The argument set forth to prove that T is not influenced by M or M' is as follows: "An inflation of the currency cannot increase the products of farms or factories, nor the speed of freight trains or ships. The stream of business depends on natural resources and technical conditions, not on the quantity of money. The whole machinery of production, transportation and sale is a matter of _physical capacities and technique_, none of which depend on the quantity of money. The only way in which quantities of trade appear to be affected by the quantity of money is by influencing trades accessory to the creation of money and to the money metal.... From a practical or statistical point of view they amount to nothing, for they could not add to nor subtract one-tenth of 1% from the general aggregate of trade." (_Loc. cit._ p. 155. Italics mine.) Something similar is said on p. 62, where "transitional" influences of M on T are being discussed: "But the amount of trade is dependent, _almost entirely_, on other things than the quantity of currency, so that an increase of currency cannot, _even temporarily_, very greatly increase trade. In ordinarily good times practically the whole community is engaged in labor, producing, transporting, and exchanging goods. The increase of currency of a "boom" period cannot, of itself, increase the population, extend invention, or increase the efficiency of labor.[229] These factors pretty definitely limit the amount of trade that can reasonably be carried on. So, although the gains of the enterpriser-borrower may exert a psychological stimulus on trade, though a few unemployed may be employed, and some others in a few lines induced to work overtime, and although there may be some additional buying and selling which is speculative, _yet almost the entire effect_ of an increase in deposits must be seen in a change in prices. Normally the _entire_ effect would so express itself, but transitionally there will be also _some_ increase in the Q's." (Pp. 62-63. Italics mine.) Fisher is here exceedingly uncompromising, even where transitional periods are concerned, and it is not necessary, in order to do his position full justice, to make much distinction between "normal" and "transitional" effects in my counter-argument. I shall, however, take account of the distinction as I proceed, in justice to other, more moderate, quantity theorists.