|
|
Banks, money and thin air
..continued from previous page 12 ..or is required by law to keep
It is here that Modern Money Mechanics, by suddenly shifting from what
an individual bank can do to what all banks together (“the
banking system”) can, opens the way to the misinterpretation of
people like Ron Paul and the makers of the Zeitgeist films that banks
too can create “money” out of thin air. The booklet
explains that US banks are required by law to keep a
“fraction” of deposits as “reserves” in its
vaults and/or a balance with the Fed, and says:
“For example, if reserves of 20 percent were required, deposits
could expand only until they were five times as large as reserves.
Reserves of $10 million could support deposits of $50 million”
(p. 4).
This is a very misleading way of putting as it could suggest that if
banks receive total new deposits of $10 million they can immediately
proceed to make loans of four times this. This is not so, and not
really what the booklet meant to suggest. What it means is that the
banks can immediately lend out only four-fifths of $10 million, or $8
million, and that this circulates throughout the banking system leading
in theory to new loans totalling in the end $40 million, bringing total
“bank deposits” up to $50 million.
Confusingly, the numerical examples the booklet goes on to give to
illustrate this are based not on a 20 percent reserve fraction but on a
10 percent one (which is more or less what the law in the US requires
for the kind of bank deposits in question). So, to take its example, if
$10,000 is deposited in the banking system, initially say in one bank,
that bank can make loans (create credit line bank deposits) of $9000.
When it is spent this $9000 will be re-deposited in other banks which
can then lend out 90 percent of this, or $8100; which in turn will be
re-deposited in banks, allowing a further $7290 to be lent out, and so
on, until in the end and over the period, a total of $90,000 new loans
will have been made.
This shows how the Fed can practise “fractional reserve
banking” to control the amount of “money” (currency
plus bank deposits) in the economy. This is done via “open market
operations” as explained in a section headed “Bank Deposits
– How They Expand or Contract”:
“Let us assume that expansion in the money stock is desired by
the Federal Reserve to achieve its policy objectives . . . [T]he
Federal Reserve System, through its trading desk at the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, buys $10,000 of Treasury bills from a dealer in US
government securities. In today’s world of computerized financial
transactions, the Federal Reserve Bank pays for the securities with an
‘electronic’ check drawn on itself . . . The Federal
Reserve System has added $10,000 of securities to its assets, which it
has paid for, in effect, by creating a liability on itself in the form
of bank reserve balances” (p. 6).
The bank from which the Treasury bills were purchased now has reserves
above the 10 percent limit and so can turn the $10,000 into loans,
which starts the process described above rolling, leading to an extra
$90,000 bank lending.
In theory the Fed could contract bank lending in the same way, but this
has never happened. So M1 has gone up and up each year. But what about
the currency in all this? It too has gone up but passively and
almost automatically. With increased banking activity more currency
notes are required, which banks get by converting their reserves into
this and which, if it hasn’t enough notes, the Fed just asks the
Treasury to print more. But this has consequences -– the
depreciation of the dollar and the rise in the general price level
Congressman Paul doesn’t like.
But has the banking system really created more “money”?
Only if you regard “bank deposits” as money. If you
don’t, all that has been shown is that currency has circulated in
that the whole process depends on the initial deposit or injection of
cash being recycled as further deposits by depositors (as opposed to by
banks creating a credit line). So, neither an individual bank nor the
whole banking system can lend more than has been deposited with it. By
the end of the process, in the example given, the first loan (out of
the first deposit of $10,000) of $9000 has been used and used again for
genuine deposits totalling $90,000. But all this assumes an expanding
economy, since where is the money to repay the loans and the interest
on them to come from without being assured of which the banks would not
lend the money in the first place?
So the banking system does not create money to lend out of thin air but
can only lend out money deposited with it and then only when economic
conditions permit it.
Today, bank deposits are not the only source of what the banks lend.
They also borrow on the money market (as has been highlighted by the
present banking crisis). This means that their reserves are an even
smaller percentage of their total loans, only about 3 percent in fact.
This figure is mentioned in Zeitgeist Addendum as if this was now the
“fractional reserve” and that therefore banks, or the
banking system, can “create” loans of up to 33 times an
initial deposit. Another silly mistake.
If currency cranks such as the makers of the Zeitgeist films have got
the wrong end of the stick about “fractional reserve
banking” and imagine that it means banks, whether singly or all
together, can create money or credit out of thin air this is partly the
fault of the way that booklets like the one produced by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago try to explain it. Of course the Fed does not
believe the “thin air” claim, but to refute the currency
cranks it would have not only to re-iterate that no single bank
receiving an additional deposit of $10,000 can forthwith loan out
$90,000, but also spell out that the expansion of credit line bank
deposits still depends on people making real deposits of their own,
unborrowed money (whether in cash or by cheque or by bank transfer).
Which would restore a sense of reality and explode the myth that banks
can create loans out of thin air.
ADAM BUICK
|
|
 |
|