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

Samuel Demeulemeester

Post-Print from HAL

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.

Keywords: Chicago Plan; Lauchlin Currie; banking; 100% money; Irving Fisher (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cba and nep-mon
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01830363v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Published in European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2018, 25 (2), pp.357-387. ⟨10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-01830363v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: The 100% money proposal and its implications for banking: the Currie–Fisher approach versus the Chicago Plan approach (2018)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01830363

DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2018.1435706

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().