Popular Imagery of Money on the Move

For most financial commentators an important factor that either reinforces or weakens the effect of changes in the money supply on economic activity and prices is the “velocity of money”.

 

An image from an article on the intertubes that “explains” the velocity of money (one of the articles we came across started out as follows: “The economy runs smoothly only when there is enough money in circulation. How much is enough?”  The effect reading this has on us is not unlike that produced by the sound of fingernails scraping a chalkboard). We have found that many people find it extremely difficult to wrap their mind around the fact that the velocity concept actually doesn’t make sense, and that the matter has to be viewed from a different perspective. As an aside, we have noticed in discussions that even those who do eventually accept that a different conceptual approach is required, often insist on continuing to use the term because it “doesn’t matter what we call it”, or “to keep things simple” and similar excuses. It makes one feel like a priest trying to exorcise a particularly stubborn demon. [PT]

Illustration via supplychainbigairo.blogspot.com

 

It is alleged that when the velocity of money rises, all other thing being equal, the buying power of money declines (i.e., the prices of goods and services rise). The opposite occurs when velocity declines.

If, for example, it was found that the quantity of money had increased by 10% in a given year, — while the price level as measured by the consumer price index has remained unchanged — it would mean that the velocity of circulation must have slowed by about 10%.

 

The Mainstream View of Money Velocity

According to popular thinking the idea of velocity is straightforward. It is held that over any interval of time, such as a year, a given amount of money can be used again and again to finance people’s purchases of goods and services. The money one person spends for goods and services at any given moment can be used later by the recipient of that money to purchase yet other goods and services.

For example, during a year a particular ten-dollar bill might have been used as follows: a baker by the name of John pays the ten dollars to a tomato farmer, George. The tomato farmer uses the ten dollar bill to buy potatoes from Bob, who uses the ten dollar bill to buy sugar from Tom. The ten dollars in this example served in three transactions. This means that the ten-dollar bill was used 3 times during the year, its velocity is therefore 3.

 

The chart above depicts the quantity equation fudge factor… err, the velocity of the narrow money stock M1. As an aside, although the “V” charts of the official monetary aggregates essentially look very similar, in the broader aggregates (which include savings accounts, as well as a number of credit instruments), “V” began to decline much earlier already – namely around the time the first major global monetary policy-induced crisis of the post 1970s era started, i.e., the Asian crisis (note that previous post 1970s crises of this sort were not global in scope, such as e.g. Mexico’s peso crisis). The scale of the V graph of M2 is very different (because M2 is much larger), so we haven’t included it here, as it would be hard to compare visually. It wouldn’t contribute anything w.r.t. the principles under discussion anyway, as the theoretical points to be made about money velocity apply to all depictions of it. As we point out further below, these charts may be interesting from an economic history perspective though. [PT] – click to enlarge.

 

A $10 bill, which is circulating with a velocity of ‘3’ financed $30 worth of transactions in that year. Consequently, if there are $3000 billion worth of transactions in an economy during a particular year and there is an average money stock of $500 billion during that year, then each dollar of money is used on average 6 times during the year (since 6*$500 billion =$3000).

The $500 billion of money is boosted by means of a velocity factor to become effectively $3000 billion. From this it is established that

Velocity = Value of transactions / supply of money

This expression can be summarized as

 

V = P*T/M

 

Where V stands for velocity, P stands for average prices, T stands for volume of transactions and M stands for the supply of money. This expression can be further rearranged by multiplying both sides of the equation by M. This in turn will give the famous equation of exchange

 

M*V = P*T

 

This equation states that money times velocity equals value of transactions. Many economists employ GDP instead of P*T thereby concluding that

 

M*V = GDP = P*(real GDP)

 

The equation of exchange appears to offer a wealth of information regarding the state of the economy. For instance, if one were to assume a stable velocity, then for a given stock of money one can establish the value of GDP. Furthermore, information regarding the average price or the price level allows economists to establish the state of real output and its rate of growth.

Most economists take the equation of exchange very seriously. The debates that economists have are predominantly with respect to the stability of velocity. Thus if velocity is stable then money becomes a very powerful tool in tracking the economy.

The importance of money as an economic indicator however diminishes once velocity becomes less stable and hence less predictable. It is held an unstable velocity implies an unstable demand for money, which makes it so much harder for the central bank to navigate the economy along the path of economic stability.

 

Now consider this chart, which depicts the broad US true money supply TMS-2 (black line), nominal GDP (red line) – both indexed – and the “velocity” of M1 (the formula is simply [nominal GDP/money stock]).  What does this really tell us? Consider in particular the time period within the blue rectangle (which coincides with the sharp decline in “V”), and compare it to the preceding era. The trends within the rectangle essentially tell us “the Fed printed a lot of money, which did not translate into equivalent GDP growth”. Well… duh (if it had, we would actually not have experienced a lot of growth, but a runaway surge in consumer prices – remember that nominal GDP is employed in the calculation). Moreover, prior to the GFC, when the creation of additional money was largely accomplished by fractionally reserved banks expanding credit, GDP growth merely tracked the pace of monetary inflation (this fact is actually worth a separate article). What can not be concluded from this chart is that “velocity” has any meaning besides being a fudge factor in the tautological “equation of exchange”. In short, the empirical data appear to be in line with what economic logic already tells us. Obviously,  the demand for money (i.e., the demand for holding cash balances) will be a major driver affecting the purchasing power of money, ceteris paribus. Since society as a whole  cannot lower its cash balances (someone always has to hold the existing money stock), a decline in the demand for money will simply result in a decline of its purchasing power. When people lose confidence in government-issued money –  which usually happens after its supply has increased at an uncommon pace for a considerable time period and a sufficiently large number of people abandons the belief that the expansion will ever stop –  this may well show up in “velocity” charts, particularly in the final stage of an inflationary process, when the monetary system begins to break down (currently observable in Venezuela). This will mainly indicate that a “flight into real values” has commenced and that the collapse in purchasing power is beginning to exceed the speed at which new money is printed. This is a typical feature of such end games  – concurrently with deep contractions in real economic output. The main point is that the associated surge in “velocity” would be a symptom, not a cause. [PT] – click to enlarge.

 

Why Velocity has Nothing to do With the Purchasing Power of Money

But does velocity have anything to do with the prices of goods? Prices are the outcome of individuals’ purposeful actions. Thus John the baker believes that he will raise his living standard by exchanging ten loaves of bread for $10, which will enable him to purchase five kg of potatoes from Bob the potato farmer. Likewise, Bob has concluded that by means of $10 he will be able to secure the purchase of ten kg of sugar, which he believes will raise his living standard.

By entering an exchange, both John and Bob are able to realize their goals and thus promote their respective well-being. John has agreed that it is a good deal to exchange 10 loaves of bread for $10 for it will enable him to procure 5kg of potatoes. Likewise Bob has concluded that $10 for his 5kg of potatoes is a good price for it will enable him to secure 10kg of sugar. Observe that price is the outcome of different ends, and hence the different importance that both parties to a trade assign to means.

It is the purposeful actions of individuals that determine the prices of goods, not some mythical velocity. Indeed, according to Ludwig von Mises, the whole concept of velocity is hollow. As he writes in Human Action:

 

In analyzing the equation of exchange one assumes that one of its elements — total supply of money, volume of trade, velocity of circulation — changes, without asking how such changes occur. It is not recognized that changes in these magnitudes do not emerge in the Volkswirtschaft [ed note: political economy, or more loosely ‘economy’] as such, but in the individual actors’ conditions, and that it is the interplay of the reactions of these actors that results in alterations of the price structure. The mathematical economists refuse to start from the various individuals’ demand for and supply of money. They introduce instead the spurious notion of velocity of circulation, fashioned according to the patterns of mechanics.

 

Furthermore, money never circulates as such:

 

Money can be in the process of transportation, it can travel in trains, ships, or planes from one place to another. But it is in this case, too, always subject to somebody’s control, is somebody’s property.

 

Ludwig von Mises reminds us that changes in “macroeconomic magnitudes” result from the purposeful actions of human beings with their own volition and goals. The economy is definitely not a machine.

Photo via Mises Institute

 

Consequently, the fact that so-called velocity is ‘3’ or any other number has nothing to do with average prices and the average purchasing power of money as such. Moreover, the average purchasing power of money cannot even be established.

For instance, in a transaction the price of one dollar was established as one loaf of bread. In another transaction the price of one dollar was established as 0.5kg of potatoes, while in the third transaction the price is one kg of sugar. Observe that since bread, potatoes and sugar are not commensurable, no average price of money can be established.

Now, if the average price of money can’t be established it means that the average price of goods can’t be established either. Consequently, the entire equation of exchange falls apart. Conceptually the whole thing is not a tenable proposition and covering a fallacy in mathematical clothing cannot make it less fallacious.

According to Rothbard, in Man, Economy, and State:

 

The only knowledge we can have of the determinants of price is the knowledge deduced logically from the axioms of praxeology. Mathematics can at best only translate our previous knowledge into relatively unintelligible form.

 

Even if we were to accept that the essential service of money is its speed of circulation, there is no way that this characteristic of money could explain the purchasing power of money. On this Mises explains in Human Action:

 

Even if this were true, it would still be faulty to explain the purchasing power — the price — of the monetary unit on the basis of its services. The services rendered by water, whiskey, and coffee do not explain the prices paid for these things. What they explain is only why people, as far as they recognize these services, under certain further conditions demand definite quantities of these things.

 

We constructed a chart of the “velocity” of TMS-2 for a lark, but then we realized that there is one thing this chart actually does seem to convey – about recent economic history. Keeping in mind what we noted above – namely that the formula used to calculate “V” merely shows us the amount of money creation relative to economic output (GDP is not exactly without its flaws either, but we will let that slide for now), it seems that there were three major global economic crisis situations to which central banks responded by adopting extraordinarily loose monetary policies – presumably out of fear that the rickety global debtberg might otherwise implode. In the first two cases, the Asian crisis of 1997 and the beginning of the first retrenchment of the late 1990s stock market bubble, they managed to induce commercial banks to engage in rapid credit expansion by lowering administered interest rates. As is well known, on the next occasion (the housing bubble peak) that was no longer enough, as private banks were actually at the heart of the crisis. Central banks took over and pumped up the money supply directly with “QE”. So if there is one reason why one might be concerned about the trend depicted above, it is the fact that it illustrates that the pile of outstanding money and credit is growing ever larger relative to economic output. The main questions are when and in what way precisely the eventual denouement will play out.  [PT] – click to enlarge.

 

Dr. Frank Shostak is an Associate Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics (AASE), provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, master’s degree from Witwatersrand University and PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University, and has taught at the University of Pretoria and the Graduate Business School at Witwatersrand University.

 

This article appeared originally at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

 

Charts by St. Louis Fed

 

Chart and image captions by PT

 

Addendum: Final Velocity

 

This gentlemen is Scrooge McDuck, sliding down the gold hoard in his famous “money bin”. Presumably to the chagrin of many economists in Duckburg, the velocity of his hoard is zero. However, what we might be able to find out is Uncle Scrooge’s final velocity when he arrives at the bottom of his pile of money and collides with the wall of the bin – provided we know Scrooge’s mass, his initial velocity (which is zero as well), the height of the money pile, its slope (the angle θ) and the friction coefficient (μ) of his money pile, which counteracts the force of gravity. Once we have solved the appropriate equation*, we can make a rough guess how much damage Scrooge will suffer upon hitting the wall, and attempt to calculate his medical bill, depending on which Obamacare plan he is a member of (thoughts of the bill may cause him to retreat to the worry room). That shouldn’t be too big of a concern though, because we actually do know the size of the money bin (its approximate size was revealed by the creator of Scrooge and later detailed by his successor), and from this and the known drawings of the money pile it can be estimated that Scrooge owns more than 3.2 billion ounces of gold, worth roughly $4 trillion at current prices – which would incidentally represent the vast majority of all the gold ever mined. Also, depending on the precise friction coefficient, his final velocity may well be large enough that he will need an undertaker rather than medical attention once he hits bottom. [PT]

Illustration by Walt Disney

 

* in physics, velocity is a sensible concept and amenable to precise calculations and predictions. Readers who wish to refresh their memory of the aforementioned “appropriate equation” should click here. [PT]

 

Dr. Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics (AASE), provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, master’s degree from Witwatersrand University and PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University, and has taught at the University of Pretoria and the Graduate Business School at Witwatersrand University.

 

 

 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 


 

 
 

Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.

   

Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA

   
 

One Response to “The Money Velocity Myth”

  • Kafka:

    Every day trillions of dollars are flowed through the financialization machine. Flipping stocks, bonds, commodities that are never actually used in the real economy. Of course money velocity based on real goods and services has become a meaningless ratio.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • What Kind of Stock Market Purge Is This?
      Actions and Reactions Down markets, like up markets, are both dazzling and delightful. The shock and awe of near back-to-back 1,000 point Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) free-falls is indeed spectacular. There are many reasons to revel in it.  Today we shall share a few. To begin, losing money in a multi-day stock market dump is no fun at all.  We'd rather get our teeth drilled by a dentist.  Still, a rapid selloff has many positive qualities.   Memorable moments from...
  • How to Buy Low When Everyone Else is Buying High
      When to Sell? The common thread running through the collective minds of present U.S. stock market investors goes something like this: A great crash is coming.  But first there will be an epic run-up climaxing with a massive parabolic blow off top.  Hence, to capitalize on the final blow off, investors must let their stock market holdings ride until the precise moment the market peaks – and not a moment more.  That’s when investors should sell their stocks and go to...
  • US Stocks - Minor Dip With Potential, Much Consternation
      It's Just a Flesh Wound – But a Sad Day for Vol Sellers On January 31 we wrote about the unprecedented levels - for a stock market index that is - the weekly and monthly RSI of the DJIA had reached (see: “Too Much Bubble Love, Likely to Bring Regret” for the astonishing details – provided you still have some capacity for stock market-related astonishment). We will take the opportunity to toot our horn by reminding readers that we highlighted VIX calls of all things as a worthwhile...
  • When Budget Deficits Will Really Go Vertical
      Mnuchin Gets It United States Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin has a sweet gig.  He writes rubber checks to pay the nation’s bills.  Yet, somehow, the rubber checks don’t bounce.  Instead, like magic, they clear. How this all works, considering the nation’s technically insolvent, we don’t quite understand.  But Mnuchin gets it.  He knows exactly how full faith and credit works – and he knows plenty more.   Master of the Mint and economy wizard Steven Mnuchin and...
  • Why I Own Gold and Gold Mining Companies – An Interview With Jayant Bandari
      Opportunities in the Junior Mining Sector Maurice Jackson of Proven and Probable has recently interviewed Jayant Bandari, the publisher of Capitalism and Morality and a frequent contributor to this site. The topics discussed include currencies, bitcoin, gold and above all junior gold stocks (i.e., small producers and explorers). Jayant shares some of his best ideas in the segment, including arbitrage opportunities currently offered by pending takeovers – which is an area that generally...
  • Seasonality of Individual Stocks – an Update
      Well Known Seasonal Trends Readers are very likely aware of the “Halloween effect” or the Santa Claus rally. The former term refers to the fact that stocks on average tend to perform significantly worse in the summer months than in the winter months, the latter term describes the typically very strong advance in stocks just before the turn of the year. Both phenomena apply to the broad stock market, this is to say, to benchmark indexes such as the S&P 500 or the...
  • The Future of Copper – Incrementum Advisory Board Meeting Q1 2018
      Copper vs. Oil The Q1 2018 meeting of the Incrementum Fund's Advisory Board took place on January 24, about one week before the recent market turmoil began. In a way it is funny that this group of contrarians who are well known for their skeptical stance on the risk asset bubble, didn't really discuss the stock market much on this occasion. Of course there was little to add to what was already talked about extensively at previous meetings. Moreover, the main focus was on the topic...
  • “Strong Dollar”, “Weak Dollar” - What About a Gold-Backed Dollar?
      Contradictory Palaver The recent hullabaloo among President Trump’s top monetary officials about the Administration’s “dollar policy” is just the start of what will likely be the first of many contradictory pronouncements and reversals which will take place in the coming months and years as the world’s reserve currency continues to be compromised.  So far, the Greenback has had its worst start since 1987, the year of a major stock market reset.   A modern-day...
  • Strange Economic Data
      Economic Activity Seems Brisk, But... Contrary to the situation in 2014-2015, economic indicators are currently far from signaling an imminent recession. We frequently discussed growing weakness in the manufacturing sector in 2015 (which is the largest sector of the economy in terms of gross output) - but even then, we always stressed that no clear recession signal was in sight yet.   US gross output (GO) growth year-on-year, and industrial production (IP) – note that GO...
  • US Equities – Retracement Levels and Market Psychology
      Fibonacci Retracements   Following the recent market swoon, we were interested to see how far the rebound would go. Fibonacci retracement levels are a tried and true technical tool for estimating likely targets – and they can actually provide information beyond that as well. Here is the S&P 500 Index with the most important Fibonacci retracement levels of the recent decline shown:   So far, the SPX has made it back to the 61.8% retracement level intraday, and has weakened...
  • Update on the Modified Davis Method
      Whipsawed Frank Roellinger has updated us with respect to the signals given by his Modified Ned Davis Method (MDM) in the course of the recent market correction. The MDM is a purely technical trading system designed for position-trading the Russell 2000 index, both long and short (for details and additional color see The Modified Davis Method and Reader Question on the Modified Ned Davis Method).   The Nasdaq pillar...   As it turns out, the system was whipsawed,...
  • Market Efficiency? The Euro is Looking Forward to the Weekend!
      Peculiar Behavior As I have shown in previous issues of Seasonal Insights, various financial instruments are demonstrating peculiar behavior in the course of the week: the S&P 500 Index is typically strong on Tuesdays, Gold on Fridays and Bitcoin on Tuesdays (similar to the S&P 500 Index).   The quest for profitable foresight...[PT]   Several readers have inquired whether currencies exhibit such patterns as well. Are these extremely large markets also home to...

Support Acting Man

Item Guides

Top10BestPro
j9TJzzN

Austrian Theory and Investment

Archive

350x200

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com

Diary of a Rogue Economist