that this equation tells us about economic life is that the total money received in a transaction

77
00:08:16.120 --> 00:08:20.320
is equal to the total money given up in a transaction.

78
00:08:20.320 --> 00:08:23.820
Surely an uninteresting truism.

79
00:08:23.820 --> 00:08:27.200
Let us reconsider the elements of the equation

80
00:08:27.200 --> 00:08:30.480
on the basis of the determinants of price,

81
00:08:30.480 --> 00:08:33.240
since that is our center of interest.

82
00:08:33.240 --> 00:08:38.240
Fisher's equation of exchange for an individual transaction

83
00:08:38.260 --> 00:08:40.940
can be rearranged as follows.

84
00:08:40.940 --> 00:08:44.600
Seven cents divided by one pound of sugar

85
00:08:44.600 --> 00:08:54.700
Fischer considers that this equation yields the significant information that the price

86
00:08:54.700 --> 00:09:02.480
is determined by the total money spent divided by the total supply of goods sold.

87
00:09:02.480 --> 00:09:09.280
Actually, of course, the equation as an equation tells us nothing about the determinants of

88
00:09:09.280 --> 00:09:10.280
price.

89
00:09:10.280 --> 00:09:14.280
Thus we could set up an equally truistic equation.

90
00:09:14.280 --> 00:09:22.280
Seven cents divided by one pound of sugar equals seventy cents divided by one hundred bushels of wheat

91
00:09:22.280 --> 00:09:27.780
times one hundred bushels of wheat divided by ten pounds of sugar.

92
00:09:27.780 --> 00:09:35.280
This equation is just as mathematically true as the other, and on Fisher's own mathematical grounds,

93
00:09:35.280 --> 00:09:42.280
We could argue cogently that Fisher has left the important wheat price out of the equation.

94
00:09:42.280 --> 00:09:51.280
We could easily add innumerable equations with an infinite number of complex factors that determine price.

95
00:09:51.280 --> 00:10:02.280
The only knowledge we can have of the determinants of price is the knowledge deduced logically from the axioms of praxeology.

96
00:10:02.280 --> 00:10:16.280
Mathematics can, at best, only translate our previous knowledge into relatively unintelligible form, or usually it will mislead the reader, as in the present case.

97
00:10:16.280 --> 00:10:28.280
The price in the sugar transaction may be made to equal any number of truistic equations, but it is determined by the supply and demand of the participants,

98
00:10:28.280 --> 00:10:37.280
and these in turn are governed by the utility of the two goods on the value scales of the participants in exchange.

99
00:10:37.280 --> 00:10:44.280
This is the fruitful approach in economic theory, not the sterile mathematical one.

100
00:10:44.280 --> 00:10:50.280
If we consider the equation of exchange as revealing the determinants of price,

101
00:10:50.280 --> 00:10:57.280
we find that Fisher must be implying that the determinants are the 70 cents and the 10 pounds of sugar.

102
00:10:57.280 --> 00:11:15.280
But it should be clear that things cannot determine prices. Things, whether pieces of money or pieces of sugar or pieces of anything else, can never act. They cannot set prices or supply and demand schedules.

103
00:11:15.280 --> 00:11:19.680
All this can be done only by human action.

104
00:11:19.680 --> 00:11:24.880
Only individual actors can decide whether or not to buy.

105
00:11:24.880 --> 00:11:28.680
Only their value scales determine prices.

106
00:11:28.680 --> 00:11:36.280
It is this profound mistake that lies at the root of the fallacies of the Fisher equation of exchange.

107
00:11:36.280 --> 00:11:45.580
Human action is abstracted out of the picture, and things are assumed to be in control of economic life.

108
00:11:45.580 --> 00:11:55.280
Thus, either the equation of exchange is a trivial truism, in which case it is no better than a million other such truistic equations,

109
00:11:55.280 --> 00:12:01.280
and has no place in science, which rests on simplicity and economy of methods,

110
00:12:01.280 --> 00:12:09.480
Or else, it is supposed to convey some important truths about economics and the determination of prices.

111
00:12:09.480 --> 00:12:19.180
In that case, it makes the profound error of substituting for correct logical analysis of causes based on human action,

112
00:12:19.180 --> 00:12:23.680
misleading assumptions based on action by things.

113
00:12:23.680 --> 00:12:28.380
At best, the Fisher equation is superfluous and trivial.

114
00:12:28.380 --> 00:12:37.380
At worst, it is wrong and misleading, although Fisher himself believed that it conveyed important causal truths.

115
00:12:37.380 --> 00:12:44.380
Thus, Fisher's equation of exchange is pernicious even for the individual transaction.

116
00:12:44.380 --> 00:12:49.380
How much more so when he extends it to the economy as a whole?

117
00:12:49.380 --> 00:12:52.380
For Fisher, this too was a simple step.

118
00:12:52.380 --> 00:13:02.380
The equation of exchange is simply the sum of the equations involved in all individual exchanges, as in a period of time.

119
00:13:02.380 --> 00:13:09.380
Let us now, for the sake of argument, assume that there is nothing wrong with Fisher's individual equations,

120
00:13:09.380 --> 00:13:17.380
and consider his summing up to arrive at the total equation for the economy as a whole.

121
00:13:17.380 --> 00:13:27.380
Let us also abstract from the statistical difficulties involved in discovering the magnitudes for any given historical situation.

122
00:13:27.380 --> 00:13:37.380
Let us look at several individual transactions of the sort that Fisher tries to build into a total equation of exchange.

123
00:13:37.380 --> 00:13:41.380
A. Exchanges 70 cents for 10 pounds of sugar.

124
00:13:41.380 --> 00:13:45.380
B. Exchanges $10 for one hat.

125
00:13:45.380 --> 00:13:55.620
C. Exchanges 60 cents for one pound of butter. D. Exchanges $500 for one television set.

126
00:13:55.620 --> 00:14:01.820
What is the equation of exchange for this community of four? Obviously, there is no

127
00:14:01.820 --> 00:14:09.500
problem in summing up the total amount of money spent, $511.30. But what about the other

128
00:14:09.500 --> 00:14:11.620
on the other side of the equation.

129
00:14:11.620 --> 00:14:18.980
Of course, if we wish to be meaninglessly truistic, we could simply write $511.30 on

130
00:14:18.980 --> 00:14:24.140
the other side of the equation without any laborious building up at all.

131
00:14:24.140 --> 00:14:28.420
But if we merely do this, there is no point to the whole procedure.

132
00:14:28.420 --> 00:14:35.260
Furthermore, as Fisher wants to get at the determination of prices, or the price level,

133
00:14:35.260 --> 00:14:38.780
he cannot rest content at this trivial stage.

134
00:14:38.780 --> 00:14:42.180
Yet he continues on the truistic level.

135
00:14:42.180 --> 00:14:53.180
$511.30 equals 7 cents divided by one pound of sugar times 10 pounds of sugar plus $10

136
00:14:53.180 --> 00:15:01.980
divided by one hat times one hat plus 60 cents divided by one pound of butter times one pound

137
00:15:01.980 --> 00:15:09.640
of Butter plus $500 divided by 1 TV set times 1 TV set.

138
00:15:09.640 --> 00:15:16.620
This is what Fisher does, and this is still the same trivial truism that total money spent

139
00:15:16.620 --> 00:15:19.060
equals total money spent.

140
00:15:19.060 --> 00:15:27.400
This triviality is not redeemed by referring to P times Q, P prime times Q prime, etc.,

141
00:15:27.400 --> 00:15:34.000
with each P referring to a price, and each Q referring to the quantity of a good, so

142
00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:42.920
that E equals total money spent equals PQ plus P prime Q prime plus P double prime Q

143
00:15:42.920 --> 00:15:50.660
double prime plus etc. Writing the equation in this symbolic form does not add to its

144
00:15:50.660 --> 00:15:53.240
significance or usefulness.

145
00:15:53.240 --> 00:15:59.740
Fisher, attempting to find the causes of the price level, has to proceed further.

146
00:15:59.740 --> 00:16:07.840
We have already seen that even for the individual transaction, the equation P equals E divided

147
00:16:07.840 --> 00:16:16.120
by Q, price equals total money spent divided by the quantity of goods sold, is only a trivial

148
00:16:16.120 --> 00:16:24.120
and is erroneous when one tries to use it to analyze the determinants of price.

149
00:16:24.120 --> 00:16:30.120
This is the equation for the price of sugar in Fisherine symbolic form.

150
00:16:30.120 --> 00:16:37.120
How much worse is Fisher's attempt to arrive at such an equation for the whole community

151
00:16:37.120 --> 00:16:43.120
and to use this to discover the determinants of a mythical price level?

152
00:16:43.120 --> 00:16:51.120
For simplicity's sake, let us take only the two transactions of A and B, for the sugar and the hat.

153
00:16:51.120 --> 00:17:03.120
Total money spent, E, clearly equals $10.70, which of course equals total money received, PQ plus P'Q'.

154
00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:08.120
But Fisher is looking for an equation to explain the price level.

155
00:17:08.120 --> 00:17:22.120
Therefore, he brings in the concept of an average price level, P, and a total quantity of goods sold, T, such that E is supposed to equal Pt.

156
00:17:22.120 --> 00:17:37.120
But the transition from the trivial truism E equals PQ plus P prime Q prime to the equation E equals Pt cannot be made as blithely as Fisher believes.

157
00:17:37.120 --> 00:17:44.640
Indeed, if we are interested in the explanation of economic life, it cannot be made at all.

158
00:17:44.640 --> 00:17:51.040
For example, for the two transactions, or for the four, what is tea?

159
00:17:51.040 --> 00:17:58.660
How can ten pounds of sugar be added to one hat, or to one pound of butter, to arrive

160
00:17:58.660 --> 00:18:00.080
at tea?

161
00:18:00.080 --> 00:18:06.960
Obviously, no such addition can be performed, and therefore, Fisher's holistic tea, the

162
00:18:06.960 --> 00:18:14.000
The total physical quantity of all goods exchanged is a meaningless concept and cannot be used

163
00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:16.440
in scientific analysis.

164
00:18:16.440 --> 00:18:24.280
If T is a meaningless concept, then P must be also, since the two presumably vary inversely

165
00:18:24.280 --> 00:18:26.960
if E remains constant.

166
00:18:26.960 --> 00:18:29.680
And what, indeed, of P?

167
00:18:29.680 --> 00:18:37.040
Here we have a whole array of prices, 7 cents a pound, 10 dollars a hat, etc.

168
00:18:37.040 --> 00:18:39.840
What is the price level?

169
00:18:39.840 --> 00:18:47.960
Clearly there is no price level here, there are only individual prices of specific goods.

170
00:18:47.960 --> 00:18:51.160
But here, error is likely to persist.

171
00:18:51.160 --> 00:18:58.000
Cannot prices in some way be averaged to give us a working definition of a price level?

172
00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:04.080
This is Fischer's solution. Prices of the various goods are in some way averaged to

173
00:19:04.080 --> 00:19:12.940
arrive at P. Then P equals E divided by T, and all that remains is the difficult statistical

174
00:19:12.940 --> 00:19:21.100
task of arriving at T. However, the concept of an average for prices is a common fallacy.

175
00:19:21.100 --> 00:19:28.220
It is easy to demonstrate that prices can never be averaged for different commodities.

176
00:19:28.220 --> 00:19:34.540
We shall use a simple average for our example, but the same conclusion applies to any sort

177
00:19:34.540 --> 00:19:41.300
of weighted average, such as is recommended by Fisher or by anyone else.

178
00:19:41.300 --> 00:19:43.800
What is an average?

179
00:19:43.800 --> 00:19:49.220
Reflection will show that for several things to be averaged together, they must first be

180
00:19:49.220 --> 00:19:50.580
totaled.

181
00:19:50.580 --> 00:19:57.580
In order to be thus added together, the things must have some unit in common, and it must

182
00:19:57.580 --> 00:20:00.840
be this unit that is added.

183
00:20:00.840 --> 00:20:04.340
Only homogeneous units can be added together.

184
00:20:04.340 --> 00:20:12.900
Thus, if one object is 10 yards long, a second is 15 yards long, and a third 20 yards long,

185
00:20:12.900 --> 00:20:18.760
we may obtain an average length by adding together the number of yards and dividing

186
00:20:18.760 --> 00:20:23.720
Earning by Three, Yielding an Average Length of 15 Yards

187
00:20:23.720 --> 00:20:31.360
Now money prices are in terms of ratios of units, cents per pound of sugar, cents per

188
00:20:31.360 --> 00:20:35.240
hat, cents per pound of butter, etc.

189
00:20:35.240 --> 00:20:41.880
Suppose we take the first two prices, seven cents divided by one pound of sugar and one

190
00:20:41.880 --> 00:20:45.400
thousand cents divided by one hat.

191
00:20:45.400 --> 00:20:49.200
Can these two prices be averaged in any way?

192
00:20:49.200 --> 00:20:55.840
Can we add one thousand and seven together, get one thousand seven cents, and divide by

193
00:20:55.840 --> 00:20:58.080
something to get a price level?

194
00:20:58.080 --> 00:21:00.120
Obviously not.

195
00:21:00.120 --> 00:21:06.560
Simple algebra demonstrates that the only way to add the ratios in terms of cents, certainly

196
00:21:06.560 --> 00:21:11.360
there is no other common unit available, is as follows.

197
00:21:11.360 --> 00:21:19.240
One hats and one thousand pounds of sugar cents divided by hats times pounds of sugar.

198
00:21:19.240 --> 00:21:24.180
Obviously neither the numerator nor the denominator makes sense.

199
00:21:24.180 --> 00:21:26.960
The units are incommensurable.

200
00:21:26.960 --> 00:21:33.420
Fisher's more complicated concept of a weighted average with the prices weighted by the quantities

201
00:21:33.420 --> 00:21:40.960
of each good sold solves the problem of units in the numerator but not in the denominator.

202
00:21:40.960 --> 00:21:51.240
P equals PQ plus P prime Q prime plus P double prime Q double prime divided by Q plus Q prime

203
00:21:51.240 --> 00:21:53.480
plus Q double prime.

204
00:21:53.480 --> 00:21:59.120
The PQs are all money, but the Qs are still different units.

205
00:21:59.120 --> 00:22:07.160
Thus any concept of average price level involves adding or multiplying quantities of completely

206
00:22:07.160 --> 00:22:21.800
Even pounds of sugar and pounds of butter cannot be added together, because they are

207
00:22:21.800 --> 00:22:27.000
two different goods, and their valuation is completely different.

208
00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:33.000
And if one is tempted to use poundage as the common unit of quantity, what is the pound

209
00:22:33.000 --> 00:22:37.960
and weight of a concert or a medical or legal service.

210
00:22:37.960 --> 00:22:45.920
It is evident that P.T. in the total equation of exchange is a completely fallacious concept.

211
00:22:45.920 --> 00:22:53.480
While the equation of E equals P.Q. for an individual transaction is at least a trivial

212
00:22:53.480 --> 00:23:01.620
truism, although not very enlightening, the equation E equals P.T. for the whole society

213
00:23:01.620 --> 00:23:09.180
is a false one. Neither P nor T can be defined meaningfully, and this would be necessary

214
00:23:09.180 --> 00:23:16.780
for the equation to have any validity. We are left only with E equals PQ plus P prime

215
00:23:16.780 --> 00:23:24.900
Q prime, etc., which gives us only the useless truism E equals E.

216
00:23:24.900 --> 00:23:31.100
Since the P concept is completely fallacious, it is obvious that Fischer's use of the equation

217
00:23:31.100 --> 00:23:38.300
to reveal the determinants of prices is also fallacious. He states that if E doubles and

218
00:23:38.300 --> 00:23:45.580
T remains the same, P, the price level, must double. On the holistic level, this is not

219
00:23:45.580 --> 00:23:53.520
even a truism. It is false, because neither P nor T can be meaningfully defined. All we

220
00:23:53.520 --> 00:24:00.420
can say is that when E doubles, E doubles. For the individual transaction, the equation

221
00:24:00.420 --> 00:24:02.580
Man is at least meaningful.

222
00:24:02.580 --> 00:24:08.940
If a man now spends a dollar forty on ten pounds of sugar, it is obvious that the price has

223
00:24:08.940 --> 00:24:12.900
doubled from seven cents to fourteen cents a pound.

224
00:24:12.900 --> 00:24:19.500
Still, this is only a mathematical truism, telling us nothing of the real causal forces

225
00:24:19.500 --> 00:24:20.980
at work.

226
00:24:20.980 --> 00:24:27.980
But Fisher never attempted to use this individual equation to explain the determinants of individual

227
00:24:27.980 --> 00:24:29.240
prices.

228
00:24:29.240 --> 00:24:35.960
He recognized that the logical analysis of supply and demand is far superior here.

229
00:24:35.960 --> 00:24:42.400
He used only the holistic equation, which he felt explained the determinants of the

230
00:24:42.400 --> 00:24:47.240
price level, and was uniquely adapted to such an explanation.

231
00:24:47.240 --> 00:24:54.720
Yet the holistic equation is false, and the price level remains pure myth, an indefinable

232
00:24:54.720 --> 00:24:56.640
concept.

233
00:24:56.640 --> 00:25:03.840
Let us consider the other side of the equation. E equals mv, the average quantity of money

234
00:25:03.840 --> 00:25:11.560
in circulation in the period, multiplied by the average velocity of circulation. V is

235
00:25:11.560 --> 00:25:18.140
an absurd concept. Even Fischer, in the case of the other magnitudes, recognized the necessity

236
00:25:18.140 --> 00:25:25.340
of building up the total from individual exchanges. He was not successful in building up t out

237
00:25:25.340 --> 00:25:53.420
Fischer, in fact, can derive V only as being equal in every instance and every period to

238
00:25:53.420 --> 00:26:01.260
to E divided by M. If I spend in a certain hour ten dollars for a hat, and I had an average

239
00:26:01.260 --> 00:26:09.860
cash balance, or M, for that hour of two hundred dollars, then by definition my V equals one

240
00:26:09.860 --> 00:26:17.760
divided by twenty, or one twentieth. I had an average quantity of money in my cash balance

241
00:26:17.760 --> 00:26:28.760
In the case of two hundred dollars, each dollar turned over on the average of one twentieth of a time, and consequently I spent ten dollars in this period.

242
00:26:28.760 --> 00:26:40.760
But it is absurd to dignify any quantity with a place in an equation unless it can be defined independently of the other terms in the equation.

243
00:26:40.760 --> 00:27:00.760
Fischer compounds the absurdity by setting up M and V as independent determinants of E, which permits him to go to his desired conclusion that if M doubles and V and T remain constant, P, the price level, will also double.

244
00:27:00.760 --> 00:27:09.360
But since V is defined as equal to E divided by M, what we actually have is M times E

245
00:27:09.360 --> 00:27:18.680
divided by M equals Pt, or simply E equals Pt, our original equation.

246
00:27:18.680 --> 00:27:25.120
Thus, Fisher's attempt to arrive at a quantity equation with the price level approximately

247
00:27:25.120 --> 00:27:38.820
A group of Cambridge economists has attempted to rehabilitate the Fisher equation by eliminating

248
00:27:38.820 --> 00:27:46.760
V and substituting the idea that the total supply of money equals the total demand for

249
00:27:46.760 --> 00:27:47.760
money.

250
00:27:47.760 --> 00:27:53.820
However, their equation is not a particular advance since they keep the fallacious holistic

251
00:27:53.820 --> 00:28:04.540
Concepts of P and T and their K is merely the reciprocal of V and suffers from the latter's deficiencies.

252
00:28:04.540 --> 00:28:14.700
In fact, since V is not an independently defined variable, M must be eliminated from the equation as well as V,

253
00:28:14.700 --> 00:28:22.540
and the Fisherine and the Cambridge equation cannot be used to demonstrate the quantity theory of money.

254
00:28:22.540 --> 00:28:30.380
and since M and V must disappear there are an infinite number of other equations of exchange

255
00:28:30.380 --> 00:28:38.140
that we could with equal invalidity uphold as determinants of the price level thus the aggregate

256
00:28:38.140 --> 00:28:45.900
stock of sugar in the economy may be termed S and the ratio of E to the total stock of sugar

257
00:28:45.900 --> 00:28:55.220
may be called Average Sugar Turnover, or U. This new equation of exchange would be SU

258
00:28:55.220 --> 00:29:03.060
equals PT, and the stock of sugar would suddenly become a major determinant of the price level.

259
00:29:03.060 --> 00:29:10.340
Or we could substitute A equals number of salesmen in the country, and X equals total

260
00:29:10.340 --> 00:29:26.820
This example should reveal the fallacy of equations in economic theory.

261
00:29:26.820 --> 00:29:32.260
The Fisherine equation has been popular for many years because it has been thought to

262
00:29:32.260 --> 00:29:35.460
convey useful economic knowledge.

263
00:29:35.460 --> 00:29:42.540
It appears to be demonstrating the plausible, on other grounds, quantity theory of money.

264
00:29:42.540 --> 00:29:46.420
Actually, it has only been misleading.

265
00:29:46.420 --> 00:29:50.740
There are other valid criticisms that could be made of Fisher.

266
00:29:50.740 --> 00:29:56.820
His use of index numbers, which even at best could only measure a change in a variable

267
00:29:56.820 --> 00:30:00.220
but never define its actual position.

268
00:30:00.220 --> 00:30:09.180
His use of an index of t defined in terms of p and of p defined in terms of t, his denial

269
00:30:09.180 --> 00:30:15.820
that money is a commodity, the use of mathematical equations in a field where there can be no

270
00:30:15.820 --> 00:30:20.480
constants and therefore no quantitative predictions.

271
00:30:20.480 --> 00:30:27.580
In particular, even if the equation of exchange were valid in all other respects, it could

272
00:30:27.580 --> 00:30:34.260
at best only describe statically the conditions of an average period.

273
00:30:34.260 --> 00:30:40.260
It could never describe the path from one static condition to another.

274
00:30:40.260 --> 00:30:47.380
Even Fisher admitted this by conceding that a change in M would always affect V so that

275
00:30:47.380 --> 00:30:52.000
the influence of M on P could not be isolated.

276
00:30:52.000 --> 00:30:59.240
He contended that after this transition period, V would revert to a constant and the effect

277
00:30:59.240 --> 00:31:05.240
on P would be proportional, yet there is no reasoning to support this assertion.

278
00:31:05.240 --> 00:31:11.680
At any rate, enough has been shown to warrant expunging the equation of exchange from the

279
00:31:11.680 --> 00:31:13.000
The Economic Literature