IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecaffa/v44y2024i1p57-70.html

The case for 100% money: Ten reasons for separating money issuance from banking

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Demeulemeester

Abstract

The ‘100% money’ proposal aims at divorcing the creation of money from banking, by requiring 100% reserves on transaction accounts. The public monetary authority would then be the sole issuer of means of payment, while the banks would function as true intermediaries, financing loans with pre‐existing money. This article, building on the works of 1930s economists such as Irving Fisher, presents ten arguments in favour of this reform proposal — arguing that it would, in particular, prevent cumulative variations in the money stock, facilitate monetary control, reduce government intervention in banking, improve public finances, and make money creation more neutral.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Demeulemeester, 2024. "The case for 100% money: Ten reasons for separating money issuance from banking," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 57-70, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecaffa:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:57-70
    DOI: 10.1111/ecaf.12614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12614
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ecaf.12614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Demeulemeester, 2022. "Divorcing money creation from bank loans: revisiting the “100% money” proposal of the 1930s [Dissocier la création monétaire des prêts bancaires : retour sur la proposition "100% monnaie"," Post-Print hal-03938669, HAL.
    2. Williamson, Stephen & Wright, Randall, 2010. "New Monetarist Economics: Models," Handbook of Monetary Economics, in: Benjamin M. Friedman & Michael Woodford (ed.), Handbook of Monetary Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 2, pages 25-96, Elsevier.
    3. Baeriswyl Romain & Cornand Camille, 2018. "The distortionary effect of monetary policy: credit expansion vs. lump-sum transfers in the lab," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 18(2), pages 1-30, June.
    4. Samuel Demeulemeester, 2018. "The 100% money proposal and its implications for banking: the Currie–Fisher approach versus the Chicago Plan approach," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 357-387, March.
    5. Samuel Demeulemeester, 2021. "The 100% money proposal of the 1930s: an avatar of the Currency School’s reform ideas?," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 577-598, July.
    6. Stephen D. Williamson & Randall Wright, 2010. "New monetarist economics: methods," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 92(May), pages 265-302.
    7. Milton Friedman & Anna J. Schwartz, 1963. "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number frie63-1, March.
    8. Douglas W. Diamond & Philip H. Dybvig, 2000. "Bank runs, deposit insurance, and liquidity," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, vol. 24(Win), pages 14-23.
    9. Adair Turner, 2015. "Between Debt and the Devil: Money, Credit, and Fixing Global Finance," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10546.
    10. Lauchlin Currie, 1934. "The Failure of Monetary Policy to Prevent the Depression of 1929-32," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 145-145.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel Demeulemeester, 2022. "Divorcing money creation from bank loans: revisiting the “100% money” proposal of the 1930s [Dissocier la création monétaire des prêts bancaires : retour sur la proposition "100% monnaie"," Post-Print hal-03938669, HAL.
    2. Dong, Mei & Huangfu, Stella & Sun, Hongfei & Zhou, Chenggang, 2021. "A macroeconomic theory of banking oligopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Tarishi Matsuoka & Makoto Watanabe, 2017. "Banking Panics and Liquidity in a Monetary Economy," CESifo Working Paper Series 6722, CESifo.
    4. Adam Brzezinski & Nuno Palma & François R. Velde, 2024. "Understanding Money Using Historical Evidence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 16(1), pages 571-595, August.
    5. Zannini, Ugo, 2020. "The optimal quantity of money and partially-liquid assets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Chao He & Randall Wright & Yu Zhu, 2015. "Housing and Liquidity," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 18(3), pages 435-455, July.
    7. Berentsen, Aleksander & Huber, Samuel & Marchesiani, Alessandro, 2016. "The societal benefit of a financial transaction tax," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 303-323.
    8. Paulo Garrido & Pedro Campos & André Dias, 2015. "Balance Sheet Analysis Of Credit And Debt Networks," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05n06), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Christie Smith & Aaron Kumar, 2018. "Crypto‐Currencies – An Introduction To Not‐So‐Funny Moneys," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 1531-1559, December.
    10. George S. Tavlas, 2015. "In Old Chicago: Simons, Friedman, and the Development of Monetary‐Policy Rules," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 47(1), pages 99-121, February.
    11. Seán Kenny & Jason Lennard, 2018. "Monetary aggregates for Ireland, 1840–1921," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1249-1269, November.
    12. Marcus Miller & Pongsak Luangaram, 1998. "Financial crisis in East Asia: bank runs, asset bubbles and antidotes," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 165(1), pages 66-82, July.
    13. Boragan Aruoba & Morris Davis & Randall Wright, 2016. "Homework in Monetary Economics: Inflation, Home Production, and the Production of Homes," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 21, pages 105-124, July.
    14. Huberto Ennis & Todd Keister, 2016. "Optimal banking contracts and financial fragility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(2), pages 335-363, February.
    15. Marco Bassetto & Thomas J. Sargent, 2020. "Shotgun Wedding: Fiscal and Monetary Policy," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 659-690, August.
    16. Roberto Robatto, 2019. "Systemic Banking Panics, Liquidity Risk, and Monetary Policy," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 34, pages 20-42, October.
    17. Makoto (M.) Watanabe & Tarishi Matsuoka, 2019. "Banking Panics and the Lender of Last Resort in a Monetary Economy," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-002/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Semyon Malamud & Andreas Schrimpf, 2016. "Intermediation Markups and Monetary Policy Passthrough," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 16-75, Swiss Finance Institute.
    19. Daniel Sanches, 2016. "On The Welfare Properties Of Fractional Reserve Banking," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 935-954, August.
    20. Altermatt, Lukas & van Buggenum, Hugo & Voellmy, Lukas, 2024. "Systemic bank runs without aggregate risk: How a misallocation of liquidity may trigger a solvency crisis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecaffa:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:57-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0265-0665 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.