| Titre | A propos de Montesquieu et de Turgot : peut-on encore parler de la monnaie comme d'un signe ? | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Maurice Lagueux | |
 |
Revue | Cahiers d'économie politique |
| Numéro | no 18, printemps 1990 Monnaie métallique et monnaie bancaire | |
| Rubrique / Thématique | Monnaie métallique et monnaie bancaire au XVIIIe siècle |
|
| Page | 81-96 | |
| Résumé |
Lagueux Maurice. A propos de Montesquieu et de Turgot : peut-on encore parler de la monnaie comme d'un signe ?. In: Cahiers d'économie politique, n°18, 1990. Monnaie métallique et monnaie bancaire. pp. 81-96. Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Résumé anglais |
The interpretation of the sign theory of money which Michel Foucault based on a theory of representation is contested in favor of an interpretation which instead emphasizes both the notion of universal exchange and the notion of convention. This sign theory of money is illustrated by Montesquieu's thesis about money, a thesis which can be usefully contrasted with Turgot's commodity theory of money. It will be suggested that the attraction exerted by these two theories in the XVIIIth century anticipated, to some extent at least, the respective preferences for impersonal mechanisms and for discretionary power which, since that time, have become central in the debates about monetary policy. However, these theories are now almost forgotten, having been replaced by theories which put more emphasis on the social aspects of the theory of money. Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Article en ligne | http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cep_0154-8344_1990_num_18_1_1095 |
