MY PURPOSE iS to review some aspects of the present state of knowledge of money and economic growth. It is essential to state precisely the questions asked and the assumptions made. When this is done, it becomes evident that the attempts at integration of money and real growth models have dealt with problems which are not central to the analysis of money and economic growth. First, in common with traditional neo-classical growth models, output is assumed to be a linear and homogeneous function of two physical inputs: capital and labor. This assumption excludes the stock of real cash balances from any direct influence on output as a factor of production. Second, some assumption is made about the nature of the savings function: for example, that savings are a constant proportion of disposable income. Third, no independent investment function is assumed and in line with earlier real models, no mechanism is specified through which savings are invested. Fourth, wages and prices are assumed completely flexible and no tradeoff exists between inflation and unemployment. Fifth, and this is a very important implicit assumption, the analysis assumes a given form of the financial production function. By this I mean that the analysis is restricted to a comparison of the impact of alternative rates of change of the nominal stock of money and of anticipated prices on the real variables along the path towards balanced growth and more fundamentally on the variables characterizing the balanced growth path itself, under the assumption that there is a given framework of financial institutions and a constant state of financial knowledge. The analysis is then taken to apply to changes in a particular economy or comparisons among alternative economies at an instant of time rather than as an attempt to boil into the model an analysis of how an economy develops through time into a full-fledged money economy.