Few conclusions about economic events have been repeated as frequently or have had as much influence on economists' attitudes toward monetary policy as the assertion that the monetary system of the thirties was "caught in a liquidity trap." Empirical studies of the public's demand for money and the banks' demand for earning assets seemed to support the assertion about a trap and the closely related conclusion that monetary policy had no effect on output, employment, and prices during at least some part of the thirties.1 Conclusions about the occurrence of a trap and the ineffectiveness of monetary policy were reinforced by central bankers' statements that likened monetary policy to "pushing on a string."2 Taken together the empirical evidence and the central bankers' interpretations convinced many economists that some form of a trap had existed (Keynes 1936 p. 207; Fellner, 1948, pp. 81-83, 91-93; Villard, 1948, pp. 324 334 345- Shaw, 1950, pp. 283-85)

In his recent contribution to the theory and empirical analysis of the demand for money, Gregory Chow attempted to reconcile the short- and long-run behavior of the demand for money by "introducing a mechanism for the adjustment of actual money stock to desired stock. . ." (Chow, 1966, p. 111). In this brief comment, we will argue that his formulation of the adjustment equation contains implications that make it difficult to accept and that his empirical evidence does not distinguish the "relative importance of current income as compared with wealth or permanent income" (Chow, 1966, p. Ill), as he claims. Further, we show that when income and prices are not combined in a single variable, nominal income, his more important conclusions about the effect of current income on the demand for money are reversed.