I responded to a claim the "Money
directly increases productivity." [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy
I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity
No. A direct relationship is X=Function of Y. In other words, changing the amount of money in circulation should directly affect productivity. There is no direct relationship.
Strictly speaking (was it you who insisted on being precise?), it's just a matter of choosing a transformation function (your F). Whatever you consider "direct" can be further detailed into multiple intermediate steps, so finally it cannot be called "direct". And vice versa, whatever you called "indirect" may be transformed to a direct relationship by choosing a proper F
Actually, you are trying to save your position by clinging to the things which are insignificant in the context. First of all, it was not a question of changing the amount of money in circulation for money to change productivity (yes, you get your attitude mirrored back). Secondly, I could just propose to compare two economies , i.e money economy and economy without money (barter economy). Would a productivity boost in the first case be a direct result of introducing money into the economy?
Regardless of what F is, if F is a function, Y must be calculable from the value of X. Curve-fitting for every point is not an option, a function must have predictability & verifiability to be meaningful. Otherwise, "direct" becomes meaningless & should simply be factored out of the statement.
So it is you who is resorting to petty semantics to obfuscate an obvious point -- that there is no direct relationship between money and productivity. There is no correlation (if there is, please explain what you mean), and there's provably no causation. When there is no causation, the relationship is indirect, i.e. money is one of the many factors at play.
