39 The implications of the differences in susceptibility to system-wide shocks for long-run macroeconomic stability, however, are unclear. On one hand Rich, G., The Cross of Gold: Money and the Canadian Business Cycle, 1867–1913 (Ottawa, 1988), p. 157Google Scholar, concluded that ‘Canadian GNP fluctuated less than its U.S. counterpart’. On the other hand, Williamson, S. D., ‘Implications on financial intermediaries and implications for aggregate fluctuations: Canada and the United States 1870–1913’, in Blanchard, O. J. and Fischer, S. (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1989 (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), p. 332Google Scholar, relying on more recent estimates of US GNP (due to Romer, ‘Prewar business cycle’ and Balke and Gordon, ‘Estimation of prewar Gross National Product’), and a different method for detrending the data, found, depending on the measure of US GNP used, that Canadian GNP was 11% or 56% more volatile than US GNP, and that the GNP deflator was 9% or 54% more volatile. Indeed, Williamson concludes that branch banking, the absence of reserve requirements on deposits and bond backing requirements on notes in Canada produced greater sensitivity to real shocks in Canada.