CONCLUSION 
The reader was reminded in the introduction to this 
work that the classical theory of money rests on certain 
simple data such as the idea of commodity and the idea of 
quantity. Deductive reasoning easily draws various 
combinations from these data, which seem at first sight to 
be applicable to almost all circumstances. We have, how- 
ever, proved in our study of contemporary monetary 
phenomena that such conclusions—often far too hasty— 
will provide only crude explanations in some cases and in 
others rules which do not square with the facts. In par- 
ticular we have emphasised that crude theories drawn 
merely from ideas of quantity and commodity will not 
suffice to explain the phenomena of so-called depreciation. 
We have seen, particularly in the case of India, that certain 
thinkers, governed by considerations which were too 
abstract, fell wide of the mark. We have also seen in re- 
viewing the exchange crisis at the end of the 19th century 
and the present crisis, that the facts will often not square 
with dogmatic theories which have been elaborated too 
soon. 
After considering the most general propositions of the 
classical doctrine, we were led to subject the Quantity 
Theory which governs that doctrine to certain reserva- 
tions. It is not a question of contesting the accuracy of the 
initial observation on which it rests. But the proposition 
which it puts forward has reference to the observation of 
a closed market in which, by hypothesis, supply can no 
longer answer to a rise in demand as shown by an increase 
in the media of payment. We have shown that it is neces- 
sary to take great precautions in applying observations 
about a static condition to a market which is animated by 
continuous movement. The Quantity Theory rests on a 
22Q