Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Taking on the currency cranks

You leave the Luddites alone. They were a million times better than anything we've got today, and certainly a lot more politically sophisticated than merely having a problem with the individuals who were making them unemployed. Read chapter 3 of EP Thompson's Making of the English Working Class, "An Army of Redressers" for the best historical view on the Luddites actual role in trade union history, rather than buying into this establishment discourse that simply dismisses "Luddite" as a synonym for "backward ignorant provincial machine-wreckers scared of progress" because the truth is very different to that.

Otherwise, excellent posts.

I know, I thought bad example as I typed it, but although they weren't just lashing out - I've read Thompson too - it can't be denied that machine breaking in and of itself was never going to be a solution. I'm sorry if you feel that I've subjected them to "the enormous condescension of posterity" ;)
 
In my vast experience of political discourse SPGB meetings can most certainly hold their heads high in this respect. Decent people providing space for workers to actually work through their ideas.

Sorry, missed this first time around :D
 
I know, I thought bad example as I typed it, but although they weren't just lashing out - I've read Thompson too - it can't be denied that machine breaking in and of itself was never going to be a solution. I'm sorry if you feel that I've subjected them to "the enormous condescension of posterity" ;)

True, machine-wrecking wasn't going to be a solution, but of course what started out as machine-wrecking ended up becoming an insurrection, one of the last great armed revolts in British history. That might have been a solution.

And excuse me for being snippy, I'm very defensive of the Luddites, it pisses me off no end when I hear the word just bandied around to mean reactionary technophobe. The lads who were hung at York in 1812 for attacking various mills and carrying out assassinations on people were mainly young unemployed men from huddersfield between 18 and 25 years old, so I can't help but feel an enormous amount of sympathy for them.

It also pisses me off that it's such a completely ignored piece of history, coz arguably it's of way more historical significance than the Tolpuddle Martyrs or Peterloo massacre. I remember reading Rosa Luxemburgs stuff on the 1905 Strike in Russia, which is very interesting, and has whole passages dedicated too how a narrow economic dispute can escalate into a wider, political, dispute that in theory can unite an entire class. It's a period of history all the lefty groups cover, there's a discussion on Luxemburg and this sort of topic at Marxism every year pretty much, and of course there's nothing wrong with that.

But what's worth noting is the Luddites is a historical example that demonstates the exact same thing, how the political, technological and economic can combine into the same class struggle, 100 years before Luxemburg's time, that took place on our fucking doorsteps, and yet hardly anyone knows about it. Why do we import our socialist heritage from other places when we have such an overwhelming abundance of it here on our doorsteps? Is it more exotic just because it's from abroad or something? I know that makes me sound like a little-englander, which I don't mean to, but it just leaves me flabbergasted. Anyway, rant over, good work comrade I'll put it in the minutes :D
 
I agree with what you say apart from the fact that it's not known on the left beyond being used a short-hand for destructive and pointless wrecking - it's a bog standard part of the left's repertoire today. You may be interested in something along the same lines but substituting Swing for the luddites and Tolpuddle for the general strike (or for the rhetorical veneration of it): Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant
 
I agree with what you say apart from the fact that it's not known on the left beyond being used a short-hand for destructive and pointless wrecking - it's a bog standard part of the left's repertoire today. You may be interested in something along the same lines but substituting Swing for the luddites and Tolpuddle for the general strike (or for the rhetorical veneration of it): Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant

Cheers for that, much obliged, and yes since Thompson it's obviously a big part of the left's repetoire, but historically it's been overlooked so badly. Doesn't even get mentioned in the Webb's History of British Trade Unionism, Eric Hobsbawm barely mentions it at all in The Age of Revolution (although he did coin the phrase collective bargaining by riot, which I quite like) and even recently, for example the People's History Museum in Manchester had some event commemorating the roots of the trade union movement and didn't't mention them at all, so the local anarchists over here went over and protested it's exclusion, Richard Jones' article in History Today published only a few months ago to commemorate the 200th anniversary is amazingly dismissive and scornful for something written in this day and age. I even heard a Tory minister name-dropping the Luddites to describe people who were opposed to greenbelt building projects ffs, it sticks in my crawe. So there's still work to do I reckon.

I've bought the book Captain Swing by Eric Hobsbawn recently, I've not read it, but there seems like a huge amount of similarity between the two events, I wish I knew more about the Swing riots tbh, it's only geography that's kept me away from it.
 
I agree with what you say apart from the fact that it's not known on the left beyond being used a short-hand for destructive and pointless wrecking - it's a bog standard part of the left's repertoire today. You may be interested in something along the same lines but substituting Swing for the luddites and Tolpuddle for the general strike (or for the rhetorical veneration of it): Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant

What is the rhetorical veneration you refer to?
 
No, it is precisely that they could lend out promissory notes equivalent to 90,000 ounces when only 10,000 had been deposited! Because as we have discussed only a fraction of people would come to withdraw the metal at any one time, while the notes circulated as money in their own right - with no need for the metal ever to be withdrawn. The bigger the ratio, the bigger the gamble - and many early banks did indeed have runs and go bust.
I know the meeting's been and gone, but this can't be left unchallenged. I am not denying that the situation did exist where the old goldsmith-bankers had more promissory notes circulating than the had silver in their faults. The question is still whether, with a 10% cash ratio, on receipt of 10,000 oz they can lend out 9,000, retaining only 1,000 as a reserve in case of withdrawals (as I contend) or whether they can keep the whole 10,000 oz and lend out 90,000 in paper money (as you contend). The quote you give from the "Early History of Banking in England" would apply in either case.

That banks never have enough cash in reserve to repay all depositors is what banking is all about. They are lending out money, and so keeping it circulating, of people who don't want to spend it for the time being, based on the assumption that only a minority will be withdrawing their cash at any time. This would still be the case under your "100% reserve banking" too, wouldn't it, as I'm sure you don't mean that banks will then have to keep as cash reserves 100% of what's been deposited with them? Or do you?
 
I know the meeting's been and gone, but this can't be left unchallenged. I am not denying that the situation did exist where the old goldsmith-bankers had more promissory notes circulating than the had silver in their faults. The question is still whether, with a 10% cash ratio, on receipt of 10,000 oz they can lend out 9,000, retaining only 1,000 as a reserve in case of withdrawals (as I contend) or whether they can keep the whole 10,000 oz and lend out 90,000 in paper money (as you contend). The quote you give from the "Early History of Banking in England" would apply in either case.

That banks never have enough cash in reserve to repay all depositors is what banking is all about. They are lending out money, and so keeping it circulating, of people who don't want to spend it for the time being, based on the assumption that only a minority will be withdrawing their cash at any time. This would still be the case under your "100% reserve banking" too, wouldn't it, as I'm sure you don't mean that banks will then have to keep as cash reserves 100% of what's been deposited with them? Or do you?
It doesn't matter - even in your instance, you can see clearly that money is being created.

If the original depositor is given a bearer on demand promissory note for £10000 - entitling him to his gold back at any time; and a loan is made for £9000 by promissory note: then the goldsmith has £10000 in gold, and there are two promissory notes out totalling £19000 where has only £10000 in gold. Now the key point is that these promissory notes serve as good as gold. They are money. So there is already £19000 in circulation ('goldsmith/high st bank' money) where only £10000 of gold exists ('nature/central bank' money).

Of course it is key that the original depositor is given a transferable on demand promissory note - but this is what happened with the goldsmiths (what was to stop them?), and it is parallel to what happens now with general banking deposits.

From wikipedia:

Full-reserve banking, also known as 100% reserve banking, is a banking practice in which the full amount of each depositor's funds are kept in reserve, as cash or other highly liquid assets. In other words, funds deposited are not lent out by the bank as long as the depositor retains the legal right to withdraw their funds.[citation needed] Generally, proposals for full reserve banking systems do not place such restrictions on deposits that are not available on demand, where savers can entrust their money with a bank in time deposits or in 'investment' accounts.[1] This allows banks to continue to act as intermediaries between savers and borrowers.[citation needed]
 
How might economies move to full reserve banking, and what do you suppose the effects would be during that transition, Jazzz?
 
Cheers for that, much obliged, and yes since Thompson it's obviously a big part of the left's repetoire, but historically it's been overlooked so badly. Doesn't even get mentioned in the Webb's History of British Trade Unionism, Eric Hobsbawm barely mentions it at all in The Age of Revolution (although he did coin the phrase collective bargaining by riot, which I quite like) and even recently, for example the People's History Museum in Manchester had some event commemorating the roots of the trade union movement and didn't't mention them at all, so the local anarchists over here went over and protested it's exclusion, Richard Jones' article in History Today published only a few months ago to commemorate the 200th anniversary is amazingly dismissive and scornful for something written in this day and age. I even heard a Tory minister name-dropping the Luddites to describe people who were opposed to greenbelt building projects ffs, it sticks in my crawe. So there's still work to do I reckon.

I've bought the book Captain Swing by Eric Hobsbawn recently, I've not read it, but there seems like a huge amount of similarity between the two events, I wish I knew more about the Swing riots tbh, it's only geography that's kept me away from it.
Read a good book ages ago called The Land of Lost Content which gives them the full treatment they deserve: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08109028708629468

ETA: One point I recall he makes and I think hence the title is that their was little social distinction between master and apprentice under the old system, whereas being merely a hired hand was clearly different, so there was quite an explicit class consciousness involved.
 
From wikipedia - "Money Supply". My bold.
The different forms of money in government money supply statistics arise from the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Whenever a bank gives out a loan in a fractional-reserve banking system, a new sum of money is created. This new type of money is what makes up the non-M0 components in the M1-M3 statistics. In short, there are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system[16][17]:
  1. central bank money (obligations of a central bank, including currency and central bank depository accounts)
  2. commercial bank money (obligations of commercial banks, including checking accounts and savings accounts)

Whenever a bank gives out a loan in a fractional-reserve banking system, a new sum of money is created.
 
From wikipedia - "Money Supply". My bold.


Whenever a bank gives out a loan in a fractional-reserve banking system, a new sum of money is created.

who here has argued that the money supply isn't increased when a bank who is able and willing to lend, lends to someone who wants to borrow? this is simply circulation doing what circulation does

the above is a long shot away from your base assertion that banks independently create money out of thin air

while i'm here - have a look at this from the front page of yesterdays companies & markets section of the FT

European banks are failing to wean themselves off central bank money, even though steep falls in the cost of collateralised borrowing over the summer mean some now have the option of funding via public markets.

Like their US counterparts, European banks can now fund certain loans more cheaply than at any time in four years by bundling them into so-called asset-backed securities (ABS) and selling them to investors with interest backed by cash flow from repayments on products such as credit cards, car loans or mortgages.

See your missing a trick here Jazz, these banks that are going about funding the loans that they make clearly don't realise that they shouldn't need to go to the bother of doing all that when, according to you, they can simply create money out of thin air to lend on.

It's surprising they have not made contact with you yet so you can advise them how they can independently create money out of thin air so as to not have to do what they are doing at the moment - something you deny that they have to do - which is having to ensure they are able to fund the loans that they make.And if they are unable to fund loans, they can't lend.

I wonder why it is that what you claim that banks can do is not even being done by banks themselves

You should get in touch with some of them Jazz, do a few seminars telling them not to bother continuing to fund themselves in the markets or via central bank funding to fund their loan portfolios, you could show them how they can create money out of thin air and dispense with all that old fashioned funding nonsense that they insist on doing at the moment. I would love to be in the room when you did that
 
who here has argued that the money supply isn't increased when a bank who is able and willing to lend, lends to someone who wants to borrow? this is simply circulation doing what circulation does
This is obvious nonsense.

No, it's not 'simply circulation'. How can it be? As I have pointed out already, if I pass you a banana, I don't have the banana anymore. There is only one banana. There is no increase in the 'banana supply'.

Similarly, if banks simply lent out what they received in deposits, with the depositors not being able to reclaim their money whilst lent out (full reserve banking), then there would of course be no increase in the money supply when banks made loans.

However, at present when a bank makes a loan, there is an increase in the money supply, to the value of the loan. As the money supply has increased, it must be the case that the bank has created money. And clearly there is something far stranger going on.

I have already patiently explained more than once why banks cannot simply make do with their own currency alone. Please see my earlier posts.
 
This is obvious nonsense.

No, it's not 'simply circulation'. How can it be? As I have pointed out already, if I pass you a banana, I don't have the banana anymore. There is only one banana. There is no increase in the 'banana supply'.

I'm surprised that someone like yourself who is such an expert on these matters has never come across the concept of velocity of money before - maybe you should look it up on wikipedia then come back and pretend to be an expert on it like you do with everything else

If we have a banana based money economy, and you have a banana and use it to buy something from me with it, then i use it to buy something from someone else with it and so on and so on - the effective level of money/banana supply in this economy is many multiples of the original banana. That one banana has effected the exchange of goods & services, many times the value of the actual base banana as it circulates throughout the economy. Money supply increases mainly through velocity, you should know this as you are the one whose constantly going on about only 3% of the money supply being represented by base central bank money.

Likewise if you have a banana and lend it to me, then i lend it to someone else and so on and so on - in all our respective banana balance sheets (apart from the first in the chain) - we have an asset of a banana representing the banana we are owed from the person we lent it to and a liability of a banana representing the banana that we owe to the person who lent us the banana. So add up the gross assets & liabilities of the balance sheets at the total level and the total loans and deposits are many multiples of the original banana.

More importantly however, I see you were unable to even address my point as to why is it in the real world the things that you claim happen, don't actually happen

It was probably a wise move from you not to try and address the point, as the last time I asked you to explain things that were happening in the real world with reference to your theories of money & credit, you ended up coming out with all manner of absurdities to try and square your crank theories with what is happening in the real world.

So if your position now is that you refuse to engage with what is happening in the real world as that is too much of an inconvenient truth for your crank theories, then fair enough. But again I have to ask, what use is a theory such as yours that is unable to explain anything that actually goes on in the real world. Your theory only holds true in hypothesis form (well to be honest, it doesn't even hold true in that form), but when exposed to the concrete real, it crumbles into nothing

I'll try again though, why is it Jazz that these banks go about funding the loans that they make when you tell us all that they don't have to, that they can just create this money out of thin air. Why are they going to the considerable cost & expense of paying for funding for their lending, when they can just magic the money out of thin air? Why do some bank's even go under because they can't gain access to funding to fund their lending, when according to you they don't have to do this? Why do you avoid these questions?
 
If we have a banana based money economy, and you have a banana and use it to buy something from me with it, then i use it to buy something from someone else with it and so on and so on - the effective level of money/banana supply in this economy is many multiples of the original banana. That one banana has effected the exchange of goods & services, many times the value of the actual base banana as it circulates throughout the economy. Money supply increases mainly through velocity, you should know this as you are the one whose constantly going on about only 3% of the money supply being represented by base central bank money.

Likewise if you have a banana and lend it to me, then i lend it to someone else and so on and so on - in all our respective banana balance sheets (apart from the first in the chain) - we have an asset of a banana representing the banana we are owed from the person we lent it to and a liability of a banana representing the banana that we owe to the person who lent us the banana. So add up the gross assets & liabilities of the balance sheets at the total level and the total loans and deposits are many multiples of the original banana.

No, this is nonsense. You cannot increase the total number of bananas by lending them out. Of course in our example, payment is required in actual bananas. The total money supply is thus precisely the total number of bananas. No matter how many times a banana is lent out, it still totals one banana.

This is the difference between full-reserve and fractional reserve banking. In our full-reserve system, if you deposit with me a banana, and I lend it out, then you cannot reclaim your banana until I have had it returned. But in a fractional reserve system, where currency is either bananas or paper redeemable to bananas, you deposit your banana with the bank, it gives you (say) paper redeemable to one banana on demand, lends your banana out, and now there are double the currency in circulation, because you can trade with your banana bill. The bank gets away with it because only a fraction of people come to get their bananas at any time. The bank has created one (paper) banana, out of nothing.

Again, see my earlier posts for the reason why banks cannot simply rely on their own money creation.
 
I simply cannot believe the fact that now on two threads a whole load of presumeably otherwise intelligent people have been spending their time denying the simple economic fact , taught correctly to all schoolchildren studying the most basic economics or commerce, that via fractional reserve banking the banking system constantly increases the money supply in all capitalist economies -- and benefits dramatically as a sector of course, by charging interest on the extra money they lend out.

It's simply the way the system operates guys, and Jazz is correct in his descriptioons as to how it operates.. This doesn't presuppose that this is a "good thing", and it certainly doesn't in itself unveil the deeper operating factors "beneath the surface" of the capitalist money economy, which Marxist economics looks at in detail ... the class realities, and ownership inequalities, the ways value and prices and surplus value are created and distributed, which the money system conceals, fetishises, distorts, and reproduces. But nevertheless , on a day to day basis, via fractional reserve banking, the ordinary commercial banks day in, day out, do create new money.... not directly new value, but new money. Whether this new money supply leads directly or indirectly to additional production of goods and services, or merely increases the amount of money chasing an existing volume of goods and services, determines whether this new money produces inflation -- or supports and/or drives the entire system in its expansion .

There is nothing in itself "cranky" about recognisiong the role of fractional reserve banking in increasing the money supply. The crankiness arises in claiming it is "the Jews" or "the Illuminati" behind banking, or believing society would be better off returning to the fetishistic straightjacket of the Gold Standard . Fractional reserve banking is just a normal part of capitalism.. and a key component of its ability to expand in good times.. and often suffer serious "bank runs" and hyper inflation in very bad times.

Arguing whether the phenomenum exists at all strikes me as distinctly "cranky". Recognising the existence of "money creation" by banks via fractional reserve banking in no way requires that anyone believes that banks, or states, can therefore simply print unlimited amounts of money to get out of trouble. Who thinks this ? Noone.. it is a Straw Man. It is also obviously the case that unless the new money created via fractional reserve banking is both employed generally to increase the production of goods and services, inflation results... and if the extra money loans enabled via fractional reserve banking are lent to people or businesses who prove unable to service or repay those loans, then financial disaster also results -- as with so much of bank lending during the pre 2008 Crash "speculative/credit Bubble".

What's so hard to understand about this ?

Yet another simplified example of the process at work:

Jones deposits $1,000 at bank A. With a 0.1 reserve ratio, bank A can lend out $900 of that deposit and keep $100 on hand as reserves. Let us say they lend out $900 and it makes its way to Smith – either he borrowed it, or the real borrower used it to pay him. Smith now has $900 that he deposits at another bank, B. Bank B, in turn, keeps $90 as reserve (10% of $900) and lends out $810 to someone else. This $810 is spent and deposited at bank C, which keeps $81 as reserves and lends out $729 to someone else. As this process continues, the total amount lent out by the various banks in the system adds up: $900 + $810 + $729 + …. The sum of this series is $9,000. The total held in reserve also adds up: $100 + $90 + $81 + $72 … = $1,000. Thus $9,000 of lending is supported by $1,000 in reserves. This is why most commentators will state that fractional reserve banking allows the lending of multiples of reserves. Technically, it is not the bank that received the initial deposit that can lend out a multiple, but rather the system as a whole creates it through the process described above.

The practice of fractional reserve banking expands the money supply (cash and demand deposits) beyond what it would otherwise be. Due to the prevalence of fractional reserve banking, the broad money supply of most countries is a multiple larger than the amount of base money created by the country’s central bank.
 
I simply cannot believe the fact that now on two threads a whole load of presumeably otherwise intelligent people have been spending their time denying the simple economic fact , taught correctly to all schoolchildren studying the most basic economics or commerce, that via fractional reserve banking the banking system constantly increases the money supply in all capitalist economies -- and benefits dramatically as a sector of course, by charging interest on the extra money they lend out.

It's simply the way the system operates guys, and Jazz is correct in his descriptioons as to how it operates.. This doesn't presuppose that this is a "good thing", and it certainly doesn't in itself unveil the deeper operating factors "beneath the surface" of the capitalist money economy, which Marxist economics looks at in detail ... the class realities, and ownership inequalities, the ways value and prices and surplus value are created and distributed, which the money system conceals, fetishises, distorts, and reproduces. But nevertheless , on a day to day basis, via fractional reserve banking, the ordinary commercial banks day in, day out, do create new money.... not directly new value, but new money. Whether this new money supply leads directly or indirectly to additional production of goods and services, or merely increases the amount of money chasing an existing volume of goods and services, determines whether this new money produces inflation -- or supports and/or drives the entire system in its expansion .

There is nothing in itself "cranky" about recognisiong the role of fractional reserve banking in increasing the money supply. The crankiness arises in claiming it is "the Jews" or "the Illuminati" behind banking, or believing society would be better off returning to the fetishistic straightjacket of the Gold Standard . Fractional reserve banking is just a normal part of capitalism.. and a key component of its ability to expand in good times.. and often suffer serious "bank runs" and hyper inflation in very bad times.

Arguing whether the phenomenum exists at all strikes me as distinctly "cranky". Recognising the existence of "money creation" by banks via fractional reserve banking in no way requires that anyone believes that banks, or states, can therefore simply print unlimited amounts of money to get out of trouble. Who thinks this ? Noone.. it is a Straw Man. It is also obviously the case that unless the new money created via fractional reserve banking is both employed generally to increase the production of goods and services, inflation results... and if the extra money loans enabled via fractional reserve banking are lent to people or businesses who prove unable to service or repay those loans, then financial disaster also results -- as with so much of bank lending during the pre 2008 Crash "speculative/credit Bubble".

What's so hard to understand about this ?

Yet another simplified example of the process at work:

Jones deposits $1,000 at bank A. With a 0.1 reserve ratio, bank A can lend out $900 of that deposit and keep $100 on hand as reserves. Let us say they lend out $900 and it makes its way to Smith – either he borrowed it, or the real borrower used it to pay him. Smith now has $900 that he deposits at another bank, B. Bank B, in turn, keeps $90 as reserve (10% of $900) and lends out $810 to someone else. This $810 is spent and deposited at bank C, which keeps $81 as reserves and lends out $729 to someone else. As this process continues, the total amount lent out by the various banks in the system adds up: $900 + $810 + $729 + …. The sum of this series is $9,000. The total held in reserve also adds up: $100 + $90 + $81 + $72 … = $1,000. Thus $9,000 of lending is supported by $1,000 in reserves. This is why most commentators will state that fractional reserve banking allows the lending of multiples of reserves. Technically, it is not the bank that received the initial deposit that can lend out a multiple, but rather the system as a whole creates it through the process described above.

The practice of fractional reserve banking expands the money supply (cash and demand deposits) beyond what it would otherwise be. Due to the prevalence of fractional reserve banking, the broad money supply of most countries is a multiple larger than the amount of base money created by the country’s central bank.

Once again you claim that Jazz is correct but then argue against what he says in your examples

In the above 'Jones' example you correctly demonstrate that for fractional reserve banking to work, the money has to circulate and come back to other banks (or the same bank) in the form of deposits before it can be lent out again. If in the example above Smith took the $900 loan from Bank A and put in under his mattress, the chain stops and Bank B can't lend out a thing because it has no deposits/funding coming into it to fund any onwards spiral. As has been said constant times in the past, money circulates, there's nothing magic or conspiratorial about that.

Jazz argues the exact opposite of this hwoever. If you've been paying attention, which you obviously haven't, you'd see Jazz argue that this process of circulation, which fractional reserve banking is rooted in and dependent on, doesn't actually need to happen. In Jazz's make believe world, circulation doesn't need to happen and bank's don't need to fund their lending. In his world, bank's just magic money out of thin air independently of everything and anyone else. He's even argued a few posts above that this type of circulation (that you refer to above) doesn't even increase the money supply because he thinks that velocity & circulation don't actually have an impact on the money supply.
 
Yet another simplified example of the process at work:

Jones deposits $1,000 at bank A. With a 0.1 reserve ratio, bank A can lend out $900 of that deposit and keep $100 on hand as reserves. Let us say they lend out $900 and it makes its way to Smith – either he borrowed it, or the real borrower used it to pay him. Smith now has $900 that he deposits at another bank, B. Bank B, in turn, keeps $90 as reserve (10% of $900) and lends out $810 to someone else. This $810 is spent and deposited at bank C, which keeps $81 as reserves and lends out $729 to someone else. As this process continues, the total amount lent out by the various banks in the system adds up: $900 + $810 + $729 + …. The sum of this series is $9,000. The total held in reserve also adds up: $100 + $90 + $81 + $72 … = $1,000. Thus $9,000 of lending is supported by $1,000 in reserves. This is why most commentators will state that fractional reserve banking allows the lending of multiples of reserves. Technically, it is not the bank that received the initial deposit that can lend out a multiple, but rather the system as a whole creates it through the process described above.
As Love Detective has pointed out, this is not what Jazzz is arguing. He argues that if Jones deposits $1,000 at bank A. With a 0.1 reserve ratio, bank A can lend out $9,000 with the $1,000 being kept on hand as reserves. If this were the case, then if Smith deposited the $9,000 in Bank B, Bank B, in turn keeps this as its cash reserve and lends out $81,000. Bank C receives this and then can lend out $729,000. This process never ends but the "money supply" extends exponentially. Clearly this doesn't happen. It's absurd.

But even in your version (the standard textbook version) it is not just "the banking system as a whole" that multiplies an initial deposit of $1,000. It also depends on "the public" continually re-depositing the money, even if in decreasing amounts. At the end of the process, it will be found that the total loans of $9,000 are matched by total deposits of $10,000. But, again as LD has pointed out, this is an example of money circulating. This has been known for ages. In Volume 3 of Capital (chapter 25) Marx quotes from an anomymous work published in 1854 by an English banker called The Currency Theory Reviewed:

It is unquestionably true that the £1,000 which you deposit at A today may be reissued tomorrow, and form a deposit at B. The day after that, reissued from B, it may form a deposit at C ... and so on to infinitude; and that the same £1,000 in money may thus, by a succession of transfers, multiply itself into a sum of deposits absolutely indefinite. It is possible, therefore, that nine-tenths of all the deposits in the United Kingdom may have no existence beyond their record in the books of the bankers who are respectively accountable for them ... Thus in Scotland, for instance, currency (mostly paper money at that) has never exceeded £3 million, the deposits in the banks are estimated at £27 million....
So what's new? That's how banking (lending from other people's deposits) works, and the only way it can work.

The practice of fractional reserve banking expands the money supply (cash and demand deposits) beyond what it would otherwise be. Due to the prevalence of fractional reserve banking, the broad money supply of most countries is a multiple larger than the amount of base money created by the country’s central bank.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what it might otherwise be". What would it "otherwise be"? And what's the problem if it is? It's partly a question of definition anyway. If you define bank loans as part of "the money supply", then as what banks do is make loans (from deposits) then of course they "expand" it beyond the amount of "base money" (currency, cash or whatever you want to call what the central bank or government issues). But, from another angle, what the banks are doing is economising on the use of "base money"

And wouldn't it also happen if you had so-called "full reserve banking"? Unless you're going to ban banking (lending money) altogether, bank loans are always going to be spent and find their way back into the banking system as a deposit. So "broad money" is always going to exceed "base money".
 
Once again you claim that Jazz is correct but then argue against what he says in your examples

In the above 'Jones' example you correctly demonstrate that for fractional reserve banking to work, the money has to circulate and come back to other banks (or the same bank) in the form of deposits before it can be lent out again. If in the example above Smith took the $900 loan from Bank A and put in under his mattress, the chain stops and Bank B can't lend out a thing because it has no deposits/funding coming into it to fund any onwards spiral. As has been said constant times in the past, money circulates, there's nothing magic or conspiratorial about that.

Christ, Ayatollah is really trying to help you and you are simply concerned with him not being on my side!

"In the above 'Jones' example you correctly demonstrate that for fractional reserve banking to work" - your logic is really appalling. Ayatollah described his explanation as "a simplified example".

I note that you completely ignored my last, really quite detailed post about the difference between full reserve and fractional reserve banking. I am not very impressed with this. It seems you are unable to engage with any proper debate except to twist my words and repeat yourself.

"money circulates, there's nothing magic or conspiratorial about that." not at all, however it is absolutely meaningless to describe that money is created simply through 'circulation'. Who mandates the new money into existence? The circulation in itself creates nothing. :rolleyes:
 
from Jean Luc's post
It is unquestionably true that the £1,000 which you deposit at A today may be reissued tomorrow, and form a deposit at B. The day after that, reissued from B, it may form a deposit at C ... and so on to infinitude; and that the same £1,000 in money may thus, by a succession of transfers, multiply itself into a sum of deposits absolutely indefinite. It is possible, therefore, that nine-tenths of all the deposits in the United Kingdom may have no existence beyond their record in the books of the bankers who are respectively accountable for them ... Thus in Scotland, for instance, currency (mostly paper money at that) has never exceeded £3 million, the deposits in the banks are estimated at £27 million....
Again, the key point is this:

If I lend you £1000, and you lend it again, I cannot get my £1000 back until you have had it returned. (full-reserve banking).

If I deposit £1000 in a fractional-reserve bank, I am fully entitled to withdraw it on demand, whatever loans the bank may then make. This is not 'circulation'.
 
Let me repeat an example which lovedetective failed to comment on before.

Bank A loans Andrew £1000, who draws on it by giving it to Bertie, who has an account in Bank B.

Simultaneously, Bank B lends Bill £1000, who draws on it by giving it to Anthony, who has an account in Bank A.

What has happened? I challenge lovedetective or Jean-Luc to describe the accounting entries in Bank A, Bank B, and the central bank, the change in total money supply, and where it came from.
 
But even in your version (the standard textbook version) it is not just "the banking system as a whole" that multiplies an initial deposit of $1,000. It also depends on "the public" continually re-depositing the money, even if in decreasing amounts. At the end of the process, it will be found that the total loans of $9,000 are matched by total deposits of $10,000. But, again as LD has pointed out, this is an example of money circulating. This has been known for ages. In Volume 3 of Capital (chapter 25) Marx quotes from an anomymous work published in 1854 by an English banker called The Currency Theory Reviewed:
firstly, nobody's said this is a new practice, so it being known for ages isn't exactly an explanation for why you and others have spent 2 threads arguing that it's not like this.

Secondly, there's not been $10,000 deposited. There's been $1000 dollars deposited in total in hard currency, but out of this $1,000 of total hard currency that actually exists in all these transactions, the banks have managed to create loans of £9,000 and matching nominal deposits of £9,000, all from just $1000 of actual hard cash.

as for what's the problem... well, nothing as long as everyone's confident in the banks ability to look after their cash and pay out when the need it. As soon as there's a problem though, and depositors decide they all want to take their cash out, or even just the economy tanks and people need to withdraw more than 10% of their savings, and the loan repayments start defaulting... well at that point there's major problems, as the cash never existed, so the bank has to borrow that money to cover its liabilities, and then other banks start getting nervous about lending to that bank, and then we end up with a credit crunch situation, and then the governments have to either let the banks fail, or bail them out with enough new hard cash to allow them to continue paying out to their customers, and persuade them to lend to each other again etc. Sound familiar?
 
Christ, Ayatollah is really trying to help you and you are simply concerned with him not being on my side!

"In the above 'Jones' example you correctly demonstrate that for fractional reserve banking to work" - your logic is really appalling. Ayatollah described his explanation as "a simplified example".

Your logic is non existent

Circulation is at the very basis of the ability of fractional reserve lending to exist - yet you deny that circulation is required for fractional reserve lending to happen. This shows that you have no understanding of either concept, let alone any handle on the reality of how they work. Fractional reserve lending is nothing but the circulation of loans back into banks as deposits for onward circulation. Therefore fractional reserve lending can be characterised as two things i) circulation and ii) banks funding further lending through deposits received as part of this spiral. You deny that both of these things happen in the money creation process. This is absurd. This is like saying that in order for something to happen that something mustn't happen in order for it to happen. Hatstand.

I note that you completely ignored my last, really quite detailed post about the difference between full reserve and fractional reserve banking. I am not very impressed with this. It seems you are unable to engage with any proper debate except to twist my words and repeat yourself.

given that you've ignored every direct question i've put to you asking you to explain real world events within the framework of your crank theory, then don't expect detailed replies to every single little bit of shit that comes out of you. It's already been made very clear that you are incapable of using any of your shit theory to explain events in the real world. Your first attempt at doing this resulting in the mother of all absurdities (30 trillion of new lending apparently taking place in a matter of months!), and since then you've rather sensibly just avoided any question of the real world whatsoever as it exposes your theory for the shit that it is. It's pretty clear that it would be far easier for you to ride two horses in two different directions at once than for you to give a credible explanation of what's happening in the real world using your shit theory as a framework to explain it in.

The circulation in itself creates nothing. :rolleyes:

remove circulation from any example of fractional reserve lending and you're left with nothing, nada

for the final time

i) bank's do not create money out of thin air
ii) bank's are not the independent actor in all this
iii) banks play a dependent role in the expansion of the money supply (i.e. they are subordinate to other conditions in the money creation process)
iv) this means that bank's can only play a part in the expansion of the money supply if all the other conditions that allow them to do so are present, they can't magic them into existence
v) at present therefore, bank's play a 'necessary' but not a sufficient role in the process of increasing the money supply
vi) it's just as much true to say that borrowers create money out of thin air, as it is to say that banks create money out of thin air - neither of these statements are true, but each are equally untrue

And by the way Jazz, you see those cows way over there in the distance - they actually aren't tiny in real life you know
 
Let me repeat an example which lovedetective failed to comment on before.

Bank A loans Andrew £1000, who draws on it by giving it to Bertie, who has an account in Bank B.

Simultaneously, Bank B lends Bill £1000, who draws on it by giving it to Anthony, who has an account in Bank A.

What has happened? I challenge lovedetective or Jean-Luc to describe the accounting entries in Bank A, Bank B, and the central bank, the change in total money supply, and where it came from.
Happy to accept the challenge. Here's how an American economist who starts from the same premiss as you (that a bank can make a loan without first having the money) -- but who accepts that if a bank does this it has to cover the loan by the end of the day, literally -- explains what happens:
Let’s start with a basic bank and its customer and do T-accounts for both. The bank creates a loan and a deposit “out of thin air,” and the customer has now a new liability (the loan) and an asset (the deposit) as shown in Figure 1.
As is well known, and by the logic of double-entry accounting, the bank does make a loan out of thin air—no prior deposits or reserves necessary. (...)
Krugman: “Yes, a loan normally gets deposited in another bank”
Actually, a loan doesn’t get deposited in another bank—a deposit gets deposited in another bank. The loan is a bank’s asset, and a deposit is a bank’s liability. Here we see the very beginnings of the importance of remaining clear on accounting if one wants to truly understand what “loans create deposits” means. If we assume, as per Krugman’s example, that Customer 1 takes the proceeds of the loan and deposits them in, say, Bank B, then we have Figure 2 below:

This is a bit more complicated than Krugman made it sound, isn’t it? Let’s walk through this slowly.
Customer 1 withdraws the deposit from Bank A, which is the “-Deposit” on Bank A’s liability/equity side, and the “-Deposit @ Bank A” on Customer 1’s asset side. Customer 1 then makes a deposit in Bank B, which is the “+Deposit @ Bank B” on Customer 1’s asset side and the “+Deposit” on Bank B’s liability.
But how does the deposit get from Bank A to Bank B? Let’s assume it’s done by electronic transfer here (that is, Customer 1 instructs Bank A to transfer the funds from the account at Bank A to the account at Bank B) since Krugman wants to discuss currency withdrawals below. Note that as far as the banks are concerned, this is the equivalent to Customer 1 spending the proceeds of the loan and the recipient of the spending being another customer that banks at Bank B—that is, in either case the deposit simply moves from Bank A to Bank B.
Now, let’s also assume that Bank A had no reserve balances on hand when it made the loan. How does it transfer reserve balances to Bank B? As it turns out, the Fed provides an overdraft for any payment sent in which a bank’s account goes below zero—that is, the payment is never rejected when it occurs on the Fed’s books. The Fed does this as part of its legal obligation to promote stability in the payments system (more on this in a minute). The rub is that the Fed requires Bank A to clear this overdraft by the end of the day, which Bank A will most likely do in the money markets (such as the federal funds market, often via pre-established lines of credit). So, on the liability/equity side for Bank A, we end with “+Borrowings” in the money market to clear the overdraft.
Note underneath Bank A’s balance sheet I’ve shown the totals or net changes to its balance sheet overall, which is simply a loan created offset by borrowings in the money markets on the liability/equity side. So, the loan was made without Bank A ever needing to meet reserve requirements, without needing reserve balances before making the loan, and without needing any deposits. Can Bank A just continue to make loans forever this way without ever needing any of these? The key here is to understand the business model of banking—which is to earn more on assets than is paid on liabilities, and to hold as little capital (equity) as possible (since that’s generally more expensive than assets). The most profitable way to do this is to make loans (that are paid back, obviously, so credit analysis is an important part of this) that are offset by deposits, since deposits are the cheapest liability; borrowings in money markets would be more expensive, generally. So, Bank A, if it is not able to acquire deposits is not operationally constrained in making the loan, but it will find that this loan is less profitable than if it could acquire deposits to replace the borrowings.
If Bank A wants a more profitable loan but is not able to acquire deposits, it can raise the rate charged to Customer 1 and thereby preserve its spread, which can result in Customer 1 taking his/her business elsewhere. But it can still make the loan. In other words, it is not deposits or reserve balances that constrain lending, but rather a bank’s own choice to lend given the perceived profitability of a loan—which can be affected by the ability to obtain deposits after the loan is made—and also given a perceived creditworthy borrower (someone has to want to borrow, after all, if a loan is going to be made) and sufficient capital (since regulators will want the bank to hold equity against the loan).
(The only thing I'd object to in this description is saying that Bank A creates the loan "out of thin air" when what is meant is that a bank can make a loan independently of the central bank and so the central bank can't control banking lending (which is true). It would be better if it was expressed this way.)

It's the "+ borrowings" that you miss out. You're forgetting that, at the end of the day, any loan does have to be covered by a real asset, not by a mere book-keeping entry.
 
It's the "+ borrowings" that you miss out. You're forgetting that, at the end of the day, any loan does have to be covered by a real asset, not by a mere book-keeping entry.
I'm not sure Jazzz is missing that, tbh. You're right, of course, but it should also be remembered that it is the loan itself that creates the 'real asset' - the loan creates an equal and opposite deposit. IMO, that is the crucial point here, one that both sides on this thread have missed or are ignoring.
 
Again, the key point is this:

If I lend you £1000, and you lend it again, I cannot get my £1000 back until you have had it returned. (full-reserve banking).

If I deposit £1000 in a fractional-reserve bank, I am fully entitled to withdraw it on demand, whatever loans the bank may then make. This is not 'circulation'.
If I have understood "full reserve banking" properly, what it would mean that under it banks would only be able to lend from non-instant-access savings accounts ("time-deposits"). This could work (even if the arguments used to justify in are based on a fallacy), but it wouldn't stop what you call "money-creation" by banks. Suppose that customer 1 makes a one-year deposit of £1,000 in Bank A, which bank A lends to customer 2 for one year or less. If any part of this £1,000 finds its way into a time-deposit in another bank, then on your theory money has been created!

Also, because banks know that not all its outside current account depositors are not going to withdraw all of their money at once, it can treat the "fraction" that they are not likely to withdraw as if it was a time-deposit. To that extent banks already practice "full reserve banking". Not allowing banks to lend money from current accounts would indeed restrict the amount of bank lending, probably to below what the capitalist economy needs to function properly. So, "full reserve banking" could make things worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom