24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T551,

The well-known w–r relation results from the price equation system and the normalisation equation, that is, the equalisation of price of the normalisation commodity (numéraire) with a positive constant. In this article, we show that the w–r relation is neither that of the given technique nor that of the given production system, but that of the normalisation subsystem, that is, the subsystem which, using the above-mentioned technique, produces the normalisation commodity as its own net product. So, the maximum nominal wage rate, the slope and the maximum profit rate of the w–r relation vary with the normalisation commodity and the above constant. In inference of them, (a) the comparison and the ranking of given techniques concerning our profitability as the choice of the most profitable of them too is in reality a comparison, a ranking and a choice of the corresponding normalisation subsystems; (b) the phenomena of re-switching appear and disappear due to the change of the normalisation commodity; and (c) the comparison, the ranking, the choice of techniques and the ascertainment of the re-switching phenomenon are impossible. Finally, the normalisation subsystem tenders an index magnitude to solving the as yet unsolved problem of how the prices change with income distribution.

26:T553,

The study examines the relationships among money supply, output and prices. Quarterly data were sourced from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which spanned from 1996 Q2 to 2019 Q1. Four variables were included in the study: GDP, inflation (Consumer Price Index [CPI]) and two measures of money supply (M1 and M3). The findings of the study reveal that money supply is correlated with India’s output as well as inflation. Johansen’s test of co-integration reveals the existence of a long-term relationship among the variables. Another striking finding of this study is that neither M1 nor M3 could cause output (GDP) in the short run, but both Granger-cause inflation in the short run, which may be attributed to the output growth capacity limit of the country. The monetary policy disturbance in relation to other variables was examined through a structural vector autoregressive (SVAR) model that indicates that the two measures of money supply exert a positive impact on GDP. Similarly, the finding also shows that a monetary policy shock from the two measures of money supply causes a positive and continuous increase in inflation in India. Thus, money supply measure M3 is a potential indicator of movement in India’s output; hence the monetary authority should be mindful of inflation while targeting output expansion through money supply.