The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Simple question

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 11 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110
John Smith posted on Tue, Dec 9 2008 7:06 AM

How can there have been a credit crunch when M2 (and presumably M3) was expanding at approximately the same amount as before throughout it?

 

  • | Post Points: 20

All Replies

Top 75 Contributor
439 Posts
Points 7,310
Suggested by nazgulnarsil

money in the form of loans was being destroyed faster than the supply was expanding.

I swear this question has been asked 10 times in the last few weeks.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110

Most money that enters the economy is ultimately a loan isn't it?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
658 Posts
Points 17,300

The money that enters the economy is either created out of thin air by the printing press, possibly even by other means, or, is loaned out from another person's wealth stored at the bank, when they have a guarentee that they can get their money back "anytime", aka FRB.  Other transfers of money have no effect on the money supply (if I loan some of my money, there is no effect).  On a side note, M1, M2, and M3 are inaccurate measures of the money supply.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110

M2 is basically M1 + savings. Most monetary expansion occurs as a result of loans, generally all of which are included in M2. I don't understand how there could have been a credit crunch when M2 was expanding at the same rate it always had been.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
1,305 Posts
Points 23,565

Maybe there is no credit crunch?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110

I have read some more threads and the general consensus seems to be that banks are increasing their reserves directly from the Fed without actually lending. I'm not sure why this is occurring since the only reason banks have reserves is so they can lend them. Why else would they want to go more into debt?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110

Unless they are still lending, but with a higher reserve.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
658 Posts
Points 17,300

John Smith:

M2 is basically M1 + savings. Most monetary expansion occurs as a result of loans, generally all of which are included in M2. I don't understand how there could have been a credit crunch when M2 was expanding at the same rate it always had been.

 

I think there is some double counting going on with your description of the money supply.  For example, lets say the bank recieves $500 dollars from somebody, with the expectation that he will gain $550 dollars in two years.  The bank than loans the $500 out to another person, with the expectation that they will get $600 dollars in two years.  In reality, the $500 simply underwent a change of hands, but the M2 figure would count this as 500 additional dollars.

It is different with fractional reserve banking.  In this case, it is important to count the money deposited as well as the money loaned out, as the money in the account is supposedly available at any time to the depositer, rather than unavailable because he transfered it to someone else (even temporarily).

The important thing to realize is that loans don't expand the money supply, but creating it out of thin air or Fractional Reserve Banking in order to make the loan can.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110

eliotn:

John Smith:

M2 is basically M1 + savings. Most monetary expansion occurs as a result of loans, generally all of which are included in M2. I don't understand how there could have been a credit crunch when M2 was expanding at the same rate it always had been.

 

I think there is some double counting going on with your description of the money supply.  For example, lets say the bank recieves $500 dollars from somebody, with the expectation that he will gain $550 dollars in two years.  The bank than loans the $500 out to another person, with the expectation that they will get $600 dollars in two years.  In reality, the $500 simply underwent a change of hands, but the M2 figure would count this as 500 additional dollars.

It is different with fractional reserve banking.  In this case, it is important to count the money deposited as well as the money loaned out, as the money in the account is supposedly available at any time to the depositer, rather than unavailable because he transfered it to someone else (even temporarily).

The important thing to realize is that loans don't expand the money supply, but creating it out of thin air or Fractional Reserve Banking in order to make the loan can.


From what I understand, it is savings accounts that allow loans to occur. When large amounts of money are lent from them, they generally go into other savings accounts while still appearing in the initial depositor's account. M2 counts not only the initial deposit, but everything that has been loaned from it. All this money may not push up consumer prices immediately, but it should push up house prices, for example. Either way, the money supply is expanding. Where is it going if there is a credit crunch?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
7 Posts
Points 110

Would still like an explaination...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Female
138 Posts
Points 3,315

I have my doubts about whether there is an actual credit crunch. I think it's more along the market balancing itself.  Banks are still lending, people are still getting mortgages.

What banks are no longer doing is handing loans out like candy to anybody who's walking in their door. They look very closely at the risk involved in loaning money.  Seems to me, they might have learned something from their mistakes.

 

Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap