I haven't done macro since first year macro 20+ years ago. Do monetary and macro people still talk in terms of MV = PY? Is this a close enough first proximation?
What about MV=PY

It's not just close enough to a first approximation. It's nearly 100% accurate over a long enough time horizon. Over a 2030 year time horizon, in literally any country in the world, the difference between average yearly money supply growth and average yearly real GDP growth will almost exactly equal average yearly inflation. Like the dots literally line up along the 45% line. One of the most striking and robust relationships in macroeconomics.
To 22e9: Yes, it's an identity, but in available data V is stable enough over time that what I said in the first part of my post holds.

It's not just close enough to a first approximation. It's nearly 100% accurate over a long enough time horizon. Over a 2030 year time horizon, in literally any country in the world, the difference between average yearly money supply growth and average yearly real GDP growth will almost exactly equal average yearly inflation. Like the dots literally line up along the 45% line. One of the most striking and robust relationships in macroeconomics.
To 22e9: Yes, it's an identity, but in available data V is stable enough over time that what I said in the first part of my post holds.That's because V is calculated from mv=py and is smoothed. There is no direct measurement of V.

It's not just close enough to a first approximation. It's nearly 100% accurate over a long enough time horizon. Over a 2030 year time horizon, in literally any country in the world, the difference between average yearly money supply growth and average yearly real GDP growth will almost exactly equal average yearly inflation. Like the dots literally line up along the 45% line. One of the most striking and robust relationships in macroeconomics.
To 22e9: Yes, it's an identity, but in available data V is stable enough over time that what I said in the first part of my post holds.That's because V is calculated from mv=py and is smoothed. There is no direct measurement of V.
No, dummy. If "V" (whatever "V" is) were not relatively stable in actual data, the empirical regularity I remarked on in the first paragraph of my post would not exist. I dare you to run the numbers yourself, either with U.S. data or data from any country in the world. Quantity Theory is the closest thing to an "Iron Law" that we've got.

It's not just close enough to a first approximation. It's nearly 100% accurate over a long enough time horizon. Over a 2030 year time horizon, in literally any country in the world, the difference between average yearly money supply growth and average yearly real GDP growth will almost exactly equal average yearly inflation. Like the dots literally line up along the 45% line. One of the most striking and robust relationships in macroeconomics.
To 22e9: Yes, it's an identity, but in available data V is stable enough over time that what I said in the first part of my post holds.That's because V is calculated from mv=py and is smoothed. There is no direct measurement of V.
No, dummy. If "V" (whatever "V" is) were not relatively stable in actual data, the empirical regularity I remarked on in the first paragraph of my post would not exist. I dare you to run the numbers yourself, either with U.S. data or data from any country in the world. Quantity Theory is the closest thing to an "Iron Law" that we've got.
This does not make sense, V is stable just because PY/M is stable. What is your point?

It's not just close enough to a first approximation. It's nearly 100% accurate over a long enough time horizon. Over a 2030 year time horizon, in literally any country in the world, the difference between average yearly money supply growth and average yearly real GDP growth will almost exactly equal average yearly inflation. Like the dots literally line up along the 45% line. One of the most striking and robust relationships in macroeconomics.
To 22e9: Yes, it's an identity, but in available data V is stable enough over time that what I said in the first part of my post holds.That's because V is calculated from mv=py and is smoothed. There is no direct measurement of V.
No, dummy. If "V" (whatever "V" is) were not relatively stable in actual data, the empirical regularity I remarked on in the first paragraph of my post would not exist. I dare you to run the numbers yourself, either with U.S. data or data from any country in the world. Quantity Theory is the closest thing to an "Iron Law" that we've got.
This does not make sense, V is stable just because PY/M is stable. What is your point?
The point was that PY/M is stable in the data.

I haven't done macro since first year macro 20+ years ago. Do monetary and macro people still talk in terms of MV = PY? Is this a close enough first proximation?
Macro people tend to think in terms of interest rates nowadays, rather than in terms of money supply. Money supply is a very difficult thing to actually measure, while interest rates are much easier. This is one of the lessons of the financial crisis.