Live data from Hacker News

Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

attejuvonen.fi

11–20 of 235 posts

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#11

> These facts support the main argument of this article: that banks do not have any special powers in relation to money creation. Nothing in this blog post comes even close to supporting the idea that banks have no special money creating power. The hidden assumption is that this "iou power" is not regulated or enforced by government control over the money supply. That you can write a cheque and then not cash it, and…

We could quibble about the definition of "special power" all day. Sure, a bank is in a better position to create money than a poker site. And a poker site is in a better position than an individual person. But these are not fundamental differences, these are differences of degree. Fundamental difference is having a literal money printer, versus not having one (central bank's ability vs regular bank). When you issue IOUs with the backing of a literal money printer (as a central bank), those IOUs are fundamentally different from the IOUs issued by me/poker site/bank.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#12
post #2

Personal finance podcast clued me into this at some point. Every time a loan is used to pay for goods or services, some fraction of that goes back to “the bank” where 90% of it can be loaned out again. Best case, where all money is moved electronically and instantly, I keep seeing that 100 dollars go out and come back a little smaller over and over and over again. The tenth time I see it I can write a loan for about…

The language used to describe fractional reserve is pretty misleading. Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. If a bank takes a $1,000,000 deposit one customer, and lends $850,000 of it to other customers, there isn't $1,850,000 worth of money all of a sudden. There is $850,000 worth of debt held by customers, and another customer with a $1,000,000…

> Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation.

It doesn't increase currency (M0).

But is there 'money' in your bank account? They increase money by a slightly broader definition (accounts + currency).

Even if you've got a narrower definition (and just want the physical paper to be defined as money, not entries in a database) then they don't increase the amount, but they greatly amplify its effect by increasing the velocity of circulation (which you did mention). One little bit of money is being thrown around between owners much faster, which effectively magnifies its impact.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#13

I've done extremely well obtaining goods and services by operating under my unpopular perceptions of the world, including how banks make money and the purpose of money and currency. My unpopular perceptions have consensus with the people that matter (banks, lawyers, accountants, regulators, courts) but they just won't get very far on web forums if you try to tell people something that doesn't match their understandin…

Would love to know more about your unpopular opinions. Too many people think the same way about money.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language used to describe fractional reserve is pretty misleading. Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. If a bank takes a $1,000,000 deposit one customer, and lends $850,000 of it to other customers, there isn't $1,850,000 worth of money all of a sudden. There is $850,000 worth of debt held by customers, and another customer with a $1,000,000…

> Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. It doesn't increase currency (M0). But is there 'money' in your bank account? They increase money by a slightly broader definition (accounts + currency). Even if you've got a narrower definition (and just want the physical paper to be defined as money, not entries in a database) then they don't increase the…

Right, but people who get .ad that banks create "money" don't understand that "money" is not the same as "currency".

Money is literally defined simply as "currency plus bank accounts" so obviously funding a bank account creates "money".

Your post gets into the velocity and momentum of money, which is yet another concept.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#15
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language used to describe fractional reserve is pretty misleading. Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. If a bank takes a $1,000,000 deposit one customer, and lends $850,000 of it to other customers, there isn't $1,850,000 worth of money all of a sudden. There is $850,000 worth of debt held by customers, and another customer with a $1,000,000…

> Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. It doesn't increase currency (M0). But is there 'money' in your bank account? They increase money by a slightly broader definition (accounts + currency). Even if you've got a narrower definition (and just want the physical paper to be defined as money, not entries in a database) then they don't increase the…

What's _actually_ in my bank account is a mixture of cash, other peoples debt, and other assets, that all adds up to the value listed when I log in to check the balance. Part of the service the bank is offering me is that at any time I request, they will exchange all of that for its' cash value if I want to make a withdrawal. This is the bit that people contrive when they make silly claims like "banks can make money out of thin air". You bank balance of $x does not translate to $x of cash (physical money or not, is irrelevant) on the banks ledger, waiting for you to withdraw it. It translates to $x worth of cash + assets held by the bank.

They do it by keeping enough money laying around doing nothing, to service those withdrawals. If all of a sudden huge amount of customers started making huge withdrawals, they wouldn't be able to service them, because they wouldn't be able to liquidate those assets immediately. If banks were actually creating money out of thin air, this wouldn't be possible, because they'd just be able to create some money out of thin air to service them.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#16
post #14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. It doesn't increase currency (M0). But is there 'money' in your bank account? They increase money by a slightly broader definition (accounts + currency). Even if you've got a narrower definition (and just want the physical paper to be defined as money, not entries in a database) then they don't increase the…

Right, but people who get .ad that banks create "money" don't understand that "money" is not the same as "currency". Money is literally defined simply as "currency plus bank accounts" so obviously funding a bank account creates "money". Your post gets into the velocity and momentum of money, which is yet another concept.

No, there is no single, accepted definition of money. Money is not "literally defined as..." anything. For example, if you look at Wikipedia definitions for money, you will find multiple different definitions. The commonly used definitions seem to vary a lot by economic area.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. It doesn't increase currency (M0). But is there 'money' in your bank account? They increase money by a slightly broader definition (accounts + currency). Even if you've got a narrower definition (and just want the physical paper to be defined as money, not entries in a database) then they don't increase the…

What's _actually_ in my bank account is a mixture of cash, other peoples debt, and other assets, that all adds up to the value listed when I log in to check the balance. Part of the service the bank is offering me is that at any time I request, they will exchange all of that for its' cash value if I want to make a withdrawal. This is the bit that people contrive when they make silly claims like "banks can make money…

If you go and read the article you will find that it agrees with everything you posted here, with the exception of your weird conclusion that "banks do not create money out of thin air". The article uses a simple example to illustrate that, using Eurozone M1 definition for money, loaning factually increases the amount of money which exists. Perhaps you are thinking of a different definition of money?

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#18
This is a fantastic page. I just have an issue with one of his points though:

> That banks do not have any special powers in relation to money creation

They most definitely do though: FDIC insured accounts have legal government backing—a random IOU from me can't achieve that, no matter how much anyone trusts me. Put another way, a bank deposit seems less like an "IOU" and more like a "WeOU"—"we (the bank or the government) owe you". That seems like quite a fundamental difference, no? It seems to distinguish "fake" and "real" money (or banks).

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#19
post #2

Personal finance podcast clued me into this at some point. Every time a loan is used to pay for goods or services, some fraction of that goes back to “the bank” where 90% of it can be loaned out again. Best case, where all money is moved electronically and instantly, I keep seeing that 100 dollars go out and come back a little smaller over and over and over again. The tenth time I see it I can write a loan for about…

The language used to describe fractional reserve is pretty misleading. Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. If a bank takes a $1,000,000 deposit one customer, and lends $850,000 of it to other customers, there isn't $1,850,000 worth of money all of a sudden. There is $850,000 worth of debt held by customers, and another customer with a $1,000,000…

> If a bank takes a $1,000,000 deposit one customer, and lends $850,000 of it to other customers, there isn't $1,850,000 worth of money all of a sudden.

Not all of a sudden, as in instantly, no, but there will be. See below.

> There is $850,000 worth of debt held by customers, and another customer with a $1,000,000 balance

Yes, but what do those other customers do with that $850,000 of debt? They either deposit it in another bank, or they use it to pay someone for something, and that someone deposits it in another bank, or...

In short, virtually all of that $850,000 of "debt" ends up as $850,000 of additional bank deposits in other banks. And to those other banks, those deposits are simple deposits--there are no debts (yet) against them on the other banks' books. So there is nothing to stop the other banks from lending out as much of that $850,000 as they can again. Which means the other banks have just turned what was $850,000 of "debt" into $850,000 of new money.

> Fractional reserve banking doesn't create money out of thin air

Yes, it does. I just explained how.

> it's just a system that allows for deposits to be put to productive use

More precisely, it's a bad system for putting deposits to productive use, because it mismatches maturities and therefore leaves the entire financial system open to bank runs, which then have to be prevented by additional "protective" measures. Which will sooner or later fail, and fail all the more catastrophically because the protective measures enable financial institutions to hide the fact that bad investments are being made.

The correct way to put deposits to productive use is to make them time deposits, not demand deposits. In other words, if you have a spare $1,000,000 that you have no good use for, you deposit it in some financial institution for a period of time, say a year, or 5 years, or 10 years, and that financial institution promises you some particular rate of return over that time in exchange for the use of your money to finance productive endeavors. Of course this is just another way of describing a bond, or a certificate of deposit, or a money market certificate, or whatever your financial institution chooses to call it.

But suppose you buy, say, a 5 year bond with your $1,000,000, and then, a year later, you find you need the money? Well, that's what a bond market is for--so you can sell your bond, at a fair market rate, and get cash in exchange, while someone else has now invested their money for the remaining term of the bond. There is no need for the financial institution to treat your $1,000,000 deposit as a demand deposit, withdrawable at any time, while it is transforming maturities by investing that money in other productive endeavors that take time to mature, just to shield you from unavoidable uncertainty about the future. There is certainly no need to expose the entire financial system to possible collapse to do this. The only reason this wacky system persists is that people in power benefit from it, and ordinary people have gotten so used to it, since it has been around for so long, that they don't connect it with the occasional meltdowns that it causes.

Re: Banks create money, but it's less impressive than it sounds

#20
post #2

Personal finance podcast clued me into this at some point. Every time a loan is used to pay for goods or services, some fraction of that goes back to “the bank” where 90% of it can be loaned out again. Best case, where all money is moved electronically and instantly, I keep seeing that 100 dollars go out and come back a little smaller over and over and over again. The tenth time I see it I can write a loan for about…

The language used to describe fractional reserve is pretty misleading. Banks don't increase the total supply of money, all fraction reserve does is keep more of it in circulation. If a bank takes a $1,000,000 deposit one customer, and lends $850,000 of it to other customers, there isn't $1,850,000 worth of money all of a sudden. There is $850,000 worth of debt held by customers, and another customer with a $1,000,000…

So the depositor put $1,000,000 in the bank and the bank loans $850,000 to a small business so it can buy more inventory. The small business goes to the widget manufacturer and writes a check which the manufacturer deposits into the bank. So now the bank has 1,850,000 in deposits and 850,000 in loans.

The bank takes the new deposits and loans out 85% of it ($723k) to another small business. This small business goes and uses it to pay its employees and they all deposit the money in the bank. Now the bank has $2.573m in deposits.

The employees and the manufacturer can all withdraw the money at any time. So I struggle to see how this isn't creating money.

The fractional reserve system lets the bank loan the same dollar out multiple times. How isn't this creating dollars? If the bank takes one dollar and loans 85 cents to you and 73 cents to me, isn't there more money?

Post reply on HN