The 100% money proposal and its implications for banking: the Currie–Fisher approach versus the Chicago Plan approach

Abstract : The literature on the 100% money proposal often reveals some confusion when it comes to its implications for the banking sphere. We argue that this can be partly explained by a failure to have distinguished between two divergent approaches to the proposal: the “Currie–Fisher” (or “transaction”) approach, on the one hand, which would preserve banking; and the “Chicago Plan” (or “liquidity”) approach, on the other hand, which would abolish banking. This division among 100% money proponents stemmed, in particular, from different definitions of money, and different explanations of monetary instability. The present paper attempts to clarify this divergence of views.
Type de document :
Article dans une revue
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2018, 25 (2), pp.357-387. 〈10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706〉
Liste complète des métadonnées

Littérature citée [25 références]  Voir  Masquer  Télécharger

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01830363
Contributeur : Samuel Demeulemeester <>
Soumis le : lundi 6 août 2018 - 15:47:42
Dernière modification le : mercredi 31 octobre 2018 - 12:24:19
Document(s) archivé(s) le : mercredi 7 novembre 2018 - 14:12:44

Fichier

Demeulemeester, S. - 100% mone...
Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Identifiants

Citation

Samuel Demeulemeester. The 100% money proposal and its implications for banking: the Currie–Fisher approach versus the Chicago Plan approach. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2018, 25 (2), pp.357-387. 〈10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706〉. 〈hal-01830363〉

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de la notice

303

Téléchargements de fichiers

120