Murray S. Wildman[71]: My comments on these interesting papers will be directed upon the methods employed, and certain assumptions involved, in the arguments of both. Granting that Professor Fisher's analysis shows a perfect correspondence between the course of prices on the one hand and the quantity of money and credit instruments on the other hand, I am still unable to see which magnitudes are properly to be regarded as causes and which as effects. That variations in the value of gold and in the price level must be reciprocal, all will admit. If we regard M as denoting the gold supply for the present, a causal relation between M and P cannot be denied. But may it not be possible that variations in M', or credit, and V and V', the velocity of circulation of both money and credit, be simply in consequence of the variation in M and P? Why is P the only passive term or why is it passive at all? Suppose that the problem set was to discover the cause of credit expansion from 1896 to 1910. Would we not seek at once to explain it by reference to rising prices and greater volume of goods, making a broader basis for credit, while along with that is a greater gold supply which promotes the convertibility of an extended credit? Then might we not invoke Professor Fisher's algebraic formula, with terms rearranged, and show by this method of reasoning, supported by statistical verification, that the high prices afford an adequate cause for the present expansion of credit? But we are seeking the cause or causes of rise in the price level. This is equivalent to seeking the cause of decline in the value of gold. Does the "quantity theory" as newly expounded give us the solution? I think not. Rather it shows us that as gold has grown in supply, and fallen in value, credit has grown in magnitude and in rapidity of circulation, and that these changes in values and volumes have gone hand in hand with proportional changes in the price level and in the magnitude of commodity exchanges. This view of the case brings me to substantial approval of Professor Laughlin's method of analysis and argument. That is, we must seek the facts regarding supply and demand as applied to gold, and those which bear upon supply and demand as touching goods, in so far as the demand for goods is expressed in offers of gold and gold representatives. Here the algebraic formula would be invoked to support his reasoning since M' and V and V' may be regarded as factors in the demand for gold.