Talk:Velocity of money

message: I presume it's supposed to be a joke that in an article on a complex economic subject links are added to such terms as "corn", "tractor" and "barn cat" that have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
This sort of nonsense seriously reduces the efficacy of Wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabelBoy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You grossly misunderstand the purpose of wikifications at this site.  The point of a link is not to provide some sort of guided study, but to allow the reader who wishes to quickly read about subjects upon which the article has touched. —SlamDiego←T 06:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-use of links 

message: The charts do not look correct to me.  For example nominal GDP averaged about $525bln in 1960 and M2 averaged about $305 bln making velocity about 1.7.  Currently GDP is about $14.2 Tln and M2 is about $8.3 Tln making velocity about 1.7.  This doesn't seem to be what the charts are showing. —Nschoewe (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a “reliable source” for that?  If so, then we'll want to hail Bkwillwm (who used a “reliable source” for those charts and for their interpretation) to discern what has happened. (I don't recall much looking at data for the '50s and '60s, and it has been literally decades since I looked at the data at all.  So I have little feel for it.) —SlamDiego←T 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of my data came from the Fed's FRED system (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/).  I think the only non-Fred data was GDP from the BEA, but FRED has GDP too. I used a spreadsheet to pull the data together and graph it.  If there's a mistake, it's possible its in the spreadsheet.  I'll check it to see if I can find any errors.  At first glance, it looks like I might have switched M1 and M2, but I'll dig deeper.  I'm looking at a static version of the sheet. I can't get the active version until next week.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, looking at it, I'm pretty sure M1 and M2 are reversed. I'll take down the charts until I can fix them.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of moving them to here as you were commenting.  I'll just leave them off altogether since you believe them to be in error. —SlamDiego←T 22:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I fixed the charts and added one for M3 while I was at it.  I can email my data if the numbers are still in doubt.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Good catch. I'll fix this soon.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: This anonymous edit from Hong Kong removed reference to the the most influential writing from the Austrian School concerning monetary velocity, with the spurious summary “not directly relevant”. (Based upon the anon's edit history in general, and one edit in particular viewed in the context of another, I'd guess that the edit was effected by Lawrencekhoo.) —SlamDiego←T 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasure from Hong Kong 

message: I would love to know what are actual typical values for the velocity in the US and maybe other economies. The charts are good but the logarithmic scale (in what log base?) don't show actual numbers.
Thanks
Zvis (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Logarithms are typically log base e. Anti-logs of values I obtained from the plots with logarithm scales agree with those from the semi-log plots. Most plot generators (e.g., MS Excel) will produce semi-log plots without the need to mess around with logarithms.Virgil H. Soule (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real velocity values/logarithmic scales 

message: In physics velocity is measured with respect to time, e.g., meters per second. In the Illustration the Velocity of Money value is given as 2/yr. Everywhere else, Velocity is simply a ratio.  Presumably, "aggregate" means that a population of values is summed to obtain nT. If nT is summed over some time span, units of velocity would be 1/time. Is some time span implied or understood for computation of nT? Are time spans consistent for data used to compute nT? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units Question 

message: The formula is often stated as MV = P (or MV = PY). The use of subscript-n T and such in the "Indirect measurement" section seems needlessly pedantic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.15.26 (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of algebraic variables 

message: I removed this from the article: "This view has been discredited by the precipitous fall in velocity in the Japanese "Lost Decade" and the worldwide "Great Recession" and its aftermath of 2008–10. Monetary authorities undertook massive expansion of the money supplies, but instead of lifting nominal GDP as predicted by this theory, velocity fell as nominal GDP was relatively unchanged."
This strikes me as somebody's personal interpretation, and it has been unsourced since 2013.  I know there's some debate about whether Quantitative Easing affected the money supply in the ways predicted by theory, but my understanding of the Fed's position is that it worked entirely as intended.  I may try to research this more if I have time, but as it stood the statement seemed misleading.  --Khgtcv (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  QE 

message: Dr. Dreger has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Dreger has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Christian Dreger & Jurgen Wolters, 2014. "Unconventional Monetary Policy and Money Demand," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1382, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Dreger's comment on this article 

message: I propose replacing the first two charts with the following, more recent chart:
This more recent chart shows M1 and M2 data together. Neither shows employment-to-population ratio - something which may be relevant but is not discussed in the article. (Should employment-to-population ratio be discussed in the article?) Zipbop (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated charts 

message: Velocity sounds more impressive but a velocity is a vector so has both a magnitude and a direction. Where's the direction here? 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this considered a velocity not a speed? 

message: I don't think velocity of money is "the average unit of currency" but rather "ONE unit of currency" 84.109.51.26 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  average unit of currency