Abstract

The author maintains that M_ and M_, the two components of money demand, are not the former a flux and the latter a stock: they have the same dimension both in the Cambridge School (Marshall-Keynes) and in the Lausanne school (Walras-Pareto) and also in Fisher. The contrary opinion is founded on a misunderstanding which is pointed out at the beginning of the paper. In his conclusion the author mentions doubtfully the possibility to consider money as a stock in the Georgescu-Roegen's meaning.