IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eujhet/v25y2018i2p357-387.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Demeulemeester

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:25:y:2018:i:2:p:357-387
    DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Demeulemeester, Samuel, 2024. "Investigating The “Debt–Money–Prices” Triangle: Irving Fisher’S Theoretical Journey Toward The 100% Money Proposal," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 225-243, June.
    3. Samuel Demeulemeester, 2020. "Would a State Monopoly Over Money Creation Allow for a Reduction of National Debt? A Study of the “Seigniorage Argument” in Light of the “100% Money” Debates," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology: Including a Symposium on Public Finance in the History of Economic Thought, volume 38, pages 123-144, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. Sylvie Rivot, 2020. "Information and Expectations in Policy-Making: Friedman's Changing Approaches to Macroeconomic Dynamics," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-39, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. George S. Tavlas, 2024. "On the Controversy over the Origins of the Chicago Plan for 100% Reserves: Sorry, Frederick Soddy, it was Knight and (Most Probably) Simons!," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 56(6), pages 1573-1594, September.
    6. Samuel Demeulemeester, 2022. "What analytical framework for Sovereign Money? Some insight from the 100% Money literature, and a comment on criticisms," Working Papers hal-03751756, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. 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" des années 1930]," Post-Print hal-03938669, HAL.
    9. George S. Tavlas, 2020. "On the controversy over the origins of the Chicago Plan for 100 percent reserves," Working Papers 279, Bank of Greece.
    10. repec:osf:socarx:tfm6v_v1 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:taf:eujhet:v:25:y:2018:i:2:p:357-387. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJH20 .

    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.