Talk:Quantity theory of money/Archive 1


 * The following is an archive of discussion from Talk:Quantity theory of money. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on Talk:Quantity theory of money.  No further edits should be made to this page.

final expenditures
could some one explain final expenditures. If final expenditures is only consumer spending, then what happens to all the transactions on assets ? Are they excluded from the equation ? How come ? If they are not, then, would it not be wise to state clearly that Q is very different from Y (the annual production level) since Q includes transactions on the capital goods produced in the preceding periods. Panache 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 - Purchase of a share or of a bond isn't treated as a claim on goods or of services; it is treated as buying money with money. (Indeed, it isn't all that functionally different from starting an interest-bearing account.)
 * uh sorry, I did not mention bonds, bonds are not assets, but liabilities. And shares are clearly not money. How could you believe this ? An interest bearing account is saving. A share is an investment.  In an account, the money is stored or lent, in a share the money you pay gives you an ownership over a good : the company, its trademarks patents. etc. Indeed a share is a capital good.
 * So your explanation is false. Panache
 * Why in the world are you lecturing me, if you are so sure that you have the answers? Unfortunately for all concerned, your answers are wrong.
 * 1 - 1 A bond is a liability for the issuer, but it is an asset for the holder.
 * Of course but a bond is just a credit instrument, it does not give you property rights. A share does. You can own a company through shares.
 * 1 - 2  Everything of market-value is money, to some extent.  That extent is called “liquidity”.  Shares have a high degree of liquidity, and hence shares have a high degree of money-ness (and it is, literally, called “money-ness” in much of the literature).
 * Of course but a bond is just a credit instrument, it does not give you property rights. A share does. You can own a company through shares.
 * 1 - 2  Everything of market-value is money, to some extent.  That extent is called “liquidity”.  Shares have a high degree of liquidity, and hence shares have a high degree of money-ness (and it is, literally, called “money-ness” in much of the literature).


 * This is getting ridiculous. If everything of market value is money to some extent, why talk about money supply. Stop this blable. Shares may have money ness, not more than tons of wheat by the way, but they are not money, and not considered in the money supply. By the way, in case you do not know, interest bearing accounts are. Panache


 * 1 - 3 Interest-bearing accounts are funded by investment; the bank is really just brokering.  In the case of a classic savings &amp; loan association, ownership is formally in the hands of those who have such accounts. (Similar arrangements exist for some insurance firms.) Even in the case of a bank, if push came to shove, then the liabilities to account holders could be resolved by a surrender of the assets (including physical capital, bonds, and stock shares) of the bank.
 * Yes but it still is different to loan money to some one, or to own a company. Panache


 * 1 - 4 The relationship between Jacques buying a share in a firm and production of goods or services is virtually identical to the relationship of Jacques purchasing a certificate of deposit, or setting up a savings account.
 * No. Jacques can control the production of goods through his shares and he gets access to profits, this has nothing to do with endogeneous creation of money through credit. Panache
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 The article makes it plain that, once one moves to the equation of exchange, one has presumed a distinction of “real” values from nominal values. It is does not seem particularly necessary to labour the distinction in this article, which links in its body to that on “real” and “nominal” values, and whose “See also” section encourages readers to read the article on the classical dichotomy.
 * I did not see when I made any reference to this distinction. Panache
 * That's because you don't even understand what you're actually saying and asking. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You talk much but do not bring much data... This is just one of the several places where you make me say things I have not said and later accuse me of not knowing that I have said them without providing any hint of evidence that I have said such things. Panache
 * That's because you don't even understand what you're actually saying and asking. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You talk much but do not bring much data... This is just one of the several places where you make me say things I have not said and later accuse me of not knowing that I have said them without providing any hint of evidence that I have said such things. Panache
 * You talk much but do not bring much data... This is just one of the several places where you make me say things I have not said and later accuse me of not knowing that I have said them without providing any hint of evidence that I have said such things. Panache


 * 3 Do not edit the discussion of an economist's theories, as you did the discussion of Friedman's theories, so that it instead presents your own theories, attributed then to him.
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * can you tell me when I did that ? Panache
 * Oh OK I got it (followed the link). But then do you mean that THese transactions on stocks of goods produced in earlier time  periods are not included in Friedman's theory ? This can t be. Stocks have to be traded also and that requires money. If they were not traded, then what s the meaning of replacing good old MV= PY with a transaction equation ? What s the meaning of replacing Y by Q ?
 * If you have a transaction equation it is precisely because there is more to trade than the annual production. Can t you see that ?


 * I mentioned before that your grasp of English is not good. Production is not simply flows, nor is it, in an economic context, the same thing as generation;
 * Great you pretend to speak plain english, and you present a new word "generation" give it no meaning and pretend that it may make sense of your non sense.
 * The problem is that some things are produced or generated (I can t see the difference) before they get traded, and consumption does not destroy durable goods, hence things are traded several times, hence there are more transactions than production. I suppose you call generation the physical production and production the sell of a good or service. If this is YOUR meaning of production, then a good sold several times is produced several times. weird indeed...
 * that only leaves “stock” in the sense of share. Goods and services can be generated without being produced, and preëxisting goods and services can be produced long after they were generated. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to suppress my edits, then you have to add a 6th postulate stating : there is no stock of goods produced in earlier period or there is no trade on those stocks, or trades on stocks produced in earlier period represents a fraction of all trades and can be ignored ... Of course all those statements are false. But that should not be a problem. And then it'll be possible to criticize it. I m no expert in Friedman s theory as I find it too stupid to study, but I doubt he has not included stocks in his transaction equation. Anyway, it s just either or.


 * Nonsense. Instead of my adding any new postulate, I simply have to tell you to restrict your edits in accordance with your competence.  I would not insist in arguing biochemistry in fr.wikipedia.org, and you should not insist on arguing economics in en.wikipedia.org. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your lecturing proves only your own lack of competence. If you can not grasp that there is a problem with stocks, I can not do anything for you.
 * Either stocks are included and you should not talk about Output, or they are not, and you should mention that stocks are not included.
 * If transaction on stocks of goods are not included, this excludes :
 * all transactions on existing homes, on existing consumption goods (ebay), on existing companies (stock market). When one think of it, it also excludes all retail sales transaction (as the goods sold were already bough once, only the value added by the retail store is considere).
 * I thought of an explanation in simple terms for you slamdiego.
 * Suppose 5 pounds of wheat are produced in the economy, there is 100 dollars in the economy, the money is really sticky and can be only used once. What is the price of one pound of wheat ?
 * The most stupid answers are presented first.
 * Answer 1 : 20 dollars of course. The 100 dollars are spent in wheat acquisition.
 * Answer 2 : Since there is a stock of another 5 pound of wheat from last year s windfall production, and an annual need for 10 then the price for the pound of wheat is 10, just as it was last year.
 * So we got one year with a production of 15 and one with a production of 5 and yet the same prices !!!
 * Answer 3 : Since the 10 pounds of wheat are sold by the farmer to 2 main stores, since those main stores sell them to 10 retails stores, since those retail stores sell them to final consumers, there s a need for 30 transactions, the ounce of wheat is 3,33 dollars.
 * Notice that adding a new level of intermediation would, other things remaining equal, lower prices because it would raise the need for money. This of course is one reason why in deflation eras, people get out of the official market with its long chain of intermediaries and buy directly to the producer.
 * so back to the topic, either as I believe stocks are included and Q is not output, or they are not, and the equation only takes into account a small fraction of transactions.Panache 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UT


 * See above. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way you have provided no definition of final expenditures. In wikipedia, the only references to expenditures refer to consumption final expenditure, a part of agregate demand, clearly this can not be what you are referring at, (why would you exclude final investment).
 * THe all passage is misleading, it seems pretty obvious now that by the anecdotal reference to "difficulty of measure" you incidently erase the 90% of transactions, but nowwhere is it specified. So please clarify what transactions are excluded by moving from one equation to the other. If you disregard capital goods, state so, if you disregard all multiple transaction on a same good, state so, if you disregard all transaction on a good produced in an earlier period, state so.


 * There is a standard definition for “final expenditures”; I didn't write whatever definition you found on Wikipedia, and I don't particularly care what it says. Final expenditures are consumption, investment, government expenditures, and net exports.


 * Great.
 * 4 Do not pseudo-quote. The term “difficulty of measure”  is not used anywhere in the article, nor in any of the prior comments here.
 * Yeah, I ll copy paste the passage later. "The previous equation, known as the “transactions form”, presents the difficulty that the associated data are not available. Data for final expenditures are more readily available."

Sorry you could not grasp that "the associated data are not available" is a problem of measure.
 * 5 As to what you call “the anecdotal reference”, you appear not to know what “anecdotal” means; in any event, in combination with your pseudo-quoting, one can only guess about to whatever you intend to refer.
 * I mean you disguise a strong political choice under a technical problem. The transaction forms included multiple transactions that are not recorded in the final expenditure.
 * See the last thread. Panache 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 It isn't the job of the editors here to write an English-language article so that it may be understood by someone whose grasp of English is poor.
 * It is not the job of the editors here to write an english language article so that it may be understood by someone whose grasp of economics is poor either.


 * 6 And it isn't the job of this article to provide all of the infrastructure of economic theory necessary to understand it. If, indeed, “final expenditures” is nowhere well explained on Wikipedia, that suggests that a specific article on that subject is desirable, not that this article should mushroom into some comprehensive macroeconomic treatise.
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That s exactly what I meant. 82.232.235.239 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)was of course Panache


 * Panache, you have thoroughly trashed this discussion. Awful English, awful economics, and awful mark-up.  Your behavior cannot be distinguished from that of a troll.  I'm not going to clean-up the fouled mark-up a second time in order to reply to you.  I have placed warnings on your User_talk page under both of the identities that you have used here.  If you persist in attacking the article, then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to correct the mark up. I m not used to editing wikipedia. It would have been simpler without mark up from the start. I did not know that by answering in between each point it would trash all up. I try to correct this.


 * What you have done now is to counterfeit the discussion. You have made things fundamentally worse.  It is not your prerogative to make wholesale changes in how another editor structures his comments, and present the new structure as if it were his or hers. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your falsification of my structure of presentation. It is your responsibility to clean things up in an honest manner, which doesn't disconnect connected points, &amp;c.
 * In the meantime, start using the “Show preview” button before you hit “Save page”. If you've messed things up, then don't hit “Save page”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the article. You have not tried to improve the article in the direction I have suggested even though I provided you with clear arguments and a definition of residential investment so that you would stop your rant about financial assets being money... If you don t like my english write something that fits you better but stop pretending that the reason from moving from one equation to the other is lack of available data. Moving from one equation to the other suppresses some transactions this is purposive and can not be hidden by the given state of statistics. My edits may displease you, but you must admit it is not fair to present the move to final expenditures as being caused by the lack of available data. So if you don't like my edits, find a better solution or I will place a banner NPOV (wonder what the letter mean, and I could not find how to do it last time I checked)Panache 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had spent time clearing this and I thought it made things much clearer. I don t master wikipedia as you do, I ll try to do my best, I still think you protest because you like protesting and as a way not to improve the article.
 * I will present research backing my claim and place a banner on the article stating that the presentation is non neutral and that there are factual errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.24.240 (talk • contribs) from panache
 * Seriously thanks for the last hint. I tried to revert things as I could. In some future time I ll learn how to revert previous modifications. Thus far I have done my best in restructuring the article. I don t remember exactly how the discussion went, in what orders Q and A appeared.


 * Your mutilations will simply be reverted. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still think it made the all discussions clearer, hope this time you ll find the modifications to your taste. If not please state whyPanache 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have once again lost the thread of discourse; the “mutilations” to which I was referring are those to the article. As to your latest edits to this talk page: There was no good reason to change any of my original mark-up, and you have changed the way in which I numbered my own remarks.  This puts you somewhere on the same slope as would be someone who took your remarks, and reordered the sentences within paragraphs, &amp;c.  Your latest ostensible repairs are yet another expression of your sense that you are entitled to be careless, which sense made it fruitless to argue with you. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, first I have never mutilated the article. I have tried to make sense of an illogic statement. At first I believed that the third equation included assets, since it was said that it followed the 2 first. I tried accordingly to this interpretation to suppress all words evoquing production. Then your answers helped me to understand the extant of the bias in the article. In fact I could have understood it by myself if had paid enough attention to the words final expenditures. So I changed my edits and try to make clearer the difference between the 2 first and the third equation.


 * You have repeatedly mutilated the article. (You don't think of it as mutilation for much the same reason that witch-doctors cutting holes in heads don't think that they're mutilating their patients.) If a third party ever comes along, not acting like you but actually attending to what is said, then I'll be glad to answer questions about each and every aspect of the technical sections. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, in 3 years of an indeed relatively low wikipedian activity, but still, I ve never met someone using mark up in a talk page in wikipedia so far. So I had never encountered the problem that when you edit a talk page the mark up is fouled. Besides it s the first time I meet someone so arrogant, agressive, so I m only acquiring now the knowledge on how to deal with it. When the damage on the talk page has happened, I could only guess what the mark up was in the past and did my best. If I ve made any change in the numbers, it is none I m aware of. I certainly have not reorderd sentences within paragraphs. I have not touched the text indeed. (yet you the almighty editors have suppressed part of my comments in the talk page, but that does not bother you) (Don t bother reverting them, it does not bother me that you suppress them, I think all of the discussion above is fruitless, uselessly agressive and showing pathetic errors on both sides... I prefer the more constructive parts below). As time pass by I will learn how to use mark up, how to rever edits, and how to deal with arrogant autrians...


 * If you even bothered to count then you'd find one of the changes that you made to my numbering. (But it is rather hard to believe that you actually don't remember that I never used something like “1-1” to number any of my comments.)
 * No one here has suppressed your comments. The reversion that bothers you was of your over-writing of an “  ” tag that I placed after one of your many unsigned comments, several hours after you'd made the comment. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is my belief that wikipedia is a place where there is some entitlement to be careless. It is also the wikipedian policy. If you want professional editors from the start move to another place.
 * My own belief is that for you it is fruitless to argue with anyone... By the way can you please explain to me how my repairs could have bee less ostensible, since that also seems to bother you. I will be glad next time to repair in secret while you blame in public. And please if ever I do something that suits you, even a little, even something that bothers you less than preceding comments, please state so, I will love to hear from it.Panache 06:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I've argued fruitfully with many people — sometimes other economists like myself, sometimes amateurs. But not amateurs like you, because they didn't so wildly over-estimate themselves.
 * Genuine repairs would restore my mark-up in full, and use appropriate mark-up in your insertions to not change the numbering and so forth of my remarks. If you didn't know enough mark-up to make proper insertions, then you could have made your replies after my comments, referring to their numbers when you wished.
 * You are blamed in public because you have left my comments damaged in public. I repaired them without public blame after the first time that you did this, but you just did it again. (Again: Your behavior is operationally like that of a very malicious troll.)
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy on final expenditures
It is controversial to choose final expenditures to assess transactions. This excludes many transactions : financial transactions (on shares, commodities etc.) Intermediary transactions {{Subst:unsigned|82.232.235.239}

This is precisely this exclusion that explains the failure of monetarism and the growing interest of asset price inflation.


 * I keep telling you that you don't know enough English to be rewriting these articles, but you continue to proceed like a bull in a china shop. The fact that a practice or theory is problematic doesn't make it controversial.
 * Further, the fact that you find it problematic doesn't entitle you to in the article raise objections. See the Wikipedia policy on “original research”.
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep refering to my english level to avoid facing the purposive errors you make. It is utterly wrong to disguise the exclusion of transactions on capital goods (including old homes for instance if you keep defining shares as money for a strange reason) as a technical measure due to lack of available data. This is simply misleading, illogic, wrong, whatever you name it. If you disagree my english formulation of a solution to the problem your definition has created, please provide another solution to resolve it, or I will have to put a banner stating that this article is not objective. There are houses traded everyday (and factories and many other goods traded and neither invested, nor consumed) money is needed for such trades, one can decide to exclude such trades for several reasons, but it s not possible to state that this is because available data is lacking.

By stating that it is not controversial (even though recent keynesian works have asked that more attention be given to asset prices) the definition seems to imply that this is not problematic. If you really oppose to my addition, then simply suppress the sentence that "this is not controversial" what good does it make ?

As for my being an elephant in a china shop, this is highly possible, but I noticed it helped me clear out very fast where the bug was, I knew the problem with friedman equation came from its exclusion of transaction on capital goods, this comes straight from reading on post keynesians. But I could not see where the trick of the exclusion was done in this article. Everything seemed so logical. Then I found final expenditures and truth is I did not know to what it refered in french, and I was puzzled by the use of Q instead of Y. It was nowhere clear in the article that transactions on capital goods (stocks neither invested nor consumed) were excluded ... I was puzzled. Anyway, by my elephant moves, I quickly discovered where the flaw was. So I think we should now agree that there is a problem in the present formulation as it can not be stated that the exclusion of all transactions on capital goods is due to lacking data. This exclusion has of course other reasons (which it is agreed we may not discuss here). I suggest suppressing the reference to lacking data. But I can not find another way to write this passage so far. I ll give it another try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs)


 * Panache, it simply isn't a good use of my time to argue with you, because of the barriers to communication on your side (for example, the Keynesians to whom you refer are referring to financial assets — shares, bonds, &amp;c — where you think that they've been talking about inventories); it has been either arguing with a troll, or something very much like arguing with a troll. I had brought your behavior to the attention of administrators, and will do so again in the future if necessary. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't try to make me say what I have not. I have said that keynesians talked about financial assets, then you said that in the austrian theory that suit your partisan views, financial assets are money, so I said that the problem was anything that was produced in an earlier period and traded in that period, then you came up with a distinction between generation and production, so finally I came up with the housing market on which homes "generated" in earlier periods are traded in the present period without it being recorded in final expenditures. This is just a question of logic, if you move to final expenditures, you exclude some transactions. My take is that this exclusion was purposive, I do not ask that this be in the article, I only ask that the article does not state that the exclusion is necessary because of the lack of available data. We could track home sales and know how much money is needed for those transactions.Panache 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As to what you have and have not said, there are multiple illustrations that you don't know what you've actually said, nor what others have said, because you are attempting to work in a language that you don't understand, to write about a subject that you don't understand.
 * Your claim that my presentation is “partisan” is made in ignorance of the position of the Austrian School, which in fact rejects the equation of exchange, for excellent reasons.
 * There are two reasons for not bothering to debate theory with you:
 * A. You are attempting to argue in defense of “original research”; results of the debate could not be applied to the article.
 * B. Your argumentation is either trolling or something very hard to distinguish from trolling.
 * The only reason to respond to you at all is for the sake of third parties.
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As usual, all your answer shows is that you strategically use my limitations in english so as to not respond to my factual demonstrations. You have written here that shares are money, equivalent to money put in a bank account, I think this clearly shows your limitations in economics. I m glad you have the knowledge that austrians disapprove the monetarist positions. I thought you were a stupid ideological austrians as there are many.
 * you should read the bad faith part in the trolling article. From what I read you could be labeled a troll, you seem to be intentionnaly defending a presentation that you reckon yourself to be false. This is extremely weird. You have made no attempts to improve the critics part of the article. All my contributions in the article have had only one objective, make clearer the difference between the two first equations and the  third. THe article can not be objective unless it explains the change between them. Explaining that change better would improve the quality of the article and the understanding of the quantitative theory of money. Supposing that such an explanation would be too complicated, then, it is required at least that no false explanation of the move from one equation to another is given. Anyway one looks at it, I ve been trying in good faith to improve the article and all I have received is undeserved contempt from a someone who refuses for no clear reason to improve the clarity of the article. This could indeed be labeled trolling.  Panache 14:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Residential investment
"Residential Investment", definition taken from the BEA

"Investment in residential structures consists of new construction of permanent-site single-family and multi-family units, improvements (additions, alterations, and major structural replacements) to housing units, expenditures on manufactured homes, brokers'commissions on the sale of residential property, and net purchases of used structures from government agencies. Residential structures also include some types of equipment that are built into residential structures, such as heating and air-conditioning equipment."

As you can see slamdiego, a transaction on an old house (a house that was held in inventory if you like) is not recorded in investment. It is not either in consumption. So it is not in final expenditures. Can you tell me why transactions on the housing market are not a source of money demand ? Are houses money ? Is it some generation-production hocus pocus ?

If americans own their homes on average for 15 years, they need less money than if they own it on average for 5 years. If there are more transactions in the housing market, the money demand increases, where does it appear in the second form of the equation ? This is to make clear to you that wether it is financial assets, inventories of consumption goods, or houses it does not matter, it s just that the first equation includes all transactions including those on stocks, whereas the second one is only on flows. I will mention your action to the administrators also, once I learn how to do it. You clearly are gross and unfair, I have made plain your attemps at distorting the facts and you keep on ranting about my english level. This seems to be your only argument. Friedmans theory deserves a presentation (however flawed I believe it to be) but it does not require tricks in order to make believe that the move from the first tautological to the second equation is caused by statistical considerations. Panache 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving from the first 2 equations to the third
The discussion so far has been fruitless, with more time spent on personal attacks than on fruitful contributions. This is my last to explaining why the article as is is biased before challenging the neutrality of the point of view of the article.

1 - Things on which we agree.

The article as redacted makes it clear that some transactions present in the first equation are not taken into account in the second.

2 - Things on which we disagree

2 1 The article states that the reason for discarding those transactions is lack of available data.

2 2 The article is presenting the quantitative theory of money in a favourable light, despite the fact that it has been clearly disproved in recent years. Friedman himself has acknowledged its limitations. Compare the present article to [the aticle in the economist

3 - ways to find a consensus

Question : Could we in the discussion part of the article list the transactions present in the first and second equations and absent in the third and consider whether reliable statistical data is easily available on those transactions ? This would be a way to assess if the sentences “The previous equation, known as the “transactions form”, presents the difficulty that the associated data are not available. Data for final expenditures are more readily available. Economists may therefore work with the form “ are or are not misleading. It s easy to spot 3 kinds of transactions that are present in the two first equations and not in the third. Simple use of logic is sufficient to indentify those 3 kinds of transactions suppressed in the third equation. If someone needs published research on the subject because of lacking reasonning skills see for instance : [For a method for measuring all transactions] [a discussion of the money demand related to asset transactions in the 1920's]

3 1 - all intermediary transactions.

Suppose they are 2 kinds of pizza makers. - If you buy a pizza at Domino’s pizza, tomatos, wheat, ketchup, etc. are bought on the market. 90% of the ingredients are bought on the market. Domino’s pizza only achieves the final assembly. Some money is required to achieve all the intermediary transactions. - if you buy a pizza in a local restaurant in the country side, 90% of the components are grown in the garden of the restaurant owner. Money is required only for the 10% (probably the acquisition of wheat). In the third equation, final expenditures are used to assess the number of market transactions. Therefore all intermediary transactions disappear. If for a given level of production, the number of intermediary transactions increase, this will not be spotted. Implicitly in the second equation, the vertical division of work and the vertical integration of firms is supposed constant. Clearly the exclusion of those transactions is of economic importance. This exclusion could be mentionned in the article probably in the critics part. However this is not the point here, we only want to know : Is there a lack of available data on those transactions ? I believe we can agree that indeed precise data is lacking. It would be difficult to track all transactions. Besides it is possible to assume that over a ahort period of time the degree of intermediation in an economy is static.

3 2 - Transactions on hard capital goods

The 2 first equation includes transactions : - on capital goods generated in earlier time periods : old homes, stores already running, - on goods that never were generated : land …

The third equation excludes theses transactions. Investment is the building of new capacities. The acquisition of a house already built, of a store already running is not considered an investment. However those transactions require money.

Are these transactions excluded because of lack of available data ? Clearly not. Data on old home sales are easily available to all.

3 3 - Transactions on shares and financial instruments

Acquiring a share of a company, buyng a bond, a put or call option on the future value of a share… All those transaction require money. It is possible that austrians believe bonds and shares to be an extended form of money. This clearly is not the standard view. They are not included in any monetary aggregates. see money supply

This acknowledged, the two first equation includes all transactions on shares and bonds. The third equation does not include them.

Are these transactions excluded because of lack of available data ? It is true that assessing those transactions would be a hard thing to do. Yet those transactions could probably be included without major difficulties.

4 - Conclusion :

The statement “The previous equation, known as the “transactions form”, presents the difficulty that the associated data are not available. Data for final expenditures are more readily available. Economists may therefore work with the form “ is false. There s lots of available data on land and old homes transactions. Lack of available data is not the reason for the exclusion of those transactions in the third equation. This is very important indeed. No one can contest that "The money in circulation factor its speed of circulation is equal to the things traded on the market factor their market price". This is what the 2 first equation state. However these 2 first equations are radically different from the third which states : "The money in circulation factor its speed of circulation is equal to final expenditures factor the GDP deflator" In this third equation, many transactions disappear, and inflation is defined as a rise in the consumer price index or the gdp deflator (asset price inflation being ignored).

Alternative formulations As a last constructive attempt to find a consensus on a better phrasing of the incriminated sentences, here are some suggestions : Monetarists argue (same as avove) For several reasons, economists prefer to use the second equation. Suppressing the "therefore"

Please feel free to suggest any other phrasing.

Notice that other parts in the article may need correction, but I still think that the main point to be made is that the third equation is radically different from the 2 firsts. The first equations can only be attacked on grounds that there s a demand for money for speculation or finance purposes. The third equation can be attacked on many more grounds, because it excludes many transactions from its analysis, relying on the misleading assumption that final expenditures are a good proxy for all transactions. Panache 12:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Reading the wiki policy on personal attacks and the lack of agreement on how to deal with past attacks. Here is what I want to state before leaving the article for a while before calling officially for comments in order to resolve the present dispute. I do not understand why Slam diego is accusing me of advocating original resarch. I feel allegations on my english level and knowledge in economy are personal attacks. I reckon I have not so far backed the critics part of the article I ve writen by external or internal links. MOst of the points however are mainstream. THere is according to me absolutely no original research behind my edits in the main body of the article but only a request that be better clarified what transactions included in the two first equations are excluded in the third. It seems obvious to me that lack of available data is not the reason behind the exclusion of those transactions. I ve now provided external links of published research debating the exclusion of those transactions. I still believe that the factual error is so plain that this was not necessary. I have my self used personal attacks on the person of slam diego, claiming he-she was incompetent, arrogant, obstructive and following an austrian anti fiat money bias. I now regret those and will remove them is Slamdiego agrees. My only comment so far is that I do not understand his-her position and am left therefore with negative interpretations of its behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.44.207 (talk • contribs)


 * WP:DUCK. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * just thought you might take the time to read :
 * Note, however, that although it is generally not uncivil or a personal attack to do so, calling a spade a spade may not be the most productive course.
 * First, it is possible that you might be mistaken. For example, many editors make accusations of vandalism regarding good faith edits. While those edits may be objectionable for a host of other reasons, incorrect accusations may harm your long term prospects of working constructively with the editor with whom you disagree.
 * Second, even in cases where you are correct about another user, accusations of POV pushing, tendentious editing, bad editing, and the like, while perfectly correct, may nevertheless lead to sufficient antagonism that constructive collaboration becomes impossible. While there is no policy against calling a spade a spade in most cases, consider whether civility, even if unearned, may help meet your goals.
 * this from the link you just posted. Panache 05:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene.
I tried explaining things to Panache previously. He didn't understand and wasn't willing to work to overcome his limitations in English and in economics. I will not waste more time on someone who operationalizes as a troll.

If someone else comes along who wishes to discuss the technical sections of the article — about which Panache is fundamentally mistaken — then I will of course be willing to do so.

As I have previously noted, I have pretty much steered clear of the “Critics” section. It was a mess when I first became aware of the article, and I have not wanted to spend the time to make the extensive edits that would be necessary to bring the section up to encyclopedic level. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted published research easily accessible through google which make the very simple point that transactions on assets and intermediary transactions are not taken into account by the third equation in this article. Slamdiego keeps pushing the inaccurate statement that the exclusion of such transactions is related to lack of available data, and accusing me of pushing original resarch and behaving as a troll. He explains nothing and prefers instead the use of personal attacks even though he posts links that clearly states this behaviour is unproductive.
 * Given his strange opinion on stocks and bonds being money, I have strong doubts on his knowledge in economics.
 * On top of this, we all have now firm proof that he lacks some basics in logic. If :
 * 1 A is a function of B.
 * 2 B is not accessible.
 * 3 C, a proximate for B, is more readily accessible.
 * 4 Then C should be used instead of B.
 * Basic logics says that if 2 is false (B can be proved to be easily accesssible (ex. home sales)) then 4 is not a logical conclusion (And probably Use C instead of B is advocated because of a non neutral point of view). Slamdiego does not seem to understand this. He-she still apparently believes that he-she has something to explain and not something to learn and acknowledge.
 * I have pointed the article on the quantitative theory of money in the economists. Other article appearing in google s first page are also more neutral in their presentation than the present one.
 * I notice that even very small edits have been discarded. For instance Slamdiego reverted my edit replacing economists by monetarists. He must be implying that keynesians approve the use of the 3rd equation. I see this blatant non cooperative behaviour as another sign of strong point of view.
 * I also notice his-her systematic negative comments. All my contributions are close to trolling and come under the original research wikipedia policy, and my english is poor, and no improvement is ever to be recorded. I believe this to be another sign of non cooperative behaviour.
 * So far just looking at the links at the bottom of the article makes it clear that there is a strong point of view expressed in the article.
 * Conclusion : despite my contributions and attempted edits, the current version of the article is still misleading and Slamdiego for unknown reasons intends to keep it so. Following the wikipedia policy I will now keep away from this article for some weeks, then I will simply completely rewrite it. After that, I ll probably have to call for comments and if necessary follow the other procedures. Panache 05:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed parts of the criticism section which was complete crap. None of it was remotely true. The remaining parts are at least representative of some people's views on monetary policy though that does not at all belong in this article. Do you also find gravitation to be unfair? Maybe you should go to Gravitation and suggest a criticism section there too. For some reason everyone thinks they are an economist. Slamdiego just call me on my talk page if you need back up with reverting this crap. MartinDK 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)