ProVox wrote:I have just stumbled upon this forum and it looks interesting but this thread seems to have died. Any chance of resurrecting it?
I am a retired engineer not an economist but I have spent the last 12-13 years working out the way money is created and how the banking system works from the structure rather than in banking terminology, which I have always believed is intended to mislead.
I have just spent a couple of hours reading the thread and there are a lot of misconceptions, which 'UndercoverElephant' seems to have covered pretty well. His explanations are virtually spot on and all he has said is covered in the BoE Bulletin Q1: 2014. ‘Money Creation in the Modern Economy’ and corroborated by the following economist.
This man, a Professor of Economics at Southampton University, is the only person to have carried out an empirical experiment to prove exactly how money is created through the banking process. Prof. Dr.Richard Werner’s papers cover virtually everything you would need to know about money creation, its history and the all the reasons it is so misunderstood even by economists. As UE points out it is very difficult to get those who have been taught incorrectly to accept any alternative explanation.
You may find the following papers of interest.
He has also done a series of short video interviews that are fairly easy to follow but the detail is all in his papers on the subject.
Nice to hear from you. I kept checking for replies but I thought everyone had died!
I thought you put the case for the argument on how banks create money very well. One thing you said I would however question.
Fractional Reserve Banking has been proved by Werner not to be the method by which banks expand (multiply) the money supply. This is supported by the BoE statement that it does not require deposits to generate loans and thus expand the supply. Loans create deposits not the other way round.
FRB implies that a single bank cannot on its own create new money and Werner proved this not to be the case. The bank creates a credit account and, just like a credit account with a Card Company, it does not deposit money in that account. All it has to do is enter a credit limit, a limit usually larger than the limit agreed between bank and borrower because the credit limit has to cover the accumulating compound interest, calculated and added daily to the account.
Werner makes a statement I disagree with, when he says the bank creates money in the borrowers account. It does not work like that. (At least I don’t think so!) The bank simply creates an empty account with a credit limit, again just like a credit card account. It effectively allows you to spend money you do not have BUT ...... interestingly, neither does the bank. It is only when the borrower spends his non-existent money that the new money appears .......... in two places! The first is as the creation of new money when the recipient deposits the borrower’s cheque into his account, as a deposit and a liability to the bank but it also appears at the borrower’s credit account as a DEBIT.
A standard banking software package (a logical assumption?) would ADD a deposit to an account but would subtract a DEBIT from the balance in that account. Thus the account with a balance of zero would have the debit subtracted from zero. The account would go negative and the debt has been created! It must be able to do this to account for overdraughts.
When the borrower repays the loan amount, plus interest, the negative value decreases until it reaches zero again and the debt is settled.
Other than that single point I cannot fault your explanation(s).
How about expanding the scope of the thread and discussing PM’s suggestion of Central Bank created money and a withdrawal of the commercial bank’s current privilege to create electronic money out of thin air as debt (Revision to Banking Charter act 1844) and the separation of commercial and investment banks? (US - Glass Steagall act 1932.... or similar) IMO the idea has a lot of potential ................ much greater than it would first appear related to both Public and Private debt.
Evolving wrote:There's an article in the Guardian today advocating "positive money":
The question is what to do about it. How can we redesign the global economy to bring it in line with the principles of ecology? The most obvious answer is to stop using GDP to measure economic progress and replace it with a more thoughtful measure – one that accounts for the ecological and social impact of economic activity. Prominent economists like Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz have been calling for such changes for years and it’s time we listened.
But replacing GDP is only a first step. While it might help refocus economic policies on what really matters, it doesn’t address the main driver of growth: debt. Debt is the reason the economy has to grow in the first place. Because debt always comes with interest, it grows exponentially – so if a person, a business, or a country wants to pay down debt over the long term, they have to grow enough to at least match the growth of their debt. Without growth, debt piles up and eventually triggers an economic crisis.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest