Had Rob Tye continued to read beyond where he stopped in John Munro's 
restatement of Nightingale's second proposition, he would have found 
that it was rather in support of my criticism of Munro.  The restatement 
reads:
> Nightingale’s  second proposition, also endorsed by most of these 
> historians, is that the wide variety of credit instruments used in 
> late-medieval England were not yet negotiable, and thus, while 
> /affecting velocity/ (V), they did /could not and did not add /to the 
> money supply (M) (my italics).
That is, (a) the use of credit affects money's velocity and (b) credit 
does not add to the money supply.   These are very points I made in my 
response to Munro.

How is it that Tye doesn't recognize that having a line of credit 
permits one to acquire goods without surrendering money (cash), and that 
such a line of credit is a substitute for money as an immediate means of 
payment?

I am also baffled by his second point:
> having cash in your pocket and access to a competing range of potential
> suppliers
>
> seems to me, again, to have a whiff of mercantilism about it.
I don't think I was eliding between any distinctions, let alone 
erroneously having done so.  Tye may retain his fascination about 
mercantilism, but I don't think mercantilism or its whiff has anything 
to do with recognizing the distinction between credit and money (cash).

-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137 Work
(510) 885-7175 Fax (Not Private)