Dallas S. Batten and Courtenay C. Stone investigate the alleged failure of monetarism. They point out that monetarism can be viewed in two ways: as a scientific theory about the impact of monetary pressures on the economy or as a diverse collection of normative propositions about how fast money should grow or what policy actions should be taken. The authors suggest that, while disagreements over normative monetarism are probably unsolvable, debates over scientific monetarism can be resolved. Batten and Stone examine four scientific monetarist propositions: 1) There is a close, stable relationship between M1 growth and total spending; 2) inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon; 3) sufficiently sharp short-run changes in M1 growth produce similar movements in real output; and 4) the rate of M1 growth can be controlled. None of these propositions, they find, have been discredited by economic events over the past several years. Batten and Stone also demonstrate that predictions of the growth of spending, prices, and real GNP derived from these monetarist propositions have held up well when compared with predictions of two popular, larger non-monetarist structural models of the economy. They conclude that rumors of the death of monetarism have been greatly exaggerated.