Roger Sandilands wrote: "... as Mason indicates, before the General Theory and even after, this kind of fiscal intervention was widely regarded as both economically and politically dangerous, and it was even common to label New Dealers like Currie (as well as Keynes himself) as communists bent on debauching the currency." This seems to be taking us back to the previous claim that, until Keynes's time, counter-cyclical fiscal policy as a means of affecting the quantity of money in order to deal with unemployment had not been well known. Just for the record, the facts are to the contrary. Pigou's _Wealth and Welfare_ (1912), _Unemployment_ (1913), and _Industrial Fluctuations_ (1927) make this argument. This is at least part of Pigou's basis for opposing the so-called "Treasury View" of fiscal policy. R.G. Hawtrey, who was most known for arguing the Treasury View -- the crowding-out effect of government spending -- also pointed out that government spending is useful and appropriate when it is needed to substitute for the increased hoarding of cash by the public. J. Ronnie Davis's _The New Economics and the Old Economics_ (1971) has numerous citations of economists who argued for increased government spending, financed by new money (currency), as a remedy for the on-going Depression in the early 1930s. The advocates include such well-known names as Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Henry Schultz, Lloyd Mints, Henry Simons, and Charles Hardy. In fact, at a conference in Chicago on July 1, 1931, it was Lloyd Mints (University of Chicago) who urged J.M. Keynes to recognize the greater efficacy of public works (financed with new money) to increase total spending and thus restore profitability of businesses rather than Keynes's desire to use money creation to reduce interest rates (Davis 1971, 121): "As as matter of fact, won't public works bring about precisely the same results [as Keynes was hoping for], not through decreasing the rate of interest, but increasing the rate of return for business firms, thereby increasing the rate of investment, even at current interest?" Keynes agreed, but called for "an admixture of public works" and central bank interest rate reduction policy. Davis also quotes Frank Knight as having argued that "economists are completely agreed that the Government should spend as much and tax as little as possible, at a time such as [the Depression] B using the expenditure in the way to do the most good in itself and also to point toward relieving the depression@ (Davis 1971, 16). And William Leiserson of Antioch College (a much lesser known figure to many of us now) is also quoted to have argued in 1932 that "economists of every school for many years" had argued for countercyclical timing of public works to deal with unemployment, referring to his own 1911 report on unemployment for the Wainwright Commission of New York State (Davis 1971, 17). It seems to me that much too much is made of Lachlin Currie's contributions to knowledge of the efficacy of counter-cyclical fiscal policy than the evidence warrants. (I'm yet to succeed in publishing my correction of that view of him.) James Ahiakpor