Versión de HTML Básico
Brunner and Meltzer (1997) make a similar distinction regarding the short and long-
term as far as the influence of money is concerned. For instance, they mention that
for the long term: “When classical economists accepted that money could not affect
income, they generally meant that money was neutral in the long-run -that real
wealth or expected real income was independent of the quantity of money.”
Meanwhile, their view for the short-term is worded a s follows: “Money is neutral in
the long-run but not in the short-run. Changes in money affect output first, but this
effect vanishes once prices adjust fully. The long-run effect of money is on prices,
but money changes output and other real variables during the adjustment from one
long-run equilibrium to the next.”
In a similar fashion, Milton Friedman (1956) underlines a direct relation between
the stock of money and the price level. He enunciates a sort of regular pattern or
constant behavior in economics:
“25. One of the chief reproaches directed at economics as an allegedly empirical
science is that it can offer so few numerical ‘constants,’ that it has isolated so few
fundamental regularities. The field of money is the chief example one can offer in
rebuttal: there is perhaps no other empirical relation in economics that has been
observed to recur so uniformly under so wide a variety of circumstances as the
relation between substantial changes over short periods in the stock of money and
in prices; the one is invariable linked with the other and is in the same direction;
this uniformity is, I suspect, of the same order as many of the uniformities that form
the basis of the physical sciences.”