Versión de HTML Básico
For his part, Patinkin (1969)
acknowledges that the quantity identity is a truism,
which does not need to be tested. He follows Mint, who claims that prices could be
established as a dependent variable:
“Some attempts [have been made statistically] to verify quantity theory by showing
that
MV+M’V’=PT
is true. But quantity theory says that P
is the dependent variable
.
So would have to show that exist consistent time lags. Have to establish
causal
relationship
. Formula itself is a truism –doesn’t need verification. Formula ≠
quantity theory.
Mints prefers following statement of quantity theory: P is the dependent variable (in
the long run) of the equation MV=PT. But in the short run all the variables tend to
move together.
30
”
Here, Patinkin is referring to the identity of Fisher (1911a), whereby “M signifies the
quantity of money in circulation; V, its velocity of circulation, or rate of turnover per
annum.” According to Patinkin, the distinction between the quantity theory and the
corresponding formula is also emphasized by Friedman (1968) in his article
contained in the encyclopedia
Quantity Theory II.
Recently, Lucas (1972) reconciles the non-neutrality of money in the short-term
with its neutrality in the long-term. This author assumes that agents use a veritable
conditional distribution to build their expectations, presupposing that they are being
8
In Patinkin (1969) the corresponding footnote 30 says “Lecture notes from Lloyd
Mints, ‘Money’ (Economics 330), June 28 and July 3, 1944, italics in original. It is
noteworthy that this distinction between the quantity theory and the identity
MV+M’V’=PT
is also emphasized by Friedman in his encyclopedia article: see
Quantity Theory II
, pp. 434-36.” It should be added that for Patinkin and Mints
money is neutral in the short-term
.