Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Taking on the currency cranks

Jean-Luc

Well-Known Member
People who blame the banks for everything are all over the internet. Here's an example:



A bank can lend out £9900 when only £100 has been deposited with it? How can anybody believe that banks have the power to create money out of thin air like this? If is true, tell me how I can open a bank.

Those who propound such nonsense are being taken on at this meeting in Central London at 7pm on Wednesday 5 September.
 
People who blame the banks for everything are all over the internet. Here's an example:



A bank can lend out £9900 when only £100 has been deposited with it? How can anybody believe that banks have the power to create money out of thin air like this? If is true, tell me how I can open a bank.

Those who propound such nonsense are being taken on at this meeting in Central London at 7pm on Wednesday 5 September.

Bloody hell Jean-Luc, where you been man ? This topic has been so thrashed to death in the previous thread its positively sadistic ! And no you bloody well can't open up a bank... you're far too COMMON !

Yes banks can, and indeed do, constantly "create money" (add to the money supply) through the mechanism of being able to lend out more than they hold as deposits held in their vaults ("fractional Reserve Banking") , but of course they don't and can't create new real "value" out of nothing --------- on the previous thread the various (as usual, splenetic) debators simply couldn't come to a common view as to what "out of nothing" or"out of thin air" actually meant. ( Some may see the extra money emerging "from nothing" but others ,taking a more global , perhaps more "marxist"/systemic model approach, saw the entire surrounding web of capitalist social and market / commodity/money circulatory relations underpinning the system as negating the idea of real "nothingness" out of which Fractional Reserve Banking "creates" its extra cash), So the debate IMO, founders on completely different frames of reference being held to on the two sides. I actually think BOTH are correct according to their different frames of reference. WHAT A LIBERAL !. So we better simply "not go there" AGAIN ! As SpineyNorman suggests -- see the previous thread. But I have to advise you it "aint (complete)nonsense".. not at a surface level anyway its " Financial Capitalism in everyday action" - It underpins part of the banking sector's ability to make superprofits out of capitalism as a system and get very, very, rich .it just isn't the whole picture.

Gawd. I've started it up again !!!!!
 
But I have to advise you it "aint (complete)nonsense".. not at a surface level anyway

what use is analysis that is confined to the surface level?

a reliance on analysis at the surface level suggests an analysis that does not seek to understand actually why something that appears to happen actually happens

it dispenses with the use of science (hard or 'soft') as a way of understanding the world - and instead just describes back appearances at the surface level and then ascribes those observations as cause

money is created by commercial banks out of thin air
stones fall towards the ground because stones have a tendency to fall towards the ground
those cows in the distance really are very small, because they look really small
interest grows out of money because that what appears to happen

vulgar political economy (or vulgar science in the case of the cows & stones) of this sort tells us nothing about the world around us, and reduces everything to the kind of demented bishop berkleyism that is usually peddled by the likes of dwyer and other idiots
 
I started a thread on a similar theme a couple of months ago. Some of the posts and links on there might be useful.
Thanks, yes they were, but I was just drawing attention to a public meeting on the same subject.

On their website Positive Money make the following claim:
Positive Money believes that the root cause of many of our current social, economic and environmental problems lies in the way that we allow money to be created. We campaign for fundamental reform of a system that is fueling debt, poverty and our economic and environmental crises.
A highly debatable claim, surely, that needs refuting.
 
a reliance on analysis at the surface level suggests an analysis that does not seek to understand actually why something that appears to happen actually happens.
it dispenses with the use of science (hard or 'soft') as a way of understanding the world - and instead just describes back appearances at the surface level and then ascribes those observations as cause

The usury campaigners often do have a deeper analysis. the reason they think it's important to show that banks create money is because it shows that banks are in control. And banks are just a front for the secret circle of families that control the world.

Just de-friended a Green party councillor on Facebook, for posting up a photo that said the Rothschilds are behind all the recent invasions of Muslim countries. Iran doesn't have a Rothschild bank!
 
that's not a deeper analysis though, that's just a deeper agenda

or an agenda led analysis rather than an analysis led agenda
 
what use is analysis that is confined to the surface level?

a reliance on analysis at the surface level suggests an analysis that does not seek to understand actually why something that appears to happen actually happens

it dispenses with the use of science (hard or 'soft') as a way of understanding the world - and instead just describes back appearances at the surface level and then ascribes those observations as cause

money is created by commercial banks out of thin air
stones fall towards the ground because stones have a tendency to fall towards the ground
those cows in the distance really are very small, because they look really small
interest grows out of money because that what appears to happen

vulgar political economy (or vulgar science in the case of the cows & stones) of this sort tells us nothing about the world around us, and reduces everything to the kind of demented bishop berkleyism that is usually peddled by the likes of dwyer and other idiots

The point is though, you twerp, that society is organized around the idea that money is valuable in itself, without reference to what it represents.

When an entire society "lives a lie" of this nature, there is a sense in which the lie becomes true: empirically true, though not of course logically true.

I understand that you are unfamiliar with the notion that there can be different kinds of truth. But that is your problem innit?
 
as i said above, what use is analysis that is confined to the surface level?

This is what is required:-

screen-shot-2012-04-03-at-18-13-24-png.17961
 
possibly the diagram in & by itself, out of context, doesn't convey that well what it is meant to - was taken from this discussion here about methodology

from earlier thread said:
Moment 1 is the observation of the concrete and the appropriation of the material in detail

Moment 2 sees that material used to develop first simple abstract concepts and then on to more complex/richer concepts to establish a 'totality of thoughts', it's the logical construction of the essence and the interconnected organic whole, i.e. the understanding of the inner connections and them as a totality

Moment 3 continues the logical process, but not in terms of essence, but in terms of how that essence appears, how to explain that appearance and the various forms in which the essence is manifested, and indeed how that totality of that essence must appear

So Moments 2 & 3 are still theory and conceptual at this stage, Moment 4 then goes on to relate the concepts that have been generated to the real concrete world, the testing stage so to speak. Here is when the 'concept of the real' and the 'concrete in the mind' (i.e. the abstract thought developed in moments 2 & 3) is reconciled to the real objective concrete, which is also a return to the starting point and the point of departure again as the process goes on and on.

 
it's not off topic at all

it's exactly on the topic of distinguishing between:-

i) an analysis that is confined to describing back what appears to us (and ascribing that as cause), or

ii) going somewhat deeper to find out why something appears in the way it does and discovering the essence of those phenomenal forms

the first category is that which is employed by currency cranks, racists, conspiracy theorists, vulgar political economists, jazz, dwyer - all different types of people but united in an agenda led analysis

the second category is employed by those who prefer to have an analysis led agenda
 
it's not off topic at all

it's exactly on the topic of distinguishing between:-

i) an analysis that is confined to describing back what appears to us (and ascribing that as cause), or

ii) going somewhat deeper to find out why something appears in the way it does and discovering the essence of those phenomenal forms

the first category is that which is employed by currency cranks, racists, conspiracy theorists, vulgar political economists, jazz, dwyer - all different types of people but united in an agenda led analysis

the second category is employed by those who prefer to have an analysis led agenda
And your analysis of who falls into which camp is no way agenda led, is it?
 
what use is analysis that is confined to the surface level?

a reliance on analysis at the surface level suggests an analysis that does not seek to understand actually why something that appears to happen actually happens

it dispenses with the use of science (hard or 'soft') as a way of understanding the world - and instead just describes back appearances at the surface level and then ascribes those observations as cause

money is created by commercial banks out of thin air
stones fall towards the ground because stones have a tendency to fall towards the ground
those cows in the distance really are very small, because they look really small
interest grows out of money because that what appears to happen

vulgar political economy (or vulgar science in the case of the cows & stones) of this sort tells us nothing about the world around us, and reduces everything to the kind of demented bishop berkleyism that is usually peddled by the likes of dwyer and other idiots

This is a very fair point/series of points, love detective. My view is that economics as a "science" is akin to , say, Newtonian Physics, as compared to Einsteinian Physics. Both are looking at "real" world phenomena, but are looking at aspects of reality from different frames of reference, trying to explain different aspects of reality - but neither are "wrong". The brilliant science fiction writer Terry Pratchett has collaborated with scientists on a couple of "history of science" novels using his Discworld as a magic-based contrast with our world of physics. Pratchett picks up on this differentiation of frames of reference as between , say, Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Quantum schools of physics , by saying their various explanations are each "True to a certain value of truth".

In the economic field, consider "supply and demand theory - and "positive", bourgeois economics generally. Now we all know that at a deeper theoretical level, according to "marxist" theory there are underlying "real labour values" underlying the incredibly distorted money values of goods and services in the capitalist market place. But at this level of abstraction, what use is this to , for instance, a businessman trying to assess the best value to sell his goods at, in order to sell them ? No use at all. He needs to employ bourgeois supply and demand economics -- the deeper "nature of value - its relation to real prices" issue is of no use and no interest to the businessman -- or to a trades union leader trying to negotiate a pay rise for his particular group of workers -- it's the "surface reality" of the particular firm's profitability and that group of workers "apparent real current wage level" which matters -- not the "deep level reality" of the "real" surplus value being derived by the capitalist system from that group of workers -- because, frankly it is such an abstract (but still very real) concept that it has no operational meaning in the limited reality everyday world of trades union wage negotiations.

I accept that a lot of the people arguing about "money creation" by banks and "finance capital" are really talking about the Far Right fantasy of the "Jewish Banker conspiracy" and all the numerous spin offs, and varients - "back to gold", "end fractional reserve banking" - most lead back to conspiracy theories -- rather than to an acceptance that its all just Capitalism, and to get rid of the "oppressive power of Money" it is capitalism itself that has to go as an integrated system. However, this doesn't invalidate the simple fact that "Fractional Reserve Banking" as a perfectly valid, and meaningful, reality does "Create money" day in, day, out. If actual production fails to move in concert with this (in a "chicken and egg" relationship of course.. neither need "happen first -- as you say its a "process" as part of an integrated capitalist system), you get inflation, if production moves in general "sync" with this money supply expansion, you get a dynamic expansionery capitalist system. I think one has to be prepared to move backwards and forwards from the "deeper" level explanations , which are so abstract it's practically impossible to directly measure them - they have to be "inferred" from the impact on the surrounding system (like Quantum physics), "the falling rate of profit" being a prime example -- and the "surface level" observable realities -eg, the speculative banking frenzy that , at least at a surface level, drove the system into the 2008 Great Crash...... to get a meaningful multi level picture of what is happening in the capitalist system at various "levels of reality".
 
it's not off topic at all

it's exactly on the topic of distinguishing between:-

i) an analysis that is confined to describing back what appears to us (and ascribing that as cause), or

ii) going somewhat deeper to find out why something appears in the way it does and discovering the essence of those phenomenal forms

the first category is that which is employed by currency cranks, racists, conspiracy theorists, vulgar political economists, jazz, dwyer - all different types of people but united in an agenda led analysis

the second category is employed by those who prefer to have an analysis led agenda

That's not what I meant by hmmm, I've got issues with the epistemological assumptions being made as to the various categories/processes that make up the boxes, which is a bit OT for this thread IMO.
 
the simple fact that "Fractional Reserve Banking" as a perfectly valid, and meaningful, reality does "Create money" day in, day, out. If actual production fails to move in concert with this (in a "chicken and egg" relationship of course.. neither need "happen first -- as you say its a "process" as part of an integrated capitalist system), you get inflation, if production moves in general "sync" with this money supply expansion, you get a dynamic expansionery capitalist system.
If you define money as including bank loans then of course banks "create money" -- by definition. All it is saying is that banks lend money, which is not controversial. The real question is, where do they get the money to lend from? Do they conjure it up out of thin air, as the currency cranks claim? Or are they simply lending money that has been deposited with them or which they have themselves borrowed?

The claim that bank loans can cause inflation (a rise in the general price level) is dubious. Why should it if all that banks are doing is redistributing already existing purchasing power?
 
if that was what they were doing there would have been no financial crisis, as they'd all have had the capital to meet their debts.

they didn't have that capital because they'd loaned money out in advance on the assumption they'd always be able to either package up and sell off those debts later, or borrow money to cover them if they needed to at a lower rate than they were charging the people for borrowing the money.

While the money remains simply a loan created by the bank and nominally transfered into the customers bank account within the same bank, then that bank has no requirement to actually fund that loan with either it's own reserves, or with money borrowed from elsewhere. Only at the point that the customer takes that money out of the bank and transfers it to another bank does the bank actually need to fully fund the loan it made, and if the person the money is being transferred to also happens to also be a customer of the same bank, then that's happy days for the bank, as they still don't need to actually fund that transaction from hard currency.

Can't be fucked to have this debate again though with people who should know better.
 
If you define money as including bank loans then of course banks "create money" -- by definition. All it is saying is that banks lend money, which is not controversial. The real question is, where do they get the money to lend from? Do they conjure it up out of thin air, as the currency cranks claim? Or are they simply lending money that has been deposited with them or which they have themselves borrowed?

The claim that bank loans can cause inflation (a rise in the general price level) is dubious. Why should it if all that banks are doing is redistributing already existing purchasing power?

Jean-luc.. for goodness sakes, this is "o" level Commerce -- from the dawn of banking, the bankers discovered that their depositors never, as a whole, asked to draw out more than , say 10%, of their deposited cash... so the banks found they were able to lend out the remaining 90% to sundry people seeking cash to carry out a range of projects - and obviously charge these borrowers interest on these loans. The borrowers will often , in turn, deposit at least part of the loan back in the bank for safekeeping, so again the bank can lend out , say, 90% of this new deposit too. And so it goes on, with each bank building an "inverted pyramid of loans" on the basis of a tiny real, available, base of cash in their vaults.

As long as there isn't a "Northern Rock" type crisis of depositor confidence, and they don't all rush to the bank at once to get all their money out , everything is fine. If there IS a "run on the bank" then the bank or banks are in deep shit... because the cash aint there -- it's mostly been leant out to borrowers. In the USA in the 1930's small local banks, not able to pull in funds from branches in other states to deal with a "bank run" , went bust quite often. In very simplified terms that is the basis of "Fractional Reserve Banking".. that's what the term means ! That's how it works. That's what economic textbooks mean by "banks create money" or "increase the money supply" out of nothing. Now as LoveDetective says, its much more complicated than that ... the banks aren't operating in a vacuum, but as an integrated component of the capitalist system .. but nevetheless as well as responding to the demand from potential borrowers for cash, often to employ to increase production, the offering of loans by banks also attracts/stimulates capitalists to employ more capital and labour to increase the production of real goods and services - hence "soaking" up the extra goods and services produced with spending power generated through the extra money supply. If the "new money" generated via fractional Reserve Banking fails to stimulate or fund the production of extra goods and services, then the extra money supply brought about through the Fractional Reserve Banking process merely produces "inflation" as more and more money (spending power) pursues a static , or even declining, volume of real goods and services.

The phenomenum of money supply increase via Fractional Reserve Banking, is REAL Jean-luc, even though, as lovedetective's posts have argued, it is part of a much larger, much more complex, integrated capitalist process. It isn't the whole picture, and the "currency cranks" often link it in with lots of anti-semitic conspiracy theory and/or "back to the Gold Standard" nonsense --- but its no good dismissing the money supply increasing role of Fractional Reserve Banking in its entirety -- just seeing its place in the bigger picture.
 
The phenomenum of money supply increase via Fractional Reserve Banking, is REAL

shit.gif


No it isn't. Why don't you pull back that curtain and see what is really happening here? Or are you content to just be another one of these Mass Media fed sheeple. Wake up man!
 
I hope this angle of debate isn't falling victim to the absolutist "dead right" V "dead wrong" froth I see on the rise just about everywhere, always present but even more so in the age of 140 Chrs.

The truth is that fractional reserved banking is both basically predicated on fraud but serves functions as well. I'm not for the industrial capitalist model as was practiced most of last century but it's true that it, with FR banking chugged along quite functionarily alongside degrees of regulation.

I'm aware that my analysis (partial de coupling critique of industrial from finance captial)can be accused of being bourgeois, but whatever. It holds some water I think.

Also FR has shifted in a generation from human scale of 5 to 10 to one, to often 30 + and rehypothicated to infinity.

Further, trades have gone in a generation from being human driven to 70% + computer executed and quite computer driven. £450m was lost in 45 minutes the other week because one of the programmes went tits up. Separately, I think we can expect more fuckups as seen with customer access to money that have happened recently - they systems are not sustainable in this environment and that is partly why we here noises of charging overtly for current accounts.

In some ways blaming "the banks" is a distraction. the banks exist. I am for the state being sole creator of credit but most are not, so no thanks to me the private banks will be in on the fraud.

It's their job to be. Anyone in the finance sector not caught up in this will probably get the sack.

The reward / risk ratio of fraud is gargantuan. The politicians let that be known. That's the business model.

Yes, the elite have ripped us off, but who allowed it? Where were the "leaders", the press?
They turned around and said "no one saw it coming" just because they didn't see it coming (which in many cases I don't believe.

Are the "leaders" and press owned by the elite? To a greater or lesser extent I daresay, but I find this libertarian crowd a bit of a pain in the arse as many here probably do.

But on the other hand, I don't like all this dick waving on all sides.

LOOK EVERYONE ITS A PILE OF SHIT. LOOK HOW MUCH I KNOW!!!!

LOOK EVERYONE THEIR REASONING FOR WHY ITS SHIT IS SHIT I KNOW EVEN MORE!!!!

The anger with which all this is often expressed (very alpha male) is an indicator of a much poorer heat:light ration than one ought to expect from such intelligent people.

It's also (I believe) a product of our ultimate dis-empowerment. Whoever has the right analysis, the chances of someone important acting on what you say is pretty tiny.

Fuck all of real note has changed since Autumn 2008, for all any of us or the libertarians / anti-fed types say.

Personally I'd happily settle now for a localised version of European Social Democracy as a fairly stable workable model that would be acceptalish to very many. Indicators are that human satisfaction was pretty high then.

We can understand economics and have answers for when more do listen, we can engage in such platforms as espoused by the (doubtless imperfect) Syriza. But really I wonder if we should be focussing on growing the food etc.

A means of exchange will be with us for the forseeable, it's best to keep it as simple and accountable as possible, but with 7 billion it aint going to be ALL that simple.

Self and community co reliance reduces, could even negate, surplus value.

One last thing : Critique of the banking system may be hijacked by a small number of nefarious scumbag bigots who just about any fool can see through, but in the main it is not synonymous with anti-semitism, "structural" or otherwise.

The "Windsor" family have a great hand in all the lunacy, with huge ownership of global means of production. Any critique of them (institutional behaviour more than personal foibles) does not and should not equate with bigotry against Germans or Christians.

 
Jean-luc.. for goodness sakes, this is "o" level Commerce -- from the dawn of banking, the bankers discovered that their depositors never, as a whole, asked to draw out more than , say 10%, of their deposited cash... so the banks found they were able to lend out the remaining 90% to sundry people seeking cash to carry out a range of projects - and obviously charge these borrowers interest on these loans.
This is true and is, as you say, the basis of banking. Banks are not safety deposit boxes and don't have to keep all the money deposited with them as cash. If the law lays down or their own prudent judgement decides that they should keep 10% of deposits as cash (as in your example), then, if they receive a deposit of £100, they can lend out £90 at interest. But this is not how the currency cranks interpret it so-called "fractional reserve banking": they think that if a bank receives a deposit of £100 that means, with a 10% cash reserve, it can lend out £900. Look again at the short video I posted at the beginning of the thread and hear the nutty professor there try to argue that, with a cash reserve requirement of 1%, a bank receiving a deposit of £100 can then lend out £9900! (Clearly you don't need O level Commerce to get a PhD in economics).

The borrowers will often , in turn, deposit at least part of the loan back in the bank for safekeeping, so again the bank can lend out , say, 90% of this new deposit too. And so it goes on, with each bank building an "inverted pyramid of loans" on the basis of a tiny real, available, base of cash in their vaults.
This is true too, but the loans are not being made out of thin air but out of the new deposits. At the end of the process, when loans totalling £900 will have been made by the various banks it will be found that deposits will total £1000. The fact that the same sum of money has been used to make multiple deposits is no more amazing than that a pound coin can be used and re-used to buy things many times its value.

It comes back to the same question: is the money that banks lend new money they have created out of nothing or is it only already existing money that they are circulating (from savers who don't want to spend it for the time being)? The answer given to this question determines whether someone is a currency crank or not.
 
A textbook example for you Jean-Luc. It doesn't tackle the "deeper level" marxist model, but is nevertheless "true". The currency cranks are cranks precisely because they think a dynamic free enterprise (rather than state capitalist) capitalist economic system can operate without the essential money supply increasing function of fractional reserve banking, and /or by returning to the economic straightjacket of the Gold Standard -- and the cranks often think finance capital is all a plot by "The Jews". But then they are bonkers - Fractional Reserve Banking is just a normal part of capitalism, and is neither better or worse than capitalism as a whole. I'm afraid you are proving yourself to be another type of "currency crank" by denying this perfectly normal function of the capitalist banking system.

Example of deposit multiplication
The table below displays the mainstream economics relending model of how loans are funded and how the money supply is affected. It also shows how central bank money is used to create commercial bank money from an initial deposit of $100 of central bank money. In the example, the initial deposit is lent out 10 times with a fractional-reserve rate of 20% to ultimately create $500 of commercial bank money. Each successive bank involved in this process creates new commercial bank money on a diminishing portion of the original deposit of central bank money. This is because banks only lend out a portion of the central bank money deposited, in order to fulfill reserve requirements and to ensure that they always have enough reserves on hand to meet normal transaction demands.
The relending model begins when an initial $100 deposit of central bank money is made into Bank A. Bank A takes 20 percent of it, or $20, and sets it aside as reserves, and then loans out the remaining 80 percent, or $80. At this point, the money supply actually totals $180, not $100, because the bank has loaned out $80 of the central bank money, kept $20 of central bank money in reserve (not part of the money supply), and substituted a newly created $100 IOU claim for the depositor that acts equivalently to and can be implicitly redeemed for central bank money (the depositor can transfer it to another account, write a check on it, demand his cash back, etc.). These claims by depositors on banks are termed demand deposits or commercial bank money and are simply recorded in a bank's accounts as a liability (specifically, an IOU to the depositor). From a depositor's perspective, commercial bank money is equivalent to central bank money – it is impossible to tell the two forms of money apart unless a bank run occurs (at which time everyone wants central bank money).[2]
At this point in the relending model, Bank A now only has $20 of central bank money on its books. The loan recipient is holding $80 in central bank money, but he soon spends the $80. The receiver of that $80 then deposits it into Bank B. Bank B is now in the same situation as Bank A started with, except it has a deposit of $80 of central bank money instead of $100. Similar to Bank A, Bank B sets aside 20 percent of that $80, or $16, as reserves and lends out the remaining $64, increasing money supply by $64. As the process continues, more commercial bank money is created. To simplify the table, a different bank is used for each deposit. In the real world, the money a bank lends may end up in the same bank so that it then has more money to lend out.
Table Sources:
Individual BankAmount DepositedLent OutReserves
A 100 80 20
B 80 64 16
C 64 51.20 12.80
D 51.20 40.96 10.24
E 40.96 32.77 8.19
F 32.77 26.21 6.55
G 26.21 20.97 5.24
H 20.97 16.78 4.19
I 16.78 13.42 3.36
J 13.42 10.74 2.68
K 10.74
Total Reserves:
89.26
Total Amount of Deposits: Total Amount Lent Out: Total Reserves + Last Amount Deposited:
457.05 357.05 100


The expansion of $100 of central bank money through fractional-reserve lending with a 20% reserve rate. $400 of commercial bank money is created virtually through loans.
Although no new money was physically created in addition to the initial $100 deposit, new commercial bank money is created through loans. The 2 boxes marked in red show the location of the original $100 deposit throughout the entire process. The total reserves plus the last deposit (or last loan, whichever is last) will always equal the original amount, which in this case is $100. As this process continues, more commercial bank money is created. The amounts in each step decrease towards a limit. If a graph is made showing the accumulation of deposits, one can see that the graph is curved and approaches a limit. This limit is the maximum amount of money that can be created with a given reserve rate. When the reserve rate is 20%, as in the example above, the maximum amount of total deposits that can be created is $500 and the maximum increase in the money supply is $400.
For an individual bank, the deposit is considered a liability whereas the loan it gives out and the reserves are considered assets. Deposits will always be equal to loans plus a bank's reserves, since loans and reserves are created from deposits. This is the basis for a bank's balance sheet.
Fractional reserve banking allows the money supply to expand or contract. Generally the expansion or contraction of the money supply is dictated by the balance between the rate of new loans being created and the rate of existing loans being repaid or defaulted on. The balance between these two rates can be influenced to some degree by actions of the central bank.
This table gives an outline of the makeup of money supplies worldwide. Most of the money in any given money supply consists of commercial bank money.[23] The value of commercial bank money is based on the fact that it can be exchanged freely at a bank for central bank money.[23][24]
The actual increase in the money supply through this process may be lower, as (at each step) banks may choose to hold reserves in excess of the statutory minimum, borrowers may let some funds sit idle, and some members of the public may choose to hold cash, and there also may be delays or frictions in the lending process.[26] Government regulations may also be used to limit the money creation process by preventing banks from giving out loans even though the reserve requirements have been fulfilled.
 
If you define money as including bank loans then of course banks "create money" -- by definition. All it is saying is that banks lend money, which is not controversial. The real question is, where do they get the money to lend from? Do they conjure it up out of thin air, as the currency cranks claim? Or are they simply lending money that has been deposited with them or which they have themselves borrowed?

The claim that bank loans can cause inflation (a rise in the general price level) is dubious. Why should it if all that banks are doing is redistributing already existing purchasing power?
Well no, that's not true. If we had full reserve banking, then banks wouldn't be creating money with their loans. If I lent you £1000, I wouldn't be creating £1000. There would only be £1000 in the system circulating. And with full reserve banking it would be the same for the banks.

But with fractional reserve banking, if a bank lends £1000 then there is a new £1000 circulating in the system. The new money is created at the point the loan is made. It is created by someone typing in numbers into a computer.

To understand this it is helpful to take the end point and consider all the banks acting together. The vast majority of money in circulation is created by the commercial banks.
 
It is really not the case at all that banks are lending out deposits: from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

In practice, because banks often have access to lines of credit, and the money market, and can use day time loans from central banks, there is often no requirement for a pre-existing deposit for the bank to create a loan and have it paid to another bank.


  1. ^ "Disyatat, P. 2010 The bank lending channel revisited.". Bank for International Settlements. "Page 2. the concept of the money multiplier is flawed and uninformative in terms of analyzing the dynamics of bank lending. Page 7 When a loan is granted, banks in the first instance create a new liability that is issued to the borrower. This can be in the form of deposits or a cheque drawn on the bank, which when redeemed, becomes deposits at another bank. A well functioning interbank market overcomes the asynchronous nature of loan and deposit creation across banks. Thus loans drive deposits rather than the other way around."
  2. ^ "Paul Tucker, Money and credit: Banking and the Macroeconomy". Bank of England. " banks....in the short run.....lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will....Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer's current account.....This 'money creation' process is constrained by their need to manage the liquidity risk from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines to which it exposes them."
In translation, this means "banks create money out of thin air to the extent that they expect to get away with it".
 
It is really not the case at all that banks are lending out deposits: from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

In practice, because banks often have access to lines of credit, and the money market, and can use day time loans from central banks, there is often no requirement for a pre-existing deposit for the bank to create a loan and have it paid to another bank.
(...)
In translation, this means "banks create money out of thin air to the extent that they expect to get away with it".
No, it doesn't. This is still saying that a bank has to have (or get very quickly, i.e the same day) the money to lend. It is true that not all of this has to come from deposits from outside, but can also come from the bank borrowing it (from "lines of credit", "the money market" and "day time loans from central banks"). This is not "creating" money from "thin air" but borrowing already-existing money to re-lend it.

Here's the view of Paul Krugman on this:

As I read various stuff on banking — comments here, but also various writings here and there — I often see the view that banks can create credit out of thin air. There are vehement denials of the proposition that banks’ lending is limited by their deposits, or that the monetary base plays any important role; banks, we’re told, hold hardly any reserves (which is true), so the Fed’s creation or destruction of reserves has no effect.
This is all wrong, and if you think about how the people in your story are assumed to behave — as opposed to getting bogged down in abstract algebra — it should be obvious that it’s all wrong.
First of all, any individual bank does, in fact, have to lend out the money it receives in deposits. Bank loan officers can’t just issue checks out of thin air; like employees of any financial intermediary, they must buy assets with funds they have on hand.

And of Glen Arnold, in his FT Guide to Financial Markets, after describing the textbook "deposit multiplier" (which, incidentally, assumes that every new loan is preceded by a new deposit) set out by Ayotollah:

The central bank is the only player here which can create money out of thin air and pump it into the system if the system is at equilibrium. (p. 126)
In other words, a commercial bank can't. That a central bank — as a State institution — can create money at will ("out of thin air by a stroke of the pen", if you want to put it that way) is not controversial. That a commercial bank can is.
 
No, it doesn't. This is still saying that a bank has to have (or get very quickly, i.e the same day) the money to lend. It is true that not all of this has to come from deposits from outside, but can also come from the bank borrowing it (from "lines of credit", "the money market" and "day time loans from central banks"). This is not "creating" money from "thin air" but borrowing already-existing money to re-lend it.
No, you missed the second quote, the Paul Tucker one published by the Bank of England:

"banks in the short run lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will"

when they extend a loan, they simply type in the numbers into a computer. That is the new money. The point is precisely that the money doesn't come from anywhere. They create it. If you do think it has to come from somewhere else, I invite you to describe the ledger entries, which I did on the thread in World Politics.

Here's the view of Paul Krugman on this:

And of Glen Arnold, in his FT Guide to Financial Markets, after describing the textbook "deposit multiplier" (which, incidentally, assumes that every new loan is preceded by a new deposit) set out by Ayotollah:

In other words, a commercial bank can't. That a central bank — as a State institution — can create money at will ("out of thin air by a stroke of the pen", if you want to put it that way) is not controversial. That a commercial bank can is.
well in my last post I explained precisely why the 'deposit multiplier' model is misleading. deposits do not drive loans - it is the other way around.

The Paul Krugman article as far as I can see simply contests the notion that commercial bank money creation is not constrained by the (central bank) monetary base. Well that's as maybe, indeed it would seem that we can go at least 30 times greater, but his argument ignores the possibility that the monetary base policy is adapted to fit the lending of the banks, and not the other way around. What was happening with quantitative easing and the $trillions bailout? were the central banks holding firm with their monetary base? :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom