Banking theories in the United States before 1860

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1755492553

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-133529

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Miller, Harry Edward http://d-nb.info/gnd/1055250875

Title:: Banking theories in the United States before 1860

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: Harvard University Press

Year of publication:: 1927

Scope:: XI, 240 S.

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

INTRODUCTION bank notes can never be overissued so long as they remain con- vertible on demand scarcely took root in this country because the poor homing power of our notes forbade. Again, the English discussion differed from our own because of the peculiar signifi- cance of Bank of England notes as cash reserves of the other banks. The question of a national bank, which occupied so much attention in this country, raised essentially different issues. And, finally, in England criticism of a central bank led to detailed dis- cussion of bank policies in their relation to the price level, whereas in America, with its decentralized banking, lack of a suitable mechanism for putting the more refined notions into effect made the legal safeguarding of note issue a more practical problem. Reversing the relationship, the influence which the developing principles of banking exerted upon banking practice is no less obvious. As the crass doctrines of the early inflationists began to be abandoned, legislation became more intelligent. With the growing realization of the essential part played by specie reserves, a sounder policy was adopted, whether voluntarily or by legal compulsion. Better understanding of the nature of deposits called a halt to the practice of limiting the volume of notes by that of deposits. And legal reserve minima began to be related to de- posits as well as to notes. There are few men who stand out as meriting attention by reason of definite original contributions. With the exception of an occasional Raguet or Colwell, most of those who contributed to the discussion are significant chiefly as reflecting the general state of banking theory at the time. Our study is decidedly one of doctrines and not of men. The questions asked are, “What was known about this matter or that?” rather than what a certain writer thought.! And with respect to the former type of inquiry a study of the period is fruitful. There was, almost to the end, much criticism, richly merited, of the practices of individual bankers as such. Fraud and artifice constituted a large chapter in the history of our early banking; and when they were lacking, ! It is pleasing, withal, to find interspersed among the gamut of merchants and bankers, physicians and statesmen, a goodly number of writers who were scholars of no mean distinction.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Banking theories in the United States before 1860

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation