La crédibilité d’une monnaie à étalon métallique chez Law, Steuart, Thornton, Ricardo

At a time when money was mostly viewed as metallic, these four authors spanning a century (from 1705 for Law to 1816 for Ricardo, through 1767 for Steuart and 1802 for Thornton) favoured the elimination of gold and silver coins and their replacement by a circulation of banknotes whose monopolistic issuance would be regulated according to what we today call macroeconomic goals. However, rejecting a metallic currency did not mean for them defending a State currency: the central bank was not to be the same as a mint that would print notes instead of coining specie. They thus stand outside the usual opposition in the history of monetary thought between Metallism and Chartalism: they overtake this opposition thanks to the idea that the credibility of a currency is rooted in an idiosyncratic institution, that is, an organised system coupling money as unit of account and money as means of circulation. So doing, they cannot either be related to the modern dominant view which roots the credibility of money in the trust inspired by its function as store of wealth, be it guaranteed by an everlasting metal or State. Finally, each of these authors not only theorised paper money but also proposed a plan of monetary system organised around it – a plan that was discussed and even implemented at the time, without any permanent success, however. If these authors share common reasons for nourishing an enquiry about the credibility of money, they nevertheless split on the monetary institution in which it should be rooted. This is what I will examine for each of them in turn, before concluding with some remarks on the notion of credibility of money.