IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03103172.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The 100% money proposal of the 1930s: An avatar of the Currency School’s reform ideas?

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Demeulemeester

    (TRIANGLE - Triangle : action, discours, pensée politique et économique - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - IEP Lyon - Sciences Po Lyon - Institut d'études politiques de Lyon - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper argues that the 100% money proposal of the 1930s should not (as is often the case) simply be considered as an avatar, extended to deposit currency, of the Currency School’s reform prescriptions. The English Bank Charter Act of 1844, indeed, conveyed a double rejection: it not only sought to divorce the issuing from the lending of money, but also to prevent all kind of monetary management, by enacting a specific issuing rule (the “currency principle”) into law. The 100% money proposal, in contrast, was designed independently of any monetary policy recommendations, leaving open the debate of “rules versus discretion”.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Demeulemeester, 2021. "The 100% money proposal of the 1930s: An avatar of the Currency School’s reform ideas?," Post-Print hal-03103172, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03103172
    DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2020.1861045
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03103172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03103172/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09672567.2020.1861045?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sylvie Diatkine & Jerome de Boyer, 2008. "British monetary orthodoxy in the 1870s: A victory for the Currency Principle," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 181-209.
    2. 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.
    3. Laurent Le Maux, 2018. "Banque centrale et finance. La Banque d’Angleterre, le taux d’intérêt et le Bank Act de 1844," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(4), pages 541-574.
    4. James W. Angell, 1935. "The 100 Per Cent Reserve Plan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 50(1), pages 1-35.
    5. David E.W. Laidler, 2016. "The Golden Age of the Quantity Theory," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 4959.
    6. Laidler, David E, 1988. "British Monetary Orthodoxy in the 1870s," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 74-109, March.
    7. Henry C. Simons, 1936. "Rules versus Authorities in Monetary Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-1.
    8. Allen, William R, 1993. "Irving Fisher and the 100 Percent Reserve Proposal," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 703-717, October.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1787 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Arnon,Arie, 2011. "Monetary Theory and Policy from Hume and Smith to Wicksell," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521191135, September.
    11. Charles A. E. Goodhart & Meinhard A. Jensen, 2015. "A Commentary on Patrizio Lainà's 'Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf'," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 4(2), pages 1-20, September.
    12. William J. Barber, 2005. "Irving Fisher of Yale," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 43-55, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eric Magnin & Nikolay Nenovsky, 2024. "Soft monetary constraint and shortage in the European sovereign debt economy," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 55-80, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    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, 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Laurent Le Maux, 2021. "Bagehot for Central Bankers," Working Papers Series inetwp147, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    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. "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.
    7. George S. Tavlas, 2020. "On the controversy over the origins of the Chicago Plan for 100 percent reserves," Working Papers 279, Bank of Greece.
    8. 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.
    9. Charles A. E. Goodhart & Meinhard A. Jensen, 2015. "A Commentary on Patrizio Lainà's 'Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf'," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 4(2), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Loef, Hans E. & Monissen, Hans G., 1999. "Monetary policy and monetary reform: Irving Fisher's contributions to monetary macroeconomics," W.E.P. - Würzburg Economic Papers 11, University of Würzburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Brett Fiebiger, 2014. "‘The Chicago Plan revisited’: a friendly critique," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 11(3), pages 227-249, December.
    12. Degens, Philipp, 2013. "Alternative Geldkonzepte - ein Literaturbericht," MPIfG Discussion Paper 13/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    13. David Laidler, 2013. "Mark Blaug on the quantity theory: a skirmish on the border between science and ideology in the history of economic thought," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 7, pages 63-77, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Laurent Le Maux, 2014. "Cantillon And Hume On Money And Banking: The Foundations Of Two Theoretical Traditions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 956-970, December.
    15. Acosta, Juan & Assistant, JHET, 2021. "Book Review of 'Banks and Finance in Modern Macroeconomics' by Claudio Sardoni and Bruna Ingrao," OSF Preprints kfxhy, Center for Open Science.
    16. M. June Flanders, 1993. "A Model of Discretion: The Gold Standard in Fact and in Fiction," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 213-235, March.
    17. Romain Baeriswyl, 2014. "Intertemporal discoordination in the 100 percent reserve banking system," Working Papers 14.06, Swiss National Bank, Study Center Gerzensee.
    18. Dittmer, Kristofer, 2015. "100 percent reserve banking: A critical review of green perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 9-16.
    19. Glasner, David, 2017. "Rules versus discretion in monetary policy historically contemplated," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 54(PA), pages 24-41.
    20. Ghislain Deleplace, 2023. "Tooke Versus Ricardo On The Resumption Of Convertibility In 1819-1821," Post-Print hal-04429520, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-03103172. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.