This paper expresses econometric qualms about Bordo and Jonung's [1981] analysis of long-run velocity. They did not recognize that, for U S . and Canadian data, the log of velocity has a unit root. Hence, estimation of a log level regression may produce spurious regressions.When Bordo and Jonung's velocity equation is reestimated in rate of change form, permanent income is significant, contrary to their earlier conclusion. Moreover, using this approach gives a stronger result for one of the institutional variables in the velocity function, in the sense that the remaining variables become more significant. [1982] are the level of real per capita permanent income, the difference between the nominal yield on money and other financial assets, and the yield on physical assets. The effect of financial sophistication on demand for money has been recognized by Friedman and Schwartz [1982, sec. 6.31. However, they failed to capture the influence of financial sophistication on the demand for money through the use of proxy variables. Rather, they treated the effect of financial sophistication as an episode and allowed for its influence on velocity by adjusting the data. The task of empirically measuring financial sophistication was taken up by BJ [1981].
537