{"title":"北卡罗莱纳殖民地的纸币制度，1712-1774:对卡切斯和格拉布的评论","authors":"R. Michener","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3410525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent NBER paper, Cutsail and Grubb argue that North Carolina’s colonial bills of credit were valued like discount bonds, with a current market value largely determined by the discounted value of the bills when paid into the treasury in taxes or other public payments. Grubb has previously published several papers making similar claims about other colonies. This comment argues Cutsail and Grubb’s methodology, history, data series, and econometrics, as applied to North Carolina, are all seriously flawed.","PeriodicalId":176096,"journal":{"name":"Economic History eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Colonial North Carolina’s Paper Money Regime, 1712-1774: A Comment on Cutsail and Grubb\",\"authors\":\"R. Michener\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3410525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a recent NBER paper, Cutsail and Grubb argue that North Carolina’s colonial bills of credit were valued like discount bonds, with a current market value largely determined by the discounted value of the bills when paid into the treasury in taxes or other public payments. Grubb has previously published several papers making similar claims about other colonies. This comment argues Cutsail and Grubb’s methodology, history, data series, and econometrics, as applied to North Carolina, are all seriously flawed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic History eJournal\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic History eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic History eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Colonial North Carolina’s Paper Money Regime, 1712-1774: A Comment on Cutsail and Grubb
In a recent NBER paper, Cutsail and Grubb argue that North Carolina’s colonial bills of credit were valued like discount bonds, with a current market value largely determined by the discounted value of the bills when paid into the treasury in taxes or other public payments. Grubb has previously published several papers making similar claims about other colonies. This comment argues Cutsail and Grubb’s methodology, history, data series, and econometrics, as applied to North Carolina, are all seriously flawed.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
