"RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> wrote in message news:h4d4cp$3uj$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...
> Tiesą sakant, apie pinigų judėjimo greitį aš pats išmąsčiau, tas formules
> atradau tik vėliau. Bet kuriuo atveju man yra visiškai akivaizdu, kad
> pinigų gali būti išleista kiek nori, svarbūs yra tik rinkoje veikiantys
> pinigai (t.y. transakcijos), visi neveiklūs pinigai - tai tik potencialūs
> pinigai.
Now as Anderson has pointed out, in an acute analysis, the two sides of this
equation [MV=PT] are equal only because they are identical:
The equation asserts merely that what is paid is equal to what is
received. This proposition may require algebraic formulation, but to the
present writer it does not seem to require any formulation at all. The
contrast between the "money side" and the "goods side" of the equation is a
false one. There is no goods side. Both sides of the equation are money
sides.
[...]
What causes prices to go up and down, therefore, is not changes in the
average cash holding, but changes in the valuations that people put on the
monetary unit. V is not a cause but a result, or even a mere side effect.
People who are more eager to buy goods, or more eager to get rid of money,
will buy faster or sooner. But this will mean that V increases, when it does
increase, because the relative value of money is falling or is expected to
fall. It will not mean that the value of money is falling, or prices of
goods rising, because V has increased.
When people value money less and goods more, they will offer more money for
goods, and may increase "velocity of circulation." But it is not the
mechanical increase in velocity of circulation that causes any subsequent
price rise, let alone any proportional price rise. It is the changed
valuation by individuals of either goods or money or both that causes the
increased velocity of circulation as well as the price rise. The increased
velocity of circulation, in other words, is largely a passive factor in the
situation.
To go further: There is no necessary relation whatever between velocity of
circulation and the value or purchasing power of the monetary unit. We can
see this clearly if we return to the analogy with other commodities
(considering money, for the moment, as it was in its origin, merely one
commodity exchanged against others). The relative value of a unit of wheat,
or eggs, or potatoes (if we take quality and use for granted), depends
mainly on the total relative quantities in existence of these commodities.
When any one of them is in short supply, the price per unit goes up; when it
is in excessive supply, the price per unit goes down.
These rises or falls may or may not be accompanied by an unusual volume of
speculative transactions. But the volume of speculative transactions merely
reflects the extent of differences of opinion or changes of opinion among
traders in the market; it has no functional relation with either rises or
declines of value. Thus a falling wheat market or stock market may be more
active than a steady wheat market or stock market. But so may a rising wheat
market or stock market.
Čia tik pora trumpų citatų iš nelabai ilgo, bet teisingo straipsnelio, linką
į kurį daviau. Ten labai aiškiai paaiškinta, kodėl Fisher'io teorija (kurią
tu irgi išmąstei :) ) yra klaidinga.
> Dėl tų teorijų, tai tos teorijos iš principo gali būti laikomos
> teisingomis (iki prisikaups pakankamai joms prieštaraujančių duomenų) tik
> eksperimentiniuose moksluose. Neeksperimentiniuose moksluose (kokiu laikau
> ir ekonomiką) teorijos gali atrodyti logiškos, paaiškinančios įvykusius
> faktus, bet jos vis tiek remiasi tik empiriniais samprotavimais.
> Ekonomikoje (ir ypač makroekonomikoje) neįmanoma atlikti nė dviejų
> eksperimentų daugmaž vienodomis sąlygomis ir neįmanoma atlikti kontrolinių
> eksperimentų.
Teorija be loginių klaidų nebūtinai yra teisinga. Teorija su loginėmis
klaidomis yra klaidinga. Fisher'io, Keynes'o, Markso, Krugmano ir kitų
centrinio planavimo šalininkų teorijose loginių klaidų yra apsčiai, todėl
jos visos yra klaidingos.
--
Doc