Talk:Equation of exchange

Section 1, 2nd paragraph moved to below

In section 1 of the article, the 2nd paragraph was removed from the article:

The equation

$M\cdot V_{T}=P\cdot T$

is based upon the presumption of the classical dichotomy — that there is a relatively clean distinction between overall increases or decreases in prices and underlying, “real” economic variables — and that this distinction may be captured in terms of price indices, so that inflationary or deflationary components of $\mathbf {p}$ may be extracted as the multiplier $P\,$:

$M\cdot V_{T}=P\cdot (\mathbf {p} _{real}^{\mathrm {T} }\cdot \mathbf {q} )=P\cdot T$

The equation is an identity. It is not based on any presumption. It just is. For one already acquainted with the classical dichotomy, the paragraph will not help. For others it seems very unlikely to help. Better to omit something that only gets in the way of a clearer explanation. --Thomasmeeks 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Thomas.

$M\cdot V_{T}=PT$, where “$PT$” is defined as the nominal value of transactions, is not quite an identity, but it is a tautology. The problem comes in the notion that there is a meaningful $P$ and $T$ such that $PT=P\cdot T$, so that one may go from

$M\cdot V_{T}=PT$

to

$M\cdot V_{T}=P\cdot T$

That is a presumption of the classical dichotomy. If a “real” $T$ is not well-defined (and it isn't), then neither is $P$ (and vice versa).

You need to become better familiar with criticism of neoclassical economics from non-neoclassical economics, and to cease your programme of erasures in the mean-time. —SlamDiego_←T 15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fisher equation

Isn't this thing called also “Fisher equation”? If so, the name should be mentioned in the article. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the units of M, V, P and Q? ...

The standard units for M, V, P, Q are not presented in the article. This would be much clearer if they were. Admittedly, it's been many decades since I took economics. So, I was having difficulty figuring out the units. All discussions on MV=PQ, including elsewhere on the internet, refer to V as a velocity, rate, or frequency. Unfortunately, I could not figure out how V was anything but a constant or multiplier. This was because I had assumed that M was in units of dollars of money supply per circulation, since no units were supplied for M. That would make V the quantity of circulations per dollar, which is just a multiplier. In this (incorrect) way, circulation is the denominator unit in M, and there is no time unit in the denominator for either M or V. I would suggest supplying the units or perhaps changing some of the wording so that the reader knows that V and Q are per year, or some other unit of time. E.g., replace "money supply in circulation" with "the money supply". Replace "average frequency" with "quantity of times per year". Replace "is an index of real expenditures (on newly produced goods and services.)" with "quantity of goods and services purchased per year". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.24.220 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New Empiric Data

A request to experienced users: please check new empirical data on Equation of exchange:

https://www.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien_abteilungen/abt_ewf/LS_Klump/documents/Personal_information/Dissertation_Ingo_Benjamin_Sauer_Summary.pdf

Short Summary: - Equation of exchange has been empirical refuted - Strong empirical correlation between central bank assets, Pressures on the currency markets and currency confidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A543:24EF:0:34BE:4DEE:4870:B84 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Naganoff, 2008?

Hey guys,

There is just no trace of any Andrew Naganoff in economic literature, or anywhere beyond pages that are translations of this Wikipedia page for that matter. I also tried cyrillic transliterations etc. It just seems to be a hoax, that will confuse people on the foundations (as the section title goes) of a high importance article.

I'm new here so I didn't take the initiative to delete it myself straight away, but I'd appreciate if someone else looked over my arguments and walked the talk.

Regards, Teglasybalint (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)