Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T13:53:39.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Methodological Roots of J. Laurence Laughlin's Anti-quantity Theory of Money and Prices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Neil T. Skaggs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the 1880s until after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 the United States was a hotbed of monetary controversy. The secular price deflation that began in 1865 prompted a host of efforts to increase the money supply, in the belief that more money would check the decline of prices. The agitation for free coinage of silver that arose in the 1870s and carried into the 1880s and 1890s generated a maelstrom of arguments and counterarguments. Such theoretical support as the “cheap money advocates” provided was in the form of a crude application of the quantity theory of money. Not surprisingly, using the quantity theory in such a manner brought the theory itself under fire.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Spring 1995 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bornemann, Alfred. 1940. J. Laurence Laughlin: Chapters in the Career of an Economist, American Council on Public Affairs, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Joseph. 1949. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 3, Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
Faulkner, Harold U. 1959. Politics, Reform and Expansion: 1890–1900, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1911. The Purchasing Power of Money, Augustus M. Kelley, Fairfield, NJ, 1985.Google Scholar
Fisher, Willard C. 1896. “‘Coin’ and His Critics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 10, January, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forget, Evelyn. 1990. “John Stuart Mill's Business Cycle,” History of Political Economy, 22, Winter, 629–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, David. 1985. “A Reinterpretation of Classical Monetary Theory,” Southern Economic Journal, 52, July, 46–67.Google Scholar
Glasner, David. 1989. “On Some Classical Monetary Controversies,” History of Political Economy, 21, Summer, 201–29.Google Scholar
Girton, Lance and Don, Roper. 1978. “J. Laurence Laughlin and the Quantity Theory of Money,” Journal of Political Economy 86, August, 599–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Sara McLean. 1895. “The Quantity of Money and Prices, 1860–1891,” Journal of Political Economy, 3, March, 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegeland, Hugo. 1951. The Quantity Theory of Money, Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Abraham. 1967a. “The American Setting and Wesley Clair Mitchell's View of Traditional Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, 1, June, 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Abraham. 1967b. “Wesley Clair Mitchell, J. Laurence Laughlin, and the Quantity Theory of Money,” Journal of Political Economy, 75, December, 822–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1911. “Review of The Purchasing Power of Money: Its Determination and Relation to Credit, Interest and Crises,” Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 11, 375–81, Macmillan, London, 1983.Google Scholar
Laidler, David. 1991. The Golden Age of the Quantity Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, J. Laurence. 1896. The History of Bimetallism in the United States, D. Appleton and Co., New York.Google Scholar
Laughlin, J. Laurence. 1903. The Principles of Money, Scribner, New York.Google Scholar
Laughlin, J. Laurence. 1905. “A Theory of Prices,” American Economic Association Publications, 6, February, 66–83.Google Scholar
Laughlin, J. Laurence. 1931. A New Exposition of Money, Credit and Prices, 2 vols., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley C. 1896. “The Quantity Theory of the Value of Money,” Journal of Political Economy 4, March, 139–65.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley C. 1903. A History of the Greensbacks with Special Reference to the Economic Consequences of Their Issue: 1862–65, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley C. 1904. “The Real Issues in the Quantity-Theory Controversy,” Journal of Political Economy, 12, June, 403–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, Morris. 1989. “Adam Smith and the Paternity of the Real Bills Doctrine,” History of Political Economy, 21, Spring, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiago-Valiente, Wilfredo. 1988. “Historical Background of the Classical Monetary Theory and the ‘Real Bills’ Banking Tradition,” History of Political Economy, 20, Spring, 43–63.Google Scholar
Skaggs, Neil T. 1991. “John Fullarton's Law of Reflux and Central Bank Policy,” History of Political Economy, 23 , Fall, 457–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaggs, Neil T. 1994. “The Place of J. S. Mill in the Development of British Monetary Orthodoxy,” History of Political Economy, 26, Winter, 539–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithin, John. 1994. Controversies in Monetary Economics: Ideas, Issues and Policy, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, England and Brookfield, VT.Google Scholar
Walker, Francis A. 1895. “The Quantity Theory of Money,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 9, July, 372–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Horace. 1895. Money and Banking, Ginn, Boston.Google Scholar
Willis, H. Parker. 1896. “Credit Devices of the Quantity Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, 4, June, 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar