James C.W. Ahiakpor writes

>  Credit, I would contend, is the facility to make a purchase without money
(cash or currency); it is thus a substitute for money.

But Munro has written

>  Nightingale’s  second proposition, also endorsed by most of these
historians, is that the wide variety of credit instruments used in
late-medieval England were not yet negotiable

Thus the forms of credit under discussion were not a substitute for cash

The erroneous eliding of a distinction between 

A) having a line of credit with perhaps just one well established supplier, 

and 

B) having cash in your pocket and access to a competing range of potential
suppliers 

seems to me, again, to have a whiff of mercantilism about it.

Rob Tye, York UK