Alfred Amonn, “Die Quantitätstheorie in der älteren, neueren und neuesten Literatur” (1953)

Amonn’s essay reconstructs the quantity theory in response to what he regards as its mid-century simplification. Hansen and Schneider present the doctrine as $P=f(M)$—prices as a simple function of the money stock—and then reject it as mechanistic. Amonn’s first move is historical: even the oldest monetary writers related money to goods brought to market, and therefore saw money value as a relation, not as an automatic effect of money alone.

Man wird selbst in der ältesten geldtheoretischen Literatur vergeblich nach einer derart primitiven Fassung der Quantitätstheorie suchen.

English translation: Even in the oldest monetary-theoretical literature one will search in vain for so primitive a formulation of the quantity theory.

The main thesis follows: serious quantity theory explains the purchasing power of money through effective monetary demand in relation to the volume of goods and transactions. It does not deny human action; it assumes dispositions to spend, hold, borrow, or produce. The “mechanistic” criticism therefore mistakes shorthand for doctrine.

eine zusätzliche Geldmenge eine zusätzliche Nachfrage zur Folge hat

English translation: an additional quantity of money results in an additional demand

The structure is dogmenhistorisch. Amonn traces a line from Bodin, Davanzati, and Montanari through Locke, Cantillon, Hume, the classics, Fisher, and Keynes. Each stage adds a determination: first the ratio of money to market goods; then circulating rather than merely existing money; then velocity; then the turnover of goods; then credit and credit media. Hume is decisive because he already allows dynamic and behavioral qualifications: new money may first stimulate enterprise and production before raising prices, while habits and “customs and manners” alter the relevant magnitudes. The theory is thus an evolving framework, not a fixed proportionality dogma.

The central technical discussion concerns Fisher’s equation, $MV+M'V'=PT$. Amonn stresses that $PT$ abbreviates $\sum pq$, not a real aggregate commodity quantity multiplied by a single concrete price level. The equation is therefore neither a strict logical identity nor itself a causal law. It states a functional relation among exchange magnitudes; causal interpretation begins only when the equation is brought to empirical reality.

Das ist richtig, aber kein Einwand.

English translation: That is correct, but it is no objection.

This answer to the charge of non-causality is central. A simultaneous equation cannot decide which variable moves first. It can show that if one magnitude changes, others must change in determinate ways; but whether money quantity, velocity, transaction volume, or credit is independent in a given case is a historical and institutional question. Hence Amonn’s quantity theory is conditional: at full employment $M$ may dominate because $T$ is relatively fixed and $V$ comparatively stable; underemployment or crisis can make $T$ and $V$ more important, and new money may expand output rather than prices.

Sections V and VI supply the conceptual culmination. Since J. St. Mill, Amonn says, the “purified” quantity theory is simply general value theory applied to money. Prices are the exchange relation between goods and money; unless money is exempt from supply and demand, its value must be explained by them. Against Hegeland’s narrower reinterpretation, he insists that since Hume the central problem has been money value and price determination.

Die Quantitätstheorie in ihrer neueren, sozusagen «geläuterten» Form – seit J. St. Mill – ist tatsächlich nichts anderes als die Erklärung des Geldwerts

English translation: The quantity theory in its more recent, so to speak «purified» form – since J. St. Mill – is in fact nothing other than the explanation of the value of money

The relevant money supply is not the stock “in the country”; it is money offered for goods, including credit purchasing power and multiplied by velocity. Money remains a special case because, as medium of exchange, it is not demanded for direct want-satisfaction. Its offer against goods is a quantity, not an ordinary price-quantity schedule; demand for it is likewise not for a definite consumable amount, but for as much purchasing power as sellers can obtain.

Nachfrage und Angebot hier einfach Quantitäten sind

English translation: demand and supply here are simply quantities

Amonn separates three levels often confused in criticism: the functional exchange relation, the causal sequence, and the empirical situation that decides which variable is operative. He admits that older formulations need refinement, but rejects criticism directed at a simplified version of the doctrine. Like the law of free fall, quantity theory may retain analytical validity even where disturbances prevent pure empirical realization. The proper task is refinement, not criticism of

eine alte, längst überholte, im Grunde genommen überhaupt nie vertretene Theorie.

English translation: an old, long-superseded theory that, at bottom, was in fact never held at all.