Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:26:52.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to O'Brien

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Thomas Mayer  and
Monojit Chatterji
Thomas Mayer
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics. University of California. Davis, CA 95616.
Monojit Chatterji
Affiliation:
Bonar Professor of Applied Economics. University of Dundee. Dundee. Scotland, DD 1 4HK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 942 - 944
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1990

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

1 O'Brien, Anthony P., “Were Businessmen Afraid of FDR? A Comment on Mayer and Chatterji,” this JOURNAL, 50 (12 1990).Google Scholar

2 Mayer, Thomas and Chatterji, Monojit, “Political Shocks and Investment: Some Evidence from the 1930s,” this JOURNAL, 45 (12 1985), pp. 913–24. Our view of the investment equation is on p. 917.Google Scholar

3 See Sims, Christopher A., “Macroeconomics and Reality,” Econometrica, 48 (01 1980), pp. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 See Mayer, Thomas, “Economics as an Exact Science: Realistic Goal or Wishful Thinking,” Economic Inquiry, 18 (04 1980) pp. 165–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 We also take this opportunity to correct a transcription error. In table 1 of Mayer and Chatterji, “Political Shocks and Investment,” the entry for S5 for machine tools should be 0.32, not 3.19. Our discussion in the text is based on the correct figure.Google Scholar

6 We did, however, see if lagging the shocks by one quarter makes a difference. It does not.Google Scholar