CONTRIBUTION OF ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF MONEY TO THE CREATION OF A MODEL OF THE MONETARY SYSTEM IN RUSSIA (LATE XIX — EARLY XX CENTURY)

The economic and political instability of the present time in the world, being a reflection of the complex process of transition to new post-industrial technologies, increases instability in the sphere of monetary relations. The article aims to investigate the conceptual differences that contributed to the formation of alternative approaches in the theory of money at the turn of the XIX–XX centuries during the discussion of the prospects for the transition to credit circulation in extreme economic conditions. Attention is drawn to the fact that the problem of choosing a model of the monetary system, metallic or monetary, becomes the most urgent during the transformation of the economy. The article provides a comparative analysis of the key provisions of the nominalist, quantitative, credit and conjunctural theories of money, their conceptual differences in understanding the nature, functions of banknotes and their role in price formation. The features of the conjunctural theory of money that distinguish it from the provisions of alternative concepts, market and state mechanisms for regulating money turnover are clarified. Algorithms for the formation of the general level of money prices in the conjunctural theory of money by M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky are considered. It is shown that the concept of nominalism, which expresses the interests of the state, justifies the need to use paper banknotes as the most effective financial resource of the government in emergency economic situations and the demonetization of gold. The proposals of the leaders of the modern theory of money concerning the forced issue of "sovereign currency", weakening the national currencies of other countries, are analyzed. It is shown that the incorrect interpretation of the categories of government bonds and national currency by the leaders of the modern theory of money in comparison with the classical provisions narrows the field of scientific analysis, leads to a confusion of the concepts of state interest-bearing and interest-free domestic debt, and destabilization of the monetary and economic system as a whole. The contribution of alternative concepts of money to the creation of a theoretical model and structure of the Russian state monetary system of the early twentieth century is shown. It is concluded that during periods of acute shortage of budgetary resources, there is a revival of the arguments of the nominalist theory of money in new economic conditions.