Because our article ventured into almost virgin territory, it was necessarily tentative, probing, and imperfect. 1 Because it questioned the new orthodoxy, we expected it to provoke controversy. That it has done so impresses us less than the large area of agreement between our critics and ourselves. Professors Ando and Modigliani (referred to hereafter as AM), and DePrano and Mayer (referred to hereafter as DM), all agree with us that changes in the quantity of money are connected with changes in nominal income over short-run periods and that this con-nection is at least to some extent independent of concurrent changes in autonomous expenditures. So far as we can judge, they also all agree with at least the broad outlines of our analysis of the channels through which the changes in the quantity of money exert their influence, though no doubt there are differences about details. One other important element of agreement is implicit, and extends also to Professor Hester, who has published a criticism of our work in another journal. 2 Neither we nor our critics had much problem selecting a useful empirical counterpart for the theoretical concept of" money." There is some leeway, but the alternatives are fairly clear-cut and differences in results are relatively minor. No elaborate process of trial and error, of combination and recombination of components, is required to get measures that are closely correlated with nominal income and the nominal value of consumption. We and our critics all used the same measures without much ado. 3 The contrast with" autonomous expendi-