I have a somewhat decent understanding of the Austrian theory of trade cycles, and I know a little bit about capital theory; but when I try to apply this theory to the real world, I quickly become confused. This is probably due to the fact that I know almost nothing about banking. But how is fiduciary media actually created? I know the answer is, "through FRB;" but what does this actually mean? How do the banks create credit out of thin air? If a bank can just arbitrarily open up a demand deposit, how could they ever be insolvent? They could just continuously create additional demand deposits and pay off their lenders. Now, obviously this would mean inflation; but the implication would be that a single bank has the power to bring about hyper-inflation. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Excuse my grammatical errors.
demand deposits aren't assets, they are liabilities. loans are assets.
FRB is inflationary by way of fed injection, which in turn becomes the basis for new loans.
Fractional Reserve Banking is the process of a bank taking in deposits then keeping only part of the deposits to pay off redemptions and then lending the rest. The reserve rate is the percentage of the deposits that are kept in reserve. So you get the following series for say a 10% reserve.
Depositor 1 gives bank 1 $100, bank 1 keeps 10 on hand and lends out 90 to creditor 2.
Creditor 2 becomes depositor 2 and gives bank 2 $90, bank 2 keeps 9 and lends out 81 to depositor 3.
Depositor 3 gives bank 3 $81, bank 3 keeps 72.1 and lends 8.9 to depositor 4.....
This series has a limit of 1/reserve rate, in this case the limit is 1/0.1 = 10. Keynesians and Chicago'ites call this money multiplier.
Note that the whole thing is based on the bank and the creditor holding title to the same property. It is unstable as there is always a possibility that one of the depositors will claim more than the reserve and bank can not pay it back. So technically all fractional reserve banks are insolvent.
This situation is made worse by a central bank that creates money out of nothing by adding to the reserves of the bank. So if bank 1 gets a 100 deposit from the central bank created by purchasing government bonds with money it created out of thin air there is 10 x 200 dollars in the system. Now this makes the bank 1/2 as insolvent as it was previously. But it is still insolvent.
Bogart:Fractional Reserve Banking is the process of a bank taking in deposits then keeping only part of the deposits to pay off redemptions and then lending the rest.
It sounds like it's not the creation of new money, just an increase in the circulation of already existsing money; that is, an increase in the velocity of money.
Bogart:This situation is made worse by a central bank that creates money out of nothing by adding to the reserves of the bank.
Does it literally create money out of thin air? Can you explain this process?
I hate to assign reading material, but rather than rely on someone's explanation here, pick up any economics textbook to read about money creation -- regardless of your position on the Fed or free banking, the standard textbooks are accurate as to the basic process. Of course it is simplified (the Fed just recently has broadened its tools for example), but you'll understand what it means to create money out of thin air.
Or you could read one of Rothbard's several books on the topic -- as far as money creation, he is telling the same story.
Bogart: Note that the whole thing is based on the bank and the creditor holding title to the same property. It is unstable as there is always a possibility that one of the depositors will claim more than the reserve and bank can not pay it back. So technically all fractional reserve banks are insolvent
Note that the whole thing is based on the bank and the creditor holding title to the same property. It is unstable as there is always a possibility that one of the depositors will claim more than the reserve and bank can not pay it back. So technically all fractional reserve banks are insolvent
That's technically not correct unless you define insolvent your own way. A bank's loans are assets so as long as its assets are greater than its liabilities, it is solvent. But you're right that a bank run could lead to insolvency.
Rooster:A bank's loans are assets so as long as its assets are greater than its liabilities, it is solvent. But you're right that a bank run could lead to insolvency.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If a bank is unable to repay its creditors, even with a moratorium, then it is not solvent. If a bank is rendered insolvent during the run, it was never solvent to begin with.
Rooster:Or you could read one of Rothbard's several books on the topic -- as far as money creation, he is telling the same story.
Yeah I just ordered Rothbard's the mystery of banking. I was hoping to get the answer without spending the cash, but oh well.
Esuric: Rooster:A bank's loans are assets so as long as its assets are greater than its liabilities, it is solvent. But you're right that a bank run could lead to insolvency. That doesn't make any sense at all. If a bank is unable to repay its creditors, even with a moratorium, then it is not solvent. If a bank is rendered insolvent during the run, it was never solvent to begin with. Rooster:Or you could read one of Rothbard's several books on the topic -- as far as money creation, he is telling the same story. Yeah I just ordered Rothbard's the mystery of banking. I was hoping to get the answer without spending the cash, but oh well.
Well that is the definition of solvency. You don't have to like it!
Well Mises, in The Theory of Money and Credit says: " Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE A bank may be said to be solvent when its assets are so constituted that a liquidation would necessarily result in complete satisfaction of all its creditors. Liquidity is that condition of the bank’s assets which will enable it to meet all of its liabilities, not merely in full, but also in time, that is, without being obliged to ask for anything in the nature of a moratorium (extension) from its creditors. Liquidity is a particular sort of solvency."
Esuric: Well Mises, in The Theory of Money and Credit says: " Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE A bank may be said to be solvent when its assets are so constituted that a liquidation would necessarily result in complete satisfaction of all its creditors. Liquidity is that condition of the bank’s assets which will enable it to meet all of its liabilities, not merely in full, but also in time, that is, without being obliged to ask for anything in the nature of a moratorium (extension) from its creditors. Liquidity is a particular sort of solvency."
This is also saying assets are greater than liabilities. Under that definition, a fractional reserve bank is not necessarily insolvent. I suspect you will not find Mises making that claim (correct me if I'm wrong).
I did find an article where Rothbard calls fractional reserve banking "inherently insolvent," but it seems that is loose language, as far as I can tell from a quick look he is more careful in his books such as "The Case Against the Fed," where he talks about the risks of insolvency, such as from a bank run.
It's just terminology, and doesn't change anything about the nature of the issue, but that is the accepted definition.
The effect is the same as if banks created money out of thin air, but no, they do not technincally do so.
Lets assume you deposit $100 into Bank A. Bank A will keep a portion of this $100 in reserve, lets assume $10.
So $10 is kept in reserve and $90 is lent out, for the sake of simplicity, all to one borrower. This borrower, upon
receiving the loan either immediately redeposits the money into his own account, or buys something from a seller,
who will deposit the money immediately into his account, as well.
So, in either case, $100 has been deposited by you, $90 of which has been lent out by Bank A, to a borrower, and rediposited into Bank A, B or C.
Now, when this $90 is deposited into, say, Bank B, it will keep $9 on hand and lend out $81 to another borrower. This borrower will either redeposit the funds into his own account, or buy something from a seller...and so, the $81 will be deposited into Bank C. Bank C will keep $8 on hand and lend out $73....and the process will continue, until the the bank is loaned up.
So even though no bank has a printing press printing out fresh notes....it is effectively the same as if they did, as a $100 deposit can easily be transformed into nearly $900 in loans this way.
One of the best books on this subject (if not the best) is G Edward Griffin's, The Creature from Jekyll Island....I really can't understand why it isnt mentioned more....
Seph:The effect is the same as if banks created money out of thin air, but no, they do not technincally do so.
But it's not the same as creating the money out of thin air. That would mean that M and V are completely interchangeable. Does that mean that inflation is not a monetary phenomena, but one entirely caused by increases in velocity? Is quantity theory just V=PT? The banks are just recycling the money, not creating new money. I understand how this is fraud, but I don't see how it's creating money out of "thin air." Now the FED may create money out of thin air, but how? And how did this occur before central banks? I ordered the mystery of banking, which will probably answer these questions.
Both the Fed and commercial banks can create money. When a fractional reserve bank makes a loan, that is new money. It really is that simple.
Sorry, should have been clearer. I only meants that its the same, in the following sense: a bank taking $100 and gradually turning it into ~$900 more, through the magic of fractional reserve banking has the same inflationary consequences as if the bank punched in 900 extra dollars on a computer, after receiving the $100 deposit. Either way, there is $900 where there arguably shouldnt be.
The only difference is that through the current system, the cause of inflation is obscured, because inflation occurs more gradually and over time, rather than huge spikes in inflation whenever new money is injected into the system.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't get how fiduciary media fits into this. If the bankers are just recycling the same cash, over and over, then they aren't creating anything, including fiduciary media.
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