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

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.