Re: More money or better distribution?

["Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 17:35 17/08/98 -0700, John B. O'Donnell wrote:
>John M. Legge wrote:
>>
>> jbod's assertion is that dQ/dM is zero.  This is formally meaningless as
>> mathematics, but I take it as an assertion that the availability of
money is
>> not correlated with the physical volume of economic output.
>
>Close but no cigar. It means that a change in the quantity of money does
>not cause a change in the volume of output of an economy. To some it may
>be a subtle difference, but it is the essence of understanding that one
>must look elsewhere for means to cause greater production and a more
>equitable distribution of that production.

	How about multiple choice ( "<>" means "not equal")

(1) Which is the best description of the causal links between Q and M:
	(a)	dQ/dM =  0, dM/dQ =  0
	(b)	dQ/dM <> 0, dM/dQ =  0
	(c)	dQ/dM =  0, dM/dQ <> 0
	(d)	dQ/dM <> 0, dM/dQ <> 0

(2) Which is the best description of the causal links between Q and i:
	(a)	dQ/di =  0, di/dQ =  0
	(b)	dQ/di <> 0, di/dQ =  0
	(c)	dQ/di =  0, di/dQ <> 0
	(d)	dQ/di <> 0, di/dQ <> 0

(3) Which is the best description of the causal links between i and M:
	(a)	di/dM =  0, dM/di =  0
	(b)	di/dM <> 0, dM/di =  0
	(c)	di/dM =  0, dM/di <> 0
	(d)	di/dM <> 0, dM/di <> 0

	My hunch is that, unlike the YES/NO version, this includes enough play to
provide a little sketch of helicopter money models, horizontalist money
models,
and Davidson's money model.  And of course the nihilist model 8-)#

	1a, 2a, 3a.


Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx