As to the nature and order of the price-making process and the actual forces behind price movements, I am in substantial accord with Professor Laughlin. That prices, individually and collectively considered, express the value-proportion of demand for and supply of goods on the market to demand for and "visible supply" of the standard commodity is fundamentally logical. Nor is there occasion to quibble over the paradox of disturbed equilibrium of demand and supply. Physically considered, the goods which objectify these terms are, of course, identical; but, in the valuation process, demand and supply denominate, respectively, _desire_ and _utility_--the generally acknowledged antecedents of value. Price is the equalizing factor between the effective demand for gold and the effective demand for other goods, each taken in conventional units; and price changes are resultants of, and commensurate with, net variations in the value-factors of the standard and of the objects of exchange. Referring to the nature of credit and the economic qualities of credit instruments, the somewhat figurative expression "goods coined into a means of payment" is a striking and accurate characterization. It is possible that all legitimate market values, under normal trade conditions, may be liquidized through credit agencies, and the goods in which they are incorporated be thus rendered immediately and conveniently exchangeable. This process may be consummated independently of prices and with slight regard to the actual supply of money. The truth of this assertion is, in fact, demonstrated daily in the marts of trade. * * * * * J. Laurence Laughlin[76]: There is time to answer briefly only a few of the points raised by several speakers. First, Professor Fisher's equation of MV + M'V' = PT is to my mind not a solution, but only a statement, of the problem of price levels. It can be read backward as well as forward. For instance, it does not follow that the level of prices (P) will rise with an increase of M', since--as Professor Taussig has pointed out already--an active development of trade and industry (T) would itself be a reason for an increase of banking loans and deposits subject to check (M'), thus equalizing effects on both sides of the equation without necessarily increasing P. This result is, in fact, one of the points on which I have steadily insisted in my own exposition of the theory of prices and credit; and Professor Fisher's equation allows it to appear distinctly. His equation does not show causes; it states a static situation, into which various causes may be read. The facts between 1876 and 1896 disclose an increase of bank deposits of 500 or 600 per cent., and yet that period was distinguished as one of falling prices. Therefore M' cannot be regarded as having been proved to be a cause of higher prices.