I'm currently reading "Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution" by Simon Schama. It is an ok book. There is a lot of divergence into the culture leading up to the revolution, which disrupt the flow of the book.
I'm only about half-way through, but a primary thesis seems to be that Louis XVI brought the revolution on his own head by calling the Estates-General. The Estates-General was called because Frances' creditors essentially refused to extend credit to the effectively insolvent crown. To quote from the book, p289
Investors in government funds - whether in Paris, Geneva, London or Amsterdam - calculated that a new regime was more likely to honor its obligations than the old one.
In this case the 'new regime' is referring to some sort of parliamentary style of system (e.g. something like the United Kingdom's constitutional monarchy).
Instead of resorting to calling the Estates-General, why didn't Louis XVI do what many (mostly unsuccessful) governments do and just print money? Yes there is a (possibly significant) inflationary component, but perhaps it would have bought him time to make the financial and tax reforms to bring France back to solvency.