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.




12 comments

  • Comment Link Keith Gardner Monday, 09 January 2012 11:37 posted by Keith Gardner

    the problem with private debt-based money is when the government corrupts the free market in free banking by declaring such debt notes to be legal tender, for the payment of taxes (and debts chartered by government).

    good point that the problem is made worse by a system which taxes earned income while allowing you to deduct mortgage interest on landed property.

  • Comment Link Paul Grignon Friday, 23 March 2012 16:21 posted by Paul Grignon

    http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/How_Principal_is_Extinguished.html

    HOW is Principal Extinguished?

    The idea that money can be "extinguished" is not intuitively understood by most people. Does somebody burn cash or something like that?

    For most people, the mental concept of money is that it is a positive thing, probably due to the use of debt-free coins for millennia. This is constantly reinforced by our own experience. We successfully trade paper cash and digits in an "account" for food, shelter etc. just as we once traded gold and silver coins for things. We continue to perceive money as something with a positive lasting physical nature, which it no longer is, in reality. Today's debt-money is a time contract for self-extinguishment, existing for only as long as the debt that created it exists.

    What do you pay your bank loan with? Probably a check. A check is a claim upon "legal tender on demand" from the bank that issues the check on behalf of its depositor. Only a tiny percentage of the money we use is legal tender, physical cash. Therefore, these promises are, in the aggregate, fraudulent as literal promises of "legal tender" but true as measurements of bank credit "in legal tender units". You, the borrower, by signing a so-called "loan" contract with a bank, have partnered with the bank to acquire purchasing power now, in exchange for a promise to earn it all back (and more, with interest) in the future. Money, as legal tender cash, need not be involved if bank credit functions as money and just uses the "money unit" to quantify the "value" of bank credit.

    What happens when a $1000 check is cleared through the credit system?

    1. The account of the depositor who wrote the check is reduced by $1000. The bank no longer owes that depositor $1000 in "legal tender on demand". Who does the bank owe it to?

    2. If the check is written on the same bank as it is deposited at, it is just a liability moved from one account to another. The bank just owes "legal tender" to someone else. No legal tender is required.

    3. If the check is written on the same bank as it is deposited at, and it is paying off a loan, the loan account of the borrower is reduced by the Principal portion of the $1000 payment.

    Let us use 80% Interest, 20% Principal as an example. The loan account is reduced by $200. That borrower owes the bank $200 less than before. Performing loans are bank assets. Therefore, because of this Principal payment, the bank's assets have now been reduced by $200.

    Deposits are bank liabilities, promises to pay legal tender on demand. The $1000 payment means that $1000 of bank liabilities have been given to the bank. Therefore, the bank's liabilities to other banks have been reduced by $1000. This leaves the bank free to spend the difference, $800, in new liabilities against itself. Most will be spent on operating expenses, capital investments and dividends.

    4. If the check is written on a different bank, then the first bank owes the second bank "legal tender on demand". But, over time, if every bank creates credit and gets an equal amount deposited back, all debts between banks can theoretically cancel each other out to zero, just as if there were only one bank. In reality, banks compete for deposits making reality much messier than the theoretical. Nonetheless, only the longer lasting differences need be paid. Therefore, actual settlements between banks are only a small portion of total credit issued.
    5. The ASSET of the bank is the fact that the borrower has promised to acquire, return to the bank and extinguish claims against the bank for "legal tender" the bank does not have. With interest, the borrower will give the bank more claims than were created for the borrower (Principal). These extra claims (Interest) are not extinguished. The Interest becomes the bank's spendable income.

    It is perfectly acceptable to pay this "debt" with bank credit, bank promises of legal tender, not cash. If the loan is paid with cash, the paper cash goes into the bank's cash vault, and if not needed for cash withdrawals, will be traded to another bank for credit, or returned to the central bank for central bank credit, which can also be used to settle accounts with other member banks as part of the check clearing process. In either case, the cash is used to extinguish liabilities against the bank.

    If the $1000 is paid in cash or by check, the loan account will be reduced by $200, the liabilities against the bank will be reduced by $1000 leaving $800 to be spent by the bank.

    The "money supply" has been reduced by the $200 of extinguished Principal and, because money IS debt in this system, can only be replaced by someone promising to pay the bank $200, plus interest.

<< 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?

Youtube

Twitter

Honesty Box



Newsletter Signup

Facebook

Latest News

2012 © Renegade Economist