 The 100% money proposal and its implications for banking: the Currie–Fisher approach versus the Chicago Plan approachThe European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2018, vol. 25, issue 2, 357-387 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. Date: 2018 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:25:y:2018:i:2:p:357-387 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706 Access Statistics for this article The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought is currently edited by Richard Sturn, Hans Michael Trautwein, Muriel Dal-Pont-Legrand and Maxime Desmarais-Tremblay More articles in The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought from Taylor & Francis Journals |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.