Interest-Bearing Currency: Evidence from the Civil War Experience: Comment
评论了Gherity（1993）关于附息货币的实证研究，指出其结论基于错误命题，无法区分不同理论对无息货币流通的解释，且部分案例无法被现有理论涵盖。
James Gherity (1993) reports an experience that falsifies predictions of the legal restrictions theory of the demand for money. He concludes that this failure is explained by Lawrence H. White's (1987) rather than Gail E. Makinen and G. Thomas Woodward's (1986) hypothesis of why interest-free money is a superior circulating medium. Gherity's conclusion depends on the erroneous proposition that transactions costs of using post-dated interest-bearing notes are avoided by tendering them at par. The experience cannot discriminate between the White explanation and that of Makinen and Woodward. For some of the note issues concerned, neither the legal restrictions theory, White, nor Makinen and Woodward explains the behavior that occurred. Copyright 1995 by Ohio State University Press.