Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:11:21.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A re-examination of the empirical evidence concerning colonial Virginia's paper money, 1755-1774: a comment on Grubb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2020

Ronald Michener Open the ORCID record for Ronald Michener [Opens in a new window]
Ronald Michener*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
*
Dr R. Michener, Department of Economics, University of Virginia, Monroe Hall, 248 McCormick Rd, Charlottesville, VA22903, USA: email: rwm3n@virginia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farley Grubb's recent article in the Financial History Review contains econometric results designed to support his theoretical propositions concerning the paper money of the American colonies. This comment demonstrates that some of his results are spurious and the rest are based on using incorrect testing procedures and incorrect critical values of test statistics.

Keywords

asset moneybills of creditzero-coupon bondspaper moneycolonial Americacolonial Virginia

JEL classification

E51: Money Supply • Credit • Money Multipliers E42: Monetary Systems • Standards • Regimes • Government and the Monetary System • Payment Systems E59: Other G12: Asset Pricing • Trading Volume • Bond Interest Rates N41: U.S. • Canada: Pre-1913 N21: U.S. • Canada: Pre-1913 N11: U.S. • Canada: Pre-1913
Type
Articles
Information
Financial History Review , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , December 2019 , pp. 389 - 399
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Banking and Financial History e.V. 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, J. (1995). Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and Yule. Statistical Science, 10(4), pp. 364–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, R. (1898). Virginia in 1771. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 6(2), pp. 127–34.Google Scholar
Brock, L. V. The colonial currency, prices, and exchange rates. Essays in History, 34, pp. 70–132.Google Scholar
Byrne, J. A. and Perman, R. (2007). Unit roots and structural breaks: a survey of the literature. In Bhaskara Rao, B. (ed.), Cointegration for the Applied Economist, 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. Y. and Perron, P. (1991). Pitfalls and opportunities: what macroeconomists should know about unit roots. In Blanchard, O. J. and Fischer, S. (eds.), NBER Economics Annual. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dickey, D. A., Jansen, D. W and Thornton, D. L. (2007). A primer on cointegration with an application to money and income. In Bhaskara Rao, B. (ed.), Cointegration for the Applied Economist, 2nd edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Enders, W. (1995). Applied Econometric Time Series. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Enders, W. (2010). Applied Econometric Time Series. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Grubb, F. (2016) Is paper money just paper money? Experimentation and variation in the paper monies issued by the American colonies from 1690 to 1775. Research in Economic History, 32, pp. 147–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, F. (2017). Colonial Virginia's paper money regime, 1755-74: a forensic accounting reconstruction of the data, Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 50(2), pp. 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, F. (2018). Colonial Virginia's paper money, 1755-1774: value decomposition and performance. Financial History Review, 25(2) pp. 113–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. and Sollis, R. (2003). Applied Time Series Modelling and Forecasting. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. P. (1906). Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1766-1769. Richmond, VA: Library Board, Virginia State Library.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (1996). On the power of stationarity tests using optimal bandwidth estimates. Economics Letters, 51, pp. 131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, R. W. (2018). The case of colonial New Jersey's paper money: the redemption theory's resurrection or its death rattle (12 January 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2957768 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2957768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), pp. 1361–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perron, P. (1990). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 8(2), pp. 153–62.Google Scholar
Perron, P. (1994). Trend, unit root, and structural change in macroeconomics. In Rao, B. (ed.), Cointegration for the Applied Economist. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Perron, P. and Vogelsang, T. J. (1992). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean: corrections and extensions. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, pp. 467–70.Google Scholar
Perron, P. and Vogelsang, T. J. (1993). Erratum: The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica, 61(1), pp. 248–9.Google Scholar
Zivot, E. and Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), pp. 251–70.Google Scholar