Scholarly Comments on Academic Economics

Re-examination of the Theoretical and Historical Evidence Concerning Colonial New Jersey’s Paper Money, 1709–1775: A Further Comment on Grubb


Read this article

Access statistics
392 article downloads
341 complete issue downloads
Total: 733


In a previous comment regarding Farley Grubb’s 2016 Journal of Economic History article on the monetary history of colonial New Jersey, I outline many fatal flaws in his empirical analysis. In his rejoinder, Grubb (2020) suggests that his article’s central contribution lies elsewhere, and hence is untouched by my critique. I turn, therefore, to a discussion of the many flaws in the theoretical analysis and historical evidence used in that article. I conclude by showing how Grubb (2020) manipulated quotations, using omissions, ellipses, and his own fanciful bracketed insertions to justify his alterations to the authoritative data of John McCusker, a central issue in my original comment.

Professor Grubb received Professor Michener’s comment too late to allow for concurrent reply but will reply in the next issue of this journal.

This article is a response to Colonial New Jersey’s Paper Money, 1709–1775: Why Ronald Michener Insists on Using Uncorrected Data—A Reply by Farley Grubb (EJW, March 2020).