Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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”.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samuel Demeulemeester (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: