Before undertaking detailed analysis of the causes governing V, I shall discuss Fisher's specific argument, typical of the quantity theory, that an increase of money cannot change the V's. "As a matter of fact, the velocities of circulation of money and deposits depend, as we have seen, on technical conditions, and bear no discoverable relation to the quantity of money in circulation. Velocity of circulation is the average rate of 'turnover,' and depends on countless individual rates of turnover. These, as we have seen, depend on individual _habits_. Each person regulates his turnover to suit his individual _convenience_.... In the long run, and for a large number of people, the average rate of turnover, or what amounts to the same thing, the average time money remains in the same hands, will be closely determined. It will depend on density of population, commercial _customs_, rapidity of transport, and other technical conditions, but not on the quantity of money and deposits nor on the price-level." (Italics mine.[208]) He proceeds to assume that money is doubled with a _halving_ of the V's, instead of a _doubling_ of P. Everybody now has on hand twice as much money _and deposits_ as his convenience has taught him to keep on hand. He will then try to get rid of this surplus, and he can only do it by buying goods. But this will increase somebody else's surplus, and he will likewise try to get rid of it. This will raise prices. "_Obviously_ this tendency will continue until there if found another adjustment of quantities to expenditures, and the _V's are the same as originally_."[209] The foregoing argument rests in part, it will be seen, on the assumption that a fixed ratio between M and M´ obtains, else the increase of _money_ in everybody's hands would not mean a corresponding increase in their _deposits_. I have already criticised this doctrine. For the contention that the V's will finally be _just the same_ as before, I find no specific argument at all--"_obviously_" presumably making that unnecessary.