Gotta love LeighGionaire's periodic 'I dont understand the banking system' threads
If banks create money completely out of thin air, in the way you've just described, how in 2007/8 did we end up in a position in which banks suffered from a liquidity crisis resulting in a run on Northern Rock etc. Were all the people responsible for adding zeros to the banks balance sheet off sick or something?
QuoteLeighGionaire="LeighGionaire"And what do you think of the fact that the money for said loans was created out of thin air? I used to think that when I got a loan for my mortgage it was some pensioners hard earned savings being handed over to me and so I had a moral obligation to pay it back with a little interest on top.'"
The global financial crisis was partly a result of US' problems with the sub-prime mortgage industry. Banks were lending money to people who weren't credit worthy, and were fairly likely to default on their repayments. If banks simply create the money out of thin air in the way you describe, with none of this lent out money actually coming from the banks income, how could the sub-prime lenders defaulting on their repayments be a problem?
If a bank creates 100k completely out of thin air to give to you to buy a house, you repay 10k before going bankrupt, even if by this point the value of the house has crashed surely the banks have still made a profit?
Also why were these debts being sold on in the form of CDO's? Surely if the banks funded new mortgages by creating money out of thin air, and not from 'real' money from the banks income, they would have absolutely no need to do so.
QuoteWidnes 'till i die="Widnes 'till i die"Gotta love LeighGionaire's periodic 'I dont understand the banking system' threads
If banks create money completely out of thin air, in the way you've just described, how in 2007/8 did we end up in a position in which banks suffered from a liquidity crisis resulting in a run on Northern Rock etc. Were all the people responsible for adding zeros to the banks balance sheet off sick or something?
'"
Banks create money out of nothing. However they need a borrower's signature to create the money. That's the trick. They can't just sit there all day and night creating money willy-nilly.
If banks don't create money then how do you explain a comment like this?
QuoteWidnes 'till i dieMartin Wolf, one of the experts who sat on the independent commission on banking, put it bluntly, saying in the Financial Times that "the essence of the contemporary monetary system was the creation of money, out of nothing, by private banks' often foolish lending".'"
Quotetb="tb"Letting nutters from the Occupy movement take over CiF is probably one of the silliest things the Grauniad has ever done. The fact that the Gruadian chose to do it does not mean that 'mainstream media' have suddenly become converted to their idiot ideas.
There's a good repost to the whole nonsense [url=http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/11/15/freemen-of-the-dangerous-nonsense/here[/url'"
The link you provided doesn't mention the article I linked so how can it be a 'repost to the whole nonsense'?
Now here is a link that discusses the issues addressed in the Guardian article, it's from the Financial Times. However they don't slate the Guardian article for being wrong about money creation, they instead lampoon the author for only just finding out how the system works!
QuotetbCongratulations to Ben Dyson, self-professed “money and banking specialist” for finally discovering, err, money. Or, how money works.
In a column in the Guardian on Tuesday, Dyson recounts in grand revelatory style how the solution to the system’s current ails is nothing other than recognition of the fact that “money has been privatised”. Shock, horror!'"
Quotetb="tb"Letting nutters from the Occupy movement take over CiF is probably one of the silliest things the Grauniad has ever done. The fact that the Gruadian chose to do it does not mean that 'mainstream media' have suddenly become converted to their idiot ideas.
There's a good repost to the whole nonsense [url=http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/11/15/freemen-of-the-dangerous-nonsense/here[/url'"
The link you provided doesn't mention the article I linked so how can it be a 'repost to the whole nonsense'?
Now here is a link that discusses the issues addressed in the Guardian article, it's from the Financial Times. However they don't slate the Guardian article for being wrong about money creation, they instead lampoon the author for only just finding out how the system works!
QuotetbCongratulations to Ben Dyson, self-professed “money and banking specialist” for finally discovering, err, money. Or, how money works.
In a column in the Guardian on Tuesday, Dyson recounts in grand revelatory style how the solution to the system’s current ails is nothing other than recognition of the fact that “money has been privatised”. Shock, horror!'"
QuoteLeighGionaire="LeighGionaire"Now here is a link that discusses the issues addressed in the Guardian article, it's from the Financial Times. However they don't slate the Guardian article for being wrong about money creation, they instead lampoon the author for only just finding out how the system works!
Oh dear. You've misunderstood the article you link to above.
Here - a simple explanation of why Dyson's article was 'bollox on stilts' lifted from the comments section...
QuoteLeighGionaireNo. No, no no no no, with cherries on top. This is the worst (mis)explanation of fractional reserve banking I have ever read.
When you borrow money from the bank, that money is not "created" by the bank. The bank has to fund it - either from deposits (the "prudent grandmother's life savings") or from borrowing it from someone else (the wholesale funding market).
The "creation of money" that everyone goes on about is quite different, very simple, and not at all sinister. It results from the fact that when a bank takes a deposit and lends it out again, both the depositor and the borrower treat themselves as having the money in question. Of course that's not actually true - the depositor does not have any money, just a debt owed to him or her by the bank - but because bank deposits are treated as equivalent to cash by almost everyone, the illusion is convincing.
Even then the banks cannot "create" an infinite amount of money, because the government does not allow them to lend out ever penny they receive in deposits. They have to keep a set percentage as reserves.
So for example, thrifty grandma Mrs Bloggs saves GBP100,000 with Megabank. The bank has to keep (say) 8% of this as reserves, but can lend out GBP92,000 to Mr Flatbuyer. Now Mr Flatbuyer thinks he has GBP92,000 and Mrs Bloggs thinks she has GBP100,000, so the total amount of money in the economy appears to have gone up by GBP192,000. But of course it hasn't really. You can see that because eventually Mr Flatbuyer has to pay back his GBP92K and Mrs Bloggs withdraws her GBP100K, which leaves you back to where you began (give or take a little interest). Further because the capital ratio is always positive, the total amount of money that can be "created" in this way is limited. For example, instead of buying a house Mr Flatbuyer could deposite his GBP92K back into a bank, which could then lend out 92% of that (GBP84,640), and so one. Which (for an 8% capital ratio) works out at a maximum of GBP4 being "created" for each GBP1 of "real" money.
How you gonna change the world if you don't understand it?'"
QuoteLeighGionaire="LeighGionaire"Now here is a link that discusses the issues addressed in the Guardian article, it's from the Financial Times. However they don't slate the Guardian article for being wrong about money creation, they instead lampoon the author for only just finding out how the system works!
Oh dear. You've misunderstood the article you link to above.
Here - a simple explanation of why Dyson's article was 'bollox on stilts' lifted from the comments section...
QuoteLeighGionaireNo. No, no no no no, with cherries on top. This is the worst (mis)explanation of fractional reserve banking I have ever read.
When you borrow money from the bank, that money is not "created" by the bank. The bank has to fund it - either from deposits (the "prudent grandmother's life savings") or from borrowing it from someone else (the wholesale funding market).
The "creation of money" that everyone goes on about is quite different, very simple, and not at all sinister. It results from the fact that when a bank takes a deposit and lends it out again, both the depositor and the borrower treat themselves as having the money in question. Of course that's not actually true - the depositor does not have any money, just a debt owed to him or her by the bank - but because bank deposits are treated as equivalent to cash by almost everyone, the illusion is convincing.
Even then the banks cannot "create" an infinite amount of money, because the government does not allow them to lend out ever penny they receive in deposits. They have to keep a set percentage as reserves.
So for example, thrifty grandma Mrs Bloggs saves GBP100,000 with Megabank. The bank has to keep (say) 8% of this as reserves, but can lend out GBP92,000 to Mr Flatbuyer. Now Mr Flatbuyer thinks he has GBP92,000 and Mrs Bloggs thinks she has GBP100,000, so the total amount of money in the economy appears to have gone up by GBP192,000. But of course it hasn't really. You can see that because eventually Mr Flatbuyer has to pay back his GBP92K and Mrs Bloggs withdraws her GBP100K, which leaves you back to where you began (give or take a little interest). Further because the capital ratio is always positive, the total amount of money that can be "created" in this way is limited. For example, instead of buying a house Mr Flatbuyer could deposite his GBP92K back into a bank, which could then lend out 92% of that (GBP84,640), and so one. Which (for an 8% capital ratio) works out at a maximum of GBP4 being "created" for each GBP1 of "real" money.
How you gonna change the world if you don't understand it?'"
Kosh - the Financial Times could have ripped the Guardian article to pieces if the overall premise about how banks create money had been wrong. The fact that it doesn't and instead focuses on defending debt speaks volumes to me. Notice how you have to find a random reply in the comments section to try and debunk my reasoning. Three people have attacked my reasoning on this thread so far yet none have explained how the Martin Wolf quote mentioned a few posts up is wrong.
"Steve Keen talks about the money creation process in the second half, and how the assumption of 99.9% of neoclassical economics that savings and debt cancel each other out in an economy is completely misguided as it is ignorant of the fact that nearly all new money is created as debt by private banks in modern economies."
"Steve Keen talks about the money creation process in the second half, and how the assumption of 99.9% of neoclassical economics that savings and debt cancel each other out in an economy is completely misguided as it is ignorant of the fact that nearly all new money is created as debt by private banks in modern economies."
An important point to remember that the principle of fractional reserve banking (where, say, £10 is lent for every £1 that is deposited) is entirely dependent on people choosing to [isave [/imoney. Given that interest rates have been in a state of flatline for some years now it's hard to see how banks (excluding those based in Asia) can be in a position to lend money. Although there seems no shortage of offers from so-called "debt consolidation" companies to people struggling to pay the bills.
On a personal note, even though I was offered plenty of credit prior to the sub-prime debacle it simply doesn't compare to the mountain of credit card deals I've received since.
QuoteMugwump="Mugwump"On a personal note, even though I was offered plenty of credit prior to the sub-prime debacle it simply doesn't compare to the mountain of credit card deals I've received since.'"
QuoteDally="Dally"What is a credit card "deal"!?'"
Incentives. A matter of perspective, I suppose. But they seem to be falling over themselves lately to get my business. I guess the plan is instead of throwing credit at everyone and his dog (pre-subprime) they're all now competing to milk those remaining who they still think have a few pennies left under the mattress.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
