The quantity theory of money (QTM) is a cornerstone of macroeconomic theory, and it states that changes in the supply of money have a proportional impact on the overall price level in an economy. It is most often associated with the 20th-century economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman. The theory has roots that go further back, however, as far as the writings of the Scottish philosopher David Hume in the mid-18th century and perhaps even earlier. The QTM is essential for understanding volatility in financial markets, as well as for judging the merits of changes to monetary policy by central banks.
A more formal portrayal of the QTM is represented by the equation of exchange: MV = PQ. Here M represents the supply of money, V represents the velocity of money (i.e., the rate at which an average unit of currency is spent and respent as it is exchanged for goods and services), P represents the prices of goods and services, and Q represents the real quantity of goods and services produced in an economy.
To begin to see the implications of the equation of exchange, imagine a situation in which the supply of money increases while the velocity of money remains constant. It is obvious that some combination of prices and real output—which together constitute nominal spending on goods and services—must increase too. Based on similar logic, Milton Friedman once argued for a rule whereby the money supply grows at a constant rate.
Such a policy might make sense, since economic growth presumably benefits from increases in the money supply as this facilitates more transactions. In general, however, it is not safe to assume that the velocity of money is constant. Velocity is another way of describing the public’s demand to hold money. The slower the velocity, the greater the demand to hold cash and bank balances. Faster velocity means decreased demand for money: people spend their cash balances more quickly after receiving them.
One of the main jobs of a central bank is to respond to the pessimistic; they often seek to hold greater money balances and also bonds, such as U.S. Treasuries, thereby putting downward pressure on interest rates. In order to avoid a recession, the Federal Reserve and other central banks respond by lowering the interest rate at which banks borrow from one another, as well as by increasing the supply of bank reserves and currency so that banks and the public can hold the money balances they desire.
The QTM can also help us understand developments in modern cryptocurrency markets. As with the money growth rule Friedman advocated, the supply of crypto coins such as bitcoin or ether is often determined by an algorithm. The experience of cryptocurrencies suggests that an algorithmic approach would be problematic if it were adopted by national governments, however. The reason is that the simplest money growth algorithms do not respond to changes in the public’s demand for money, and this results in significant price volatility.
Consider that when demand for bitcoins increases significantly, the price of bitcoin surges. When investors pull back, the price plummets. Such volatility helps explain why cryptocurrencies aren’t used in more everyday transactions. If bitcoin were used for as many transactions as the U.S. dollar is, imagine how many prices in the economy would have to adjust in response to the frequent ups and downs in bitcoin’s value.
Stablecoins have emerged as one solution to price volatility in crypto markets. Like a currency board or a central bank with a fixed exchange rate, these cryptocurrencies are designed to maintain a stable price by linking their value to another asset—for instance, a fiat currency or a commodity such as gold. Tether and USD Coin are two examples of stablecoins pegged one to one with the U.S. dollar. Similarly, central bank digital currencies are digital versions of traditional fiat currencies that are issued by central banks. Like stablecoins, these currencies would aim to maintain a stable value to eliminate some of the volatility associated with cryptocurrencies.
The equation of exchange sheds light on how these proposed solutions to price volatility in crypto markets work. Price volatility can be offset by having the supply of money respond to changes in the demand for money, thereby stabilizing the money’s value. In this way, when a central bank or cryptocurrency issuer increases the supply of its currency, the act is not always inflationary. In other words, it does not always lead to a general increase in prices. Instead, such “money printing” often simply offsets increases in money demand that would otherwise cause a general deflation.
As these examples illustrate, a thorough understanding of the QTM is helpful for understanding the dynamics of modern financial markets. This is fascinating given the roots of the theory trace back hundreds of years. One insight of the QTM is that, in a growing economy, the quantity of money should generally increase in order to facilitate increased spending. Another is that, in order to keep the value of money relatively stable, the money supply should respond to changes in the public’s demand to hold cash or bank reserves. A critical challenge facing central banks, as well as cryptocurrency creators, is to address both of these related issues simultaneously. In a complex world, that is easier said than done.
James Broughel is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute with a focus on innovation and dynamism.
READER COMMENTS
Andrew_FL
May 21 2023 at 11:26am
Even before Molina, none other than Copernicus had recognized the Quantity Theory.
spencer
May 21 2023 at 11:36am
re: “the rate at which an average unit of currency is spent and respent as it is exchanged for goods and services”
Income velocity in your equation only turns over once. In Irving Fisher’s truistic “equation of exchange”, it turns over many times. The transaction’s concept of money velocity became a statistical stepchild. The G.6 Debit and Demand Deposit Turnover release was discontinued because of total ignorance.
James Broughel
May 21 2023 at 3:53pm
I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. I think of V as the number of times a dollar turns over in a specified time period. Since nominal GDP is usually measured in year intervals, it would be a number like 3 times per year.
spencer
May 22 2023 at 10:44am
Gated deposits don’t turn over. But essentially all savings/investment type accounts don’t turn over. Contrary to Selgin, banks don’t lend deposits. Deposits are the result of lending. See: Dr. Philip George’s “The Riddle of Money Finally Solved”
The riddle of money, finally solved (philipji.com)
The empirical proof is demonstrated by the G.6 Release, the Debit and Deposit Turnover release which was discontinued by mistake in September 1996.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/releases/g6comm/g6_19961023.pdf
Just because Powell destroyed deposit classifications in May 2020 (eliminated the 6 withdrawal restrictions on savings accounts), doesn’t mean there’s significant turnover in these balances.
If money is not being exchanged, turning over, it does not represent our means-of-payment money.
All demand drafts clear through the payment’s system. And 95 percent of all demand drafts clear through DDs. The economics profession has done a good job hiding that fact.
Jon Murphy
May 22 2023 at 4:41pm
I really don’t get what you are saying here. I mean, as empirical matters, your statements are false. From a theoretical perspective, it’s very difficult for me to follow you (or the link you provided). You make causal claims that prima facie put the cart before the horse without any kind of explanation.
spencer
May 21 2023 at 11:49am
With QTM, you have to be able to distinguish between means-of-payment money and investment/savings type accounts.
WSJ 6/28/1983: “The experimental measures are designed to resolve some of the confusion by isolating money intended for spending, from the money held as savings. The distinction is important because only money that is spent-so-called “true money” – influences prices and inflation”
That’s why Fisher called it an EXACT SCIENCE.
spencer
May 21 2023 at 12:06pm
It’s a crime. The economy is being run in reverse.
link: Daniel L. Thornton, Vice President and Economic Adviser: Research Division, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Working Paper Series
“Monetary Policy: Why Money Matters and Interest Rates Don’t”
The correct policy is to drain bank reserves while lowering interest rates. Waller, Williams, and Logan seem to agree. They “believe the Fed can keep unloading bonds even when officials cut interest rates at some future date.”
The FED should cut interest rates now, and continue with QT. The 1966 Interest Rate Adjustment Act is prima facie evidence.
spencer
May 21 2023 at 12:08pm
The truistic monetary base was exclusively demarcated by required reserves.
“I know of no model that shows a transmission from bank reserves to inflation” – DONALD KOHN – former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
“Reserves don’t even factor into my model, that’s not what causes inflation and not how the Fed stimulates the economy. It’s a side effect.” – LAURENCE MEYER – a Federal Reserve System governor from June 1996 to January 2002
Ahmed Fares
May 21 2023 at 8:05pm
The problem with the equation of exchange is that it doesn’t distinguish between GDP and non-GDP transactions. A quote from Richard Werner:
spencer
May 22 2023 at 10:51am
Werner doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Financial transactions aren’t random.
See my calculations, not spliced in the 70’s
Monetary Flows { M*Vt }: Monetary Flows { M*Vt } 1921-1996
The transactions velocity of money can move in the opposite direction of income velocity:
Remember that in 1978 (when Vt rose, but Vi fell) all economist’s forecasts for inflation were drastically wrong.
Put into perspective: There were 27 price forecasts by individuals and 9 by econometric models for the year 1978 (Business Week). The lowest (Gary Schilling, White Weld), the highest, (Freund, NY, Stock Exch) and (Sprinkel, Harris Trust and Sav.).
The range CPI, 4.9 – 6.5 percent. For the Econometric models, low (Wharton, U. of Penn) 5.7%; high, 6.6% U. of Ga.). For 1978 inflation based upon the CPI figure was 9.018% [and Leland Prichard, in his Money and Banking class, predicted 9%].
Mike Sproul
May 21 2023 at 10:19pm
Stock market analogy:
General Motors issues $100 of new shares of GM stock, and it receives $100 of new assets in exchange. Nothing happens to the share price of GM, since GM’s assets have risen in step with GM’s liabilities.
The Fed issues $100 of new currency, and it receives $100 of new assets (bonds, etc.) in exchange. Nothing happens to the value of the dollar, since the Fed’ s assets have risen in step with the Fed’s liabilities.
Jon Murphy
May 22 2023 at 12:37pm
If assets expand, yes. If they do not, then the price falls. The QTM says the same thing:
MV=PY
If we take the growth rate of both sides, it becomes
gM+gV=gP+gY.
If goods (Y) increase at the same rate as M, then there will be no change in P (assuming V stays the same, which is a reasonable assumption. V doesn’t change that much). If the growth rate is unequal, then P will change.
Inflation is too much money (M) chasing too few goods (Y).
Mike Sproul
May 22 2023 at 7:52pm
No, the QTM says that the value of the dollar does not depend on the Fed’s assets, so if the Fed issues more money at the same time that the Fed’s assets rise, then the QTM will predict inflation, while the backing theory will predict no inflation.
MV=PY.
money spent=money received
just like (rain falling from the sky)=(rain hitting the earth)
All empty tautologies.
Try letting
M=#shares of GM stock issued
V=# times/year a share is “spent” (on Y, presumably)
P=#shares of GM needed to buy a unit of Y
Y=# units of goods bought with GM shares (NOT total output of the economy)
The tautology applies just as well to GM shares as to money, except no financial economist has ever tried to use MV=PY to explain the value of GM stock
Jon Murphy
May 22 2023 at 8:33pm
Well, not quite. It depends on the money supply, which is related to Fed assets.
Jon Murphy
May 21 2023 at 11:54pm
Good stuff. The QTM such a powerful macroeconomic tool. I love teaching it, going through the logic, and showing, with real time data, how it accurately captures inflation.
spencer
May 22 2023 at 10:55am
Vi is a “residual calculation – not a real physical observable and measurable statistic.” Income velocity may be a “fudge factor,” but the transactions velocity of circulation is a tangible figure.
I.e., income velocity, Vi, is endogenously derived and therefore contrived (N-gDp divided by M) whereas Vt, the transactions’ velocity of circulation, is an “independent” exogenous force acting on prices.
Money demand is viewed as a function of its opportunity cost-the foregone interest income of holding lower-yielding money balances (a liquidity preference curve). As this cost of holding money falls, the demand for money rises (and velocity decreases).
As Dr. Philip George says: “The velocity of money is a function of interest rates”
As Dr. Philip George puts it: “Changes in velocity have nothing to do with the speed at which money moves from hand to hand but are entirely the result of movements between demand deposits and other kinds of deposits.”
Jon Murphy
May 22 2023 at 12:07pm
You keep saying “income velocity” but I don’t know what you mean by that. V stands for velocity of money
spencer
May 22 2023 at 2:53pm
PQ is another name for aggregate income / nominal gDp
Jon Murphy
May 22 2023 at 3:55pm
Oh ok. Just so you’re aware, the proper name is velocity of money. And the proper spelling is GDP (it’s an acronym, so all letters are capitalized).
spencer
May 24 2023 at 5:27pm
Friedman called it income velocity. Leland Pritchard, Ph.D. Economics, Chicago 1933, M.S. Statistics, Syracuse, called it income velocity.
As far as gDp goes, it is differentiated from gNp (which was formally used).
The pundits are wrong:
Velocity and Money Supply- Inflation’s Dance Partners – RIA (realinvestmentadvice.com)
spencer
May 22 2023 at 10:57am
Link: George Garvey:
Deposit Velocity and Its Significance (stlouisfed.org)
“Obviously, velocity of total deposits, including time deposits, is considerably lower than that computed for demand deposits alone. The precise difference between the two sets of ratios would depend on the relative share of time deposits in the total as well as on the respective turnover rates of the two types of deposits.”
spencer
May 22 2023 at 10:58am
Atlanta gDpNow’s latest R-gDp estimate: 2.9 percent — May 17, 2023
There’s just too much money in the economy. But there’s a steady deceleration in long-term money flows (proxy for inflation).
01/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.499
02/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.429
03/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.353
04/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.339
05/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.295
06/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.234
07/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.211
08/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.206
09/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.215
10/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.197
11/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.195
12/1/2023 ,,,,, 0.166
The deceleration is likely to be faster because I plugged in a steady increase in money.
spencer
May 22 2023 at 3:00pm
01/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.049
02/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.087
03/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.205
04/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.360
05/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.452
06/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.519
07/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.530
08/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.544
09/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.643
10/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.641
11/1/2020 ,,,,, 0.912
12/1/2020 ,,,,, 1.184
01/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.271
02/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.427
03/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.572
04/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.562
05/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.712
06/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.796
07/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.836
08/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.914
09/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.897
10/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.902
11/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.940
12/1/2021 ,,,,, 1.889
01/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.993
02/1/2022 ,,,,, 2.005
03/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.639
04/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.384
05/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.317 *
06/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.226
07/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.188
08/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.269
09/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.131
10/1/2022 ,,,,, 1.086
11/1/2022 ,,,,, 0.840
12/1/2022 ,,,,, 0.525
This time series underweights Vt. Typically, when you increase M, it is followed by a 3 month * increase in Vt.
Note that by November 2020, M*Vt had hit a new high.
spencer
May 22 2023 at 3:10pm
re: ” as income velocity that cannot but impress anyone who works extensively with monetary data” (Friedman, 1956, p. 21).
Or (WSJ, Sept. 1, 1983)
Friedman bastardized the equation of exchange that he had printed on his car license plate.
Comments are closed.