The figures for the other two years vary little from those of 1890. What variation there is shows a growth of drafts on interior cities, and a decline of drafts on New York. New York showed 63.07% of these drafts in 1890, 61% in 1891, and 60.77% in 1892.[408]
As we have seen, the only checks or drafts that get into New York clearings are those drawn on New York banks. The checks on New York banks probably almost all represent business in which one party is a New York individual, firm, or corporation. The drafts by out-of-town banks will contain all the items, virtually, that represent "clearings" through New York. Not all of these, by any means, will represent such clearings. A very substantial part of them will represent exchange sold to customers to make payments in New York. We exaggerate the "clearing through New York" when we subtract all these drafts from New York clearings. Since, however, we treat country clearings in the same way, no error results, so far as the proportions between them are concerned.
The two sets of data converge. Both from the figures of 1913-14, in conjunction with estimated check circulation in 1909, and from the figures of 1890-92, can we conclude that New York clearings do not overcount New York transactions. The conclusion would seem to be inevitable that New York is really as important in our volume of banking transactions as its clearings would indicate. This may be qualified by a recognition of the possibility that New York clearings are more efficient in handling check deposits than are clearings in other cities. Some scattering data from national banks for single days at a time indicate that a higher percentage of checks is cleared in New York than elsewhere in the country,[409] and one observation for five national banks for a ten-day period shows 67% of checks deposited cleared.[410] These checks include deposits made by other banks, as do the figures of Kemmerer's observations. But there are no direct observations covering New York for a long enough period, or for enough institutions, to warrant any definite conclusions.[411]
The error of assuming clearings of March 17 in the country outside New York to be abnormally low, swelled Professor Fisher's total figure for check circulation by 31 billions, as we have seen. On the other hand, the error of assuming New York City to be complete in Kinley's figures tended to make the total smaller than it would have been, since New York City was 28% below normal, and an increase of 28% applied to half of Professor Weston's figure of 1.02 billions, gives about 70 millions more for the day, or 21 billions more for the year, than when the 28% increase is applied to only a quarter of Professor Weston's figure. These two errors roughly neutralize one another, and we may accept Professor Fisher's "finally adjusted" estimate of 353 billions[412] for the year as roughly approximating the amount of checks deposited.[413] How "rough" an estimate one gets by taking a single day as the basis for a year need not be here discussed. I should be disposed to think that an indirect calculation, via clearings, in view of our more extensive knowledge of the relation of clearings to "total transactions," might well be worth more, so far as deposits outside New York are concerned. Since, however, we lack any extended figures for the relation of transactions and clearings in New York, and since even for the country we are obliged to make guesses as to the relation of "checks deposited" to "total transactions," I refrain from trying to improve further on Professor Fisher's estimate for checks deposited in 1909—even though questioning that "check deposits" and M´V´ are identical.
What, however, shall we say of M´V´ for other years? In the calculation of this, Professor Fisher relies on the absolute figures for 1909 (and 1896, similarly calculated), together with an "index" based on New York and country clearings. In this index he weights country clearings by 5,[414] and New York clearings by 1. The result is, of course, that country clearings dominate the index. But New York clearings are much more variable than country clearings. The range of variation in New York clearings for the years 1897 to 1908, inclusive, is from 33.4 billions in 1897, to 104.7 billions, in 1906; the latter figure being more than three times as great as the former. The range in country clearings is from 23.8 billions, in 1897, to 57.8 billions, in 1907, the latter figure being 210/23 as great as the former. But more significant is the degree of year by year variability. The country clearings, with the exception of 1908, always rise,—a steady, if not quite symmetrical, increase. New York clearings, however, go up and down, 42 billions in 1898, 60.8 billions in 1899, 52.6 billions in 1900, 79.4 billions in 1901, 66.0 billions in 1903, 104.7 billions in 1906, 87.2 billions in 1907, 79.3 billions in 1908. New York clearings are highly variable in both directions, while country clearings vary almost wholly in one direction, with a maximum difference of 6.4 billions between any two consecutive years, and with an average yearly variation of only 3.5 billions.[415] When country clearings are weighted by 5, almost all of the high degree of variability of New York clearings is covered up, and volume of checks deposited for years other than 1909 and 1896 is thrown hopelessly away from the facts. It is too large by far in most years. In 1905, 1906 and probably 1901 it is too small. It does not vary nearly enough. As V´ for years other than 1909 and 1896 is determined, for Professor Fisher's equation, by dividing the M´V´ thus estimated by the M´ for the year, it is clear that V´ as estimated by Professor Fisher is very much less variable than it is in fact. It is pretty variable even in his figures, but his figures do not nearly show how variable it is.[416]
Again, this undue weighting of country clearings, swallowing up New York, vitiates Professor Fisher's estimates for V, the velocity of money, for years other than 1909 and 1896. One of the elements in the calculation of V is the estimated V´.[417] Since V´ is wrong, V will also be wrong. V is probably much more variable than Professor Fisher's figures would indicate. With great admiration for the ingenuity of Professor Fisher's speculations regarding V, I find too many elements of conjecture, and too many arbitrary assumptions, to give me confidence in the figure for any year. I refrain from going into any general criticism of his method of calculating V, however, contenting myself with the one clear point that, to the extent that the values of V for years other than 1909 and 1896 depend on the estimated M´V´ for those years, they are less variable than they ought to be.[418]
The same conclusion regarding Professor Fisher's estimates for V´ have been reached, by a different method, by Professor Wesley C. Mitchell. He, too, concludes that V´ is, in fact, more variable than Professor Fisher would indicate.[419]
I conclude, therefore, that neither V´ nor V has been correctly calculated, for years other than 1909 and 1896. I pass now to a consideration of T, the volume of trade, after which I shall consider P, the price-level, in the equation of exchange.
Let us first recall the point made in the chapter on "The Equation of Exchange," that P and T, the price-level and the volume of trade, are not independent even in idea. If one is given an independent definition, the other cannot be given an independent definition. If the equation is to be true, then P must be weighted by the numbers of each item (as hats) exchanged. P is not a mere average, but is a weighted average, and T is always the denominator in the formula for P. In developing statistics for P and T, therefore, this fact must be kept in mind, and the elements entering into each must coincide, and vary together year by year.
In our chapter on "The Volume of Money and the Volume of Trade," we showed that the great bulk of trade is speculation. We showed that the indicia of variation which Fisher[420] and Kemmerer have constructed for trade, dominated by inflexible physical items of consumption and production, give wholly misleading results for every year except the base year. They give a steadily growing, inflexible figure, with little variation from its steady path. Trade, if chiefly speculation, is highly flexible, varies enormously from year to year, waxes and wanes. This point need not be further developed. At best Fisher's figure for trade can be accepted only for one year, 1909.