MV=PT

MV=PT

Dette betyr pengemengde (M) x pengenes omløpshastighet (V) = priser (P) x omsatte varer og tjenester (T).

Dersom vi antar at omløpshastigheten V er konstant, får vi ved å skalere pengemengden M den enkle ligningen

M=PT, som gir sammenhengen mellom pengemengde (M), priser (P) og omsatte varer og tjenester (T).

Et par definisjoner er her på plass:
Pengeinflasjon kalles det når pengemengden (M) øker, og prisinflasjon kalles det når prisene (P) øker.

Av kvantitetsligningen ser vi at det er lett å holde konstante priser, det vil si unngå prisinflasjon. Det eneste Norges Bank behøver å gjøre, er å øke pengemengden (M) mindre enn økningen av omsatte varer og tjenester (T). Ettersom vi i alle år etter krigen har hatt en økning i omsatte varer og tjenester (T), ville vi med konstant pengemengde (M) hatt prisdeflasjon i Norge. Når vi likevel har hatt prisinflasjon, kommer det av at Norges Bank hele tiden har økt pengemengden (M) mer enn omsetning av varer og tjenester (T). Og av kvantitetsligningen M=PT ser vi at dersom vi har pengeinflasjon (pengemengden M øker) og økningen er større enn økningen i omsetningen av varer og tjeneste (T), vil vi få prisinflasjon (dvs. at P øker). Av dette ser vi at prisinflasjon er en villet politikk fra Norges Bank sin side, og at Gjedrem lyver når han later som det er vanskelig å kontrollere inflasjonen.

Hvorfor vil Norges Bank ha prisinflasjon? Ikke så godt å si, men det er lett å se hvorfor politikerne vil ha prisinflasjon. Prisinflasjon (at pengene blir mindre verd) fungerer nemlig som en skjult skatt på borgerne. Vanlig skattlegging er lite populært, så det er lett å se hvorfor politikerne bruker prisinflasjon som en skjult skattlegging.

Les mer på Minerva.as eller jeg kan anbefale en titt på Farmann.no, begge er norske og dekker økonomi godt. Dere har alle hørt om finanskrisa, renta som går opp og ned. inflasjon, boligpriser som faller, arbeidsledigheten øker, oljen som stiger/synker, matprisene, energikostnadene osv. Men dette er bare symptomer, den virkelige årsaken blir ikke drøftet, det er på tide folk spør seg om hvorfor…

Advertisements

~ av Sigurd Mellqvist den 14/11/2008.

3 kommentar to “MV=PT”

  1. Bra post.

    For en beskrivelse av hvordan norges-bank forstyrrer realøkonomien så finner du det på mn blogg.

    http://frydonomics.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/stoltenbergonomics/

  2. red on c\black
    it is difficult to read…
    nice initiative
    I attempted to solve the problem MV=PT
    a while back,
    but as it is all made up…

    Well, we can’t defeat their logikk,
    as,
    if we suceed *they will simply create a new logic…
    But, given reaon,
    people can be made to ask questions?

    The infamous «equation of exchange», MV = PT which represents one of the attempts of early economic theory to create general equations is only plausible given that the supply of the input in the equation, money, is exogenous; that is to say in economic terms:
    “Coming from outside, which means only that it is not explained within the model.” (Glossary)
    Such that money is not explained within the equation and comes from outside the equation. Thus in a sense money is external to the economy. The discourse known as monetarianism is based on this equation and has been trying to use it to explain and account for the way money is used and produced in our economic system without it must be said much success .
    «… We have a problem trying to define exactly what MONEY is…the current definition of MONEY is not sufficient to give us a good means for controlling the Money Supply…» (Greenspan 2000)
    While a precise definition of money is lacking in economic philosophy money is in reality nothing more than a convenient substitute for natural goods. As natural goods are produced by the transformation of energy, the transformation of energy, or work, represents the actual cost of production. The amount of work used in production is acknowledged, recorded and «stored» by using money and money remains the medium of exchange due to its convenience of use (Value).
    The use of natural resources as production inputs does not merely serve to increase capital flows in society. Many production processes have negative environmental impacts which in turn produce social impacts; these are known as production externalities; pollution being the most common example. Increased capital flows, which reinforce the theory of capitalism and in turn increase capital flows also produce social and environmental costs and benefits on a global scale; these are externalities due to capital growth, such as global warming and resource depletion or degradation.
    “In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit resulting from an economic transaction that is not borne or received by parties directly involved in the transaction.” (Wiki “Externalities”)
    Since almost all economic transactions involve the exchange of money an externality can also be described as:
    A monetary surplus or deficit due to the exchange of monies that is not accounted for within the actual exchange
    Pollution, commonly thought to represent a negative externality of production, can undoubtedly be defined as a monetary deficit as headlines such as “Environmental Pollution Costs China 64 Billion Dollars In 2004” serve to highlight (China).
    Furthermore if money is representative of the work done during production then an externality is also a
    Waste of work resulting from the transformation of energy that is not accounted for within production.
    The headline would then read: “China wastes work equivalent to 64 billion dollars in 2004” which better represents the physical waste of pollution .
    The importance of being able to defining externalities as the wastage of work or waste of money, rather than only as specific visible costs or benefits is that waste allows for the creation of industry while costs and benefits only allow for theoretical attempts to internalize or penalize waste production. That is to say that once the physical amount of waste is accounted for it can be used in production thereby further generating wealth. Social ‘costs’ can also be thought to allow for increased growth as they lead to the formation of interest groups for dealing with these ‘costs’.
    The problem facing many ‘experts’ in the field of externalities resides in this attempt to internalize waste within the process; such an attempt can only be economically inefficient since the costs and benefits have only become apparent as a result of an already economically efficient process. Internalization must therefore actually reduce the efficiency of the process.
    It was the negative externalities of production more than anything else that gave rise to the environmental movement and as such it is not so strange that they have devoted much of their resources in an attempt to counter these externalities. The environmental movement has however developed very few methods for dealing with externalities rather using capital to spread propaganda which increases their capital base and then either lobbying or blaming government for the externalities .
    Because pollution has only been seen to be a cost, and continues to be regarded as such the potential of pollution to increase economic growth has been invisible. As environmental groups and the parties involved in the production of pollution have little or no economic interest in any remedial action it has been assumed that no market exists for action. As pollution is inherent in many processes that create goods necessary for the maintenance of life it is obviously essential to human well being; thus it can also claim to be a good.
    Externalities are also the overriding basis for the claiming market failure. Market failure means that the total costs and benefits of production are not fully accounted for in production or stated otherwise that the market is inefficient in its use of resources. Externalities, once recognized and defined as such, are thought to give evidence of this inefficiency.
    Externalities have only been defined as they have become known and if the non-planning aspect of economic management is allowed to continue then natural resources face the real danger of being depleted. This represents a global externality of capital growth which sustainable natural resource management must look for ways to deal with.

  3. Internalization must therefore actually reduce the efficiency of the process because of the increase in costs. Unless the aim of the process is to create wealth in which case the decrease in an established individual profit margin would actually benefit society by creating more wealth.
    Everything needs editing…

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

WordPress.com-logo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din WordPress.com konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Facebookbilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google+ konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Kobler til %s

 
%d bloggers like this: