Our Monetary System

Our Monetary System

Written by  Michael Reiss Wednesday, 02 November 2011
Most people assume that the government directly controls the amount of money in the economy.
They assume that money is essentially tokens that get passed from person to person as they exchange goods. One would assume that the amount of tokens would remain constant except for occasional money printing by governments. Indeed money could work in this way should governments have chosen such a system, but in reality, money does not work like this at all*. Instead we have a system in which money is being continuously created and destroyed.
 

Money creation

When someone goes to a bank asking to borrow money, the bank does not need to take that money from its reserves. Instead it creates that money on the spot. If someone asked to borrow £1,000, then the bank will simply hand them a chequebook (or a debit-card) and tell the borrower that they can spend up to £1,000 with their cheques. This is £1,000 of fresh new money that never existed before.
 

Money circulation

This £1,000 is then free to circulate in the economy, being passed from person to person during the course of ordinary trade. Money may pass through a great many hands between being created and destroyed.
 

Money destruction

This is the part that so few people seem to know about. When the borrower repays the loan to the bank that money disappears back out of existence.
 

Thus the amount of money circulating in the economy at any one time is rather analogous to the population of a species of animal. The current population is determined by previous birth and death rates. Keeping the amount of money in the economy reasonably constant is a balancing act where the central banks attempt to encourage or discourage new lending so that the rate of new money creation is approximately equal to the rate at which existing money is expiring. One of the ways they can do this is by adjusting interest rates up and down. Lower interest rates encourage lending, higher rates discourage it - or at least that’s the plan. 


Quantative Easing is not money printing…

There are occasions however, where having interest rates near zero still does not lead to enough money creation (lending) to exceed the money expiration rate. In this case alternative strategies like quantitative easing (QE) may be employed. It should be noted that QE is not money printing. Money printing is in fact illegal under EU regulations. QE is money lending by the central bank - i.e. the money created by the central bank with QE is expected to be repaid and so expected to expire at some future time.
 

Limits on Money Creation - there are none!

Many textbooks as well as some popular videos on YouTube describe money creation in a way that imply rules and regulations about reserve requirements or capital adequacy place a rigid cap on the money supply. Sadly, for reasons beyond the scope of this article, neither mechanism works in practice and senior economists and central bankers are fully aware of this fact. The only limit on money creation is the size of the demand for loans from people that banks consider creditworthy.
 

So what is wrong with this system?

The problem with this monetary system is that it allows for a positive feedback mechanism with asset prices. People often borrow (create) money to purchase non-productive assets in the hope that they can sell that asset at a higher price at a later time. But of course the more money is created to purchase an asset, the higher the price of that asset will rise. This self fulfilling prophesy encourages more people to do the same, and a bubble ensues. Asset price bubbles are an inevitable consequence of our monetary system.
 

Is there an alternative?

Yes. A fixed money supply, where tokens are circulated indefinitely is known as full (or 100%) reserve banking. The system is rarely discussed these days, but after the great depression - the last comparable crisis of our monetary system, full reserve banking was taken very seriously. It is about time we looked at it again.


*A tiny fraction of the money supply does in fact work in this way, but the quantities are so small that this part of the money supply can be virtually ignored.

 

 
Michael Reiss

Michael Reiss

Dr Michael Reiss is the author of the wonderful book What Went Wrong with Economics. The book uncovers many such flaws and shows how the resulting bad economic theories have devastating consequences. Dr Reiss shows how, with more realistic assumptions, economics, and our economic system, can be rescued.

Website: www.fullreservebanking.com

Latest from Michael Reiss

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.
Basic HTML code is allowed.




11 comments

  • Comment Link Jason Scott Wednesday, 02 November 2011 19:06 posted by Jason Scott

    Hello Michael
    Fantastic article.
    We have been researching and developing an solution to providing as close to full reserve banking as possible, within the existing system.

    We launched civilisedmoney yesterday, which uses the technology behind P2P (or what we call people-to-people) to eventually offer pretty much all of the current retail banking services, but with no money created as debt.

    Would love to know what you think?

  • Comment Link joseph glynn Wednesday, 02 November 2011 20:46 posted by joseph glynn

    I find it hard to understand how or why a bank would destroy money and the concept of money destruction. If we all paid back all we owe would all our money then be gone? The de Soto book is clearly very scholarly and I found the foreword convincing . Its great to see people grappling with the jiggery pokery and obfuscation of these unaccountable bankers. Thanks.

  • Comment Link Michael Reiss Thursday, 03 November 2011 11:24 posted by Michael Reiss

    Jason - thanks for the compliment. It does indeed appear that P2P lending is full reserve banking, so I commend you for that. Good luck with civilisedmoney.

  • Comment Link Michael Reiss Thursday, 03 November 2011 11:36 posted by Michael Reiss

    Joseph - "I find it hard to understand how or why a bank would destroy money" - well I'm sure they don't want to, but its the law! For an up to date confirmation, see page 65 of "Where Does Money Come From: A guide to the UK monetary and banking system" where it says "Commercial bank money outside the closed loop, however, can be created at will by banks and is destroyed when customers repay their loans".

    If everyone stopped borrowing, and existing loans gradually got paid back (or defaulted on), then there would be almost no money left at all.

    You may like to see the complete cartoon strip here:
    http://www.fullreservebanking.com/lifecycle.htm

  • Comment Link Jimbo Thursday, 03 November 2011 14:22 posted by Jimbo

    Joseph, we use debt as money and the debt does not exist once it has been repaid. Therefore the money does not exist. But money's purpose is to enable and balance transactions, so when the debt is repaid the transaction is complete, and the money is no longer required to exist.

    For example, if I make a widget for you then you would owe me a widget, or something of similar value. But rather than asking for that value right away, I could ask for a note stating that you will exchange that amount of value for the note. Now I can pass the note on to someone else (as long as they trust you on your promise). You can see that it has become money, created from thin air. This would not be considered a Full Reserve system because the widget represented by the note does not exist. Unlike Full Reserve, it is a free market system with no coercion.

    The circle is completed when the note holder asks you for a widget. You make them a widget, they give you the note and, since owing something to yourself makes no sense, you destroy the note.

    Our system is like this except that the notes are denominated in paper money instead of widgets and are issued by middlemen (banks), who ought to be more widely trusted than individuals. Interest is charged as well, because it's better to have a widget in your hand today than to have one in a year's time. So, as per the previous example, the person who hands you the note might be able to ask for a widget 10% bigger than the one you were given 1 year earlier.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Blog & News Menu

Search

Contribute

Citizen Journalism

The many are smarter than the few – we would like to publish your opinion on the site so please send your article here. But remember absolute certainty is the preserve of the deluded.

Fancy contributing?

Twitter

Honesty Box



Newsletter Signup

Facebook

Latest News

2012 © Renegade Economist