Home

The Depreciation of the Continental: A Reply

Charles W. Calomiris

Title:
The Depreciation of the Continental: A Reply
Author(s):
Calomiris, Charles W.
Date:
Type:
Articles
Department:
Business
Volume:
48
Persistent URL:
Book/Journal Title:
Journal of Economic History
Abstract:
There are two ways to interpret Ron Michener's comment on my article. One is to view it as an analysis of the difficulties of estimating money demand and of identifying the relevant components of money supply during the colonial and Revolutionary periods, both of which would be necessary to draw firm conclusions about the time path of aggregate real money balances from 1774 through 1781. Another way to read the comment is as a disproof of the importance of fiscal expectations in determining the market value of the continental. Taking the first view, Michener's contributions and caveats are often well taken, though it was never my intent to estimate (or even describe in detail) the time path for the overall supply or demand for liquidity during this period. My discussion divides into three parts. First, I clarify aspects of my work, and that of others, which Michener misinterprets. Second, I show that Michener's evidence actually supports the importance of fiscal news, and that the quantity theory of aggregate money does not offer an alternative to my (and others') explanation for changes in the value of the continental. Finally, I take issue with Michener's evidence for real balance stability.
Subject(s):
Economic history
American history
Finance
Publisher DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700005957
Item views
183
Metadata:
text | xml
Suggested Citation:
Charles W. Calomiris, 1988, The Depreciation of the Continental: A Reply, Columbia University Academic Commons, http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:10865.

Center for Digital Research and Scholarship at Columbia University Libraries | Terms of Use | Copyright