• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How the banks create money

You are absolutely correct! We have one who can see psionl0! I have made this very same sort of point myself in the past (I would have to find the post though to prove it). There is nothing by the accounting rules (reserve requirement-wise) to stop this from happening. The reason why banks do not do this is because they know that as soon as a loan is made, it is usually spent (which perhaps is encoded in another accounting rule that the banks decide to follow, which is, don't loan more than excessive reserves).

If that loan of 200,000 was spent, the bank would be in serious trouble. The numbers would then become:

First Bank of Example, USA

Assets:
Reserves: (-178,000)
Loans: 200,000

Liabilities:
Deposits: 20,000
Capital: 2,000

That would be seriously bad for the bank. Just to even things out the bank itself would have to then get a loan of 180,000 = 178,000 + 2,000 from either other banks, companies or new depositors. The board members would not be happy either. The bank could additionally sell some of its loans to the Fed to get back to required reserves.

Excellent!

Well, up to point.

Other banking regulations would stop the loan of 200,000.

In most of the world it would be the capital adequacy rules but in the US it would probably be the leverage ratio, which sets a limit on the ratio of total assets to capital. If the limit was 4% then total assets of a bank with 2,000 capital could not exceed 50,000.
 
Well, up to point.

Other banking regulations would stop the loan of 200,000.

In most of the world it would be the capital adequacy rules but in the US it would probably be the leverage ratio, which sets a limit on the ratio of total assets to capital. If the limit was 4% then total assets of a bank with 2,000 capital could not exceed 50,000.

Interesting points. I for one have never heard of these requirements before, but I did some online searching and it looks like the information above is very reasonable. Thanks for the information Aber.

So what is your take on FRB?
 
Beef defered.

Yeah, it's not as if I could just copy the examples straight out of MMM to prove my "worth" or anything haha. But, if psi is really that desperate for it, I'll see if I can be bothered over the weekend. But tonight is footy night. Fremantle versus...Oh wait no, hang on. No finals for Freo.

I do not have to copy examples from MMM because I understand how the essentials of FRB work, I can just make up appropriate numbers.

As for my challenge, I can wait past the weekend if that is what is needed. But if you stall again, I will take it that you are chicken. Come Monday my time if I do not see some kind of analysis of a spread-sheet, well, then, what can I say but that I think you do not have the guts to give an analysis of how FRB works relative to objective measures.

If the above about wanting to watch football over doing a little explaining of how you think FRB works relative to a balance sheet is meant to be a sarcastic form of brushing this challenge aside, where I am from, we call that being a punk. Most people do not like punks.

So, I am waiting. Take your time. I just want something to argue over that is not the slippery definition of words. I do not think that is too much to ask for.

Maybe this break will give me time to catch up on responses to scionl0.

:degrin: Show me the beef Sceptic-PK! :degrin:
 
Note that chicken err Sceptic-PK isn't actually going to look at your balance sheet. He just happens to believe that he can quote from MMM without making a dog's breakfast of it.

This should be interesting!
 
Note that chicken err Sceptic-PK isn't actually going to look at your balance sheet. He just happens to believe that he can quote from MMM without making a dog's breakfast of it.

This should be interesting!

I have not heard that turn of phrase before about dog's breakfast. Pretty funny. Yeah, the general mood I got from Sceptic-PK from that post was that he was trying to brush the challenge aside to engage in sceptical analysis. It is all good though.

Until he specifically says he will not do the challenge or fails to do it in some reasonable amount of time, that is when I will roundly declare him to be too much of a :chicken: to actually commit to numbers and rational explanations.

In the meantime I think I just figured out his mindset and a rebuttal to his assertion that the increases to deposits "is irrelevant" in relation to reserves. I hope that maybe it will make things clearer for Sceptic-PK, but I put that as an outside chance.

Until the next post.
 
Yeah, the general mood I got from Sceptic-PK from that post was that he was trying to brush the challenge aside to engage in sceptical analysis.

Unlike you I have more important things going on in my like than the JREF forum. I mean seriously, miss the starting bounce so I can argue on the internet? Are you crazy? You probably don't quite get sport and were always picked last at school, but from where I come from finals footy is serious business.
 
Unlike you I have more important things going on in my like than the JREF forum. I mean seriously, miss the starting bounce so I can argue on the internet? Are you crazy? You probably don't quite get sport and were always picked last at school, but from where I come from finals footy is serious business.

Trying to play pathetic psych games on me, how boring.

There is no reason why you can not both watch your football and do a balance sheet by the time the weekend is over. I am giving you plenty of time. Do you need more? A week? I think that would be pushing it, no?

Do what you will. BTW, I could really care less what your excuse is for not doing it right now. I do not need to know. Just say how much time you need and leave it at that, unless you are chicken?
 
Last edited:
Interesting points. I for one have never heard of these requirements before, but I did some online searching and it looks like the information above is very reasonable. Thanks for the information Aber.

So what is your take on FRB?

As someone who has worked with commercial banks and central banks, I'm fascinated by the discussion and still trying work out what the argument is about.

If you want to get really confused about what is, and is not, money, try thinking about currency notes, before they are issued by a central bank.:)
 
:boxedin:



Well, I for one never took any sophomore or junior level economics courses (I am sure most of the population of the world has not either). Can I take it that you are an Economics Major or graduate, or perhaps the equivalent in another major? Right now I am reading a PDF that I take it is written at that level covering fractional reserve banking, amongst other topics. I think you are asking as a person whose perspective is one of knowledge and wants to be treated as such.

I would say first off there are quite a number of really bad and contradictory videos on the Internet, as well as articles and such. Before I found "Modern Money Mechanics", I had, as far as I can tell, no reliable, in the sense of authoritative, information to go on. I have an even better source now in many ways, but the more I look into it, the more I realise there is to know. psionl0 helped me out on at least two of my own misunderstandings of the subject.

You asked, "is it people not being used to thinking in economic models?", no, I think one problem is, it is thinking in terms of any kind of mathematical model at all. The most mathematics people usually are required to do is addition, subtraction and multiplication, to balance their chequebook for instance. I hear people sometime talk about the money multiplier. People get it wrong so often it is painful to me. They say obviously wrong things like "then the bank multiplies the amount of money by 10..."

As for the good and bad and then arguing over mechanics. I guess I should tell you my story when it comes to economics. I took a freshman level economics course once. I really did not like it. There was something odd in the way the topic was arranged it seemed to me. Being a physics major, I expected to see some graphs every so often with error bars, realistic units, data based on real world examples, that sort of thing. I never saw that. It was just made up graph after made up graph.

I noticed once my professor was comparing a derivative rate to an average rate and coming to various conclusions (like comparing speed versus velocity, wrong!). After that I also noticed that there was this sing-songy like way about how the answers on tests were supposed to be done. You remember which story to tell in response to which type of question and then fill in the pieces by rote and a little ingenuity. So I seriously started to suspect the intellectual legitimacy of Economics. It looked like to me for many of the things covered in my microecon class, like the Economists just stole a bunch of equilibrium thermodynamics ideas from the physicists and wrapped it up in terms like marginal, elastic, etc.

That is when I found out about Steve Keen. I still have not read his book "Debunking Economics", but reading his online articles I could see for sure Economics was a seriously ill profession. The equivalent of an intellectual dead end (Neoclassical Economics that is). After that, hmmm, well, I eventually read about Henry George. Read Zarlenga's tome of a book. Just reading and reading. Keen's new book is out next month and I can not wait to read it. I get the feeling like I will get the equivalent of an overview of economics undergrad education, all the while showing why it is nonsense. Another missing piece as it were in my knowledge about economics.

On the "good versus bad and then wanting to understand mechanics" theme even more, it is an interesting observation. I think people often make the mistake of confusing normative questions with logical questions. People want to go as fast as possible to whether something is good or bad, evil or nice. They do not want to take the time to assess the situation. I think in many cases you can not know if something is good or bad until you really understand how it works.

Fractional Reserve Banking is that way. For myself, I really just want to understand how it works, and then when I do, I will think about the good and the bad and leave it at that.

So Startz, is the mathematics me and psionl0 been doing in regard to FRB correct, as far as you can tell?

Oh yeah, to me there is nothing very mysterious about for instance Special Relativity, but man do people royally screw up on the ideas in SR often. My guess is it is a very similar phenomena going on.

:boxedin::D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:boxedin:
Hope that answered your question and then some!

In fact, I'm an economist. Since I'm sometimes called on to explain these issues to people I value understanding what helps people understand fractional reserve banking and what doesn't. So I've found it useful watching people do a nice job of figuring out some things on their own. And I appreciate your explanation on this issue.
 
snip
I mean, to really master all the ins and outs is probably something that takes quite a while. Members on the Federal Reserve Board for instance probably argue worse than we do here about minutiae of various kinds probably none of us here even know about.
snip

I'm quite sure that members of the Federal Reserve Board don't spend any time arguing about this kind of stuff. In fact, the Federal Reserve Board mostly considers reserves and the money supply to be important, but secondary, issues. The Board (actually the Open Market Committee) sets policy in terms of interest rate targets rather than money supply targets...although the two are related.

In addition to trying to tune the economy, the Fed also worries about banks as an industry. For that part of their job they do pay some attention to minutiae of reserve ratios and the of the interbank settlement system.
 
Time...

I need (much) more of it!
And eh... some money of course;)

Hi People,

Me just tried to read everything from around 14 august up till now, but eh... well this will take me another month I guess, geheh;)

So only Hi4now and thanx (mostly) everybody for writing some very interesting posts since august. Others were quite funny, gehehe, and I'm glad I already mentioned that I myself am very very stupid and not able to understand one (big) thing, let alone read a book like MMM in English or even Dutch;)

I see some "progress" as well, sometimes! Some *flashes* of 'mutual understanding'! Even semantics was mentioned and well... dictionary-stuff like that. You know, words (what's in a word?).

I admit I skipped the september posts for now, and glancing at some on this I fear for ehm.. loss of eh... this thing called uhm.... Anyway I will read-on tomorrow and/or later-ON and I noticed that the bitching is fluctuating, geheh more or less like a ehm... stockmarket! Or a Greek interest number, uh... but nevertheless (ever) some very good and sane streaks were made here!

SO I look forward to reading the posting from september and it is a good thing people talk and think about "all of this" in this era of debt and financial talk on every page in every newspaper and even in my Donald Duck! WTF?!

I guess (maybe hope;) some people are starting to shift into the future.
Some are not, but what is (really) 'new' anyway?

Take care for now and KEEP IT UP!

Cheers,
Finsend

PS
Ai this was indeed a very good bottle of relatively cheap wine! *clapclap*
I am (almost) happy I am back from evocation and I just decided to eh SAVE the other one for tomorrow! HOW about THAT?;) I mean saving is not done anymore, I know, I understand a little bit (you know putting money in a bank and getting less (purchasing power) out of it) but for wine it is still OK... is it not???? It is, is it? Ehm... maybe I should check the bottom of the bottle, if it is deep you can put it on the shelve no?

I wonder;)
While trying to drag myself into bed!
Dumping my fiat money on the way out;)
zZZzZz
 
PK

Hang on! This is Sceptic-PK we are talking about.

I guess Methuselah-PK might have an answer sometime this century. If not, then I guess we will have Chicken-PK concede, unless Punk-PK just ignores the challenge without further ado. The chances of an actual Sceptic-PK showing up and engaging in thoughtful analysis, is, of course, next to zero.

By all means though, I am ready for the real Sceptic-PK to please show up, please show up Sceptic-PK.
 
I'm quite sure that members of the Federal Reserve Board don't spend any time arguing about this kind of stuff. In fact, the Federal Reserve Board mostly considers reserves and the money supply to be important, but secondary, issues. The Board (actually the Open Market Committee) sets policy in terms of interest rate targets rather than money supply targets...although the two are related.

In addition to trying to tune the economy, the Fed also worries about banks as an industry. For that part of their job they do pay some attention to minutiae of reserve ratios and the of the interbank settlement system.

Interesting. I agree with the assessment above, of course.

Sorry about my estimation of your profession. It was called "the dismal science" by Thomas Carlyle though, I guess it wasn't happy enough after the nostrums of Malthus were stated. When the book "Debunking Economics II" comes out and I have had time to review it, I would love it if you could join in the discussion that comes about from my review of it. I will start a thread on Book Reviews section of the forum about the book.

So, I do not mean to break any observation barrier, or, I do actually, but either way, I was wondering if you could weigh in on whether the mathematical description me and psionl0 to date have been doing in describing FRB, is true, or false. I just want to settle the question and all. To me, if the mathematics is correct, the main part of the discussion is over.
 
As someone who has worked with commercial banks and central banks, I'm fascinated by the discussion and still trying work out what the argument is about.

If you want to get really confused about what is, and is not, money, try thinking about currency notes, before they are issued by a central bank.:)

Interesting, so you worked with commercial banking, but have you been on the financial side of commercial banking ever? I only ask because from what I can tell if you were not in such a position, you would not have direct experience in terms of looking at numbers, for how FRB works, which is something I would be looking for.

I know someone who worked with commercial bankers because he was a line of credit manager for an investment bank. From what I understand, investment banks are not like commercial banks because they do not make loans but take other loans to get leverage on some deals.

The subject of investment banking is very interesting because of recent economic events.
 
In fact, I'm an economist. Since I'm sometimes called on to explain these issues to people I value understanding what helps people understand fractional reserve banking and what doesn't. So I've found it useful watching people do a nice job of figuring out some things on their own. And I appreciate your explanation on this issue.
Well that would explain why your posts are so factual. ;)

One thing puzzles me though. It has to do with your response to my original equations:
The problem with the explanation is that it intermingles a flow (interest payments) with a stock (money). Think of it this way, in order to make an interest payment the borrower does need money...but only for a microsecond. So long as the borrower has done something productive with the money he borrowed it'll be easy for him to borrow the extra needed for the interest payment for that microsecond.
Are you claiming that the effect of interest payments is not to take money out of the hands of the public and put it into the hands of the bank?

There is no question that the people who make the interest payments (if the bank has chosen wisely) can well afford to and are probably making a profit out of their loan. Nevertheless, the money supply has been reduced and that has to spell problems for at least some (other) people.

And why is "intermingling" a flow with a stock such a no no? Stocks are affected by flows and my equations showed how the stocks are affected.
 
Interesting. I agree with the assessment above, of course.

Sorry about my estimation of your profession. It was called "the dismal science" by Thomas Carlyle though, I guess it wasn't happy enough after the nostrums of Malthus were stated. When the book "Debunking Economics II" comes out and I have had time to review it, I would love it if you could join in the discussion that comes about from my review of it. I will start a thread on Book Reviews section of the forum about the book.

So, I do not mean to break any observation barrier, or, I do actually, but either way, I was wondering if you could weigh in on whether the mathematical description me and psionl0 to date have been doing in describing FRB, is true, or false. I just want to settle the question and all. To me, if the mathematics is correct, the main part of the discussion is over.

I found the mathematical arguments quite impressive. Economists build models that try to focus on essential elements even at the cost of some realism. I thnk you guys did a good job of that. The work you presented is what we would call the derivation of the money multiplier. If deposits are D and the ratio of reserves to deposits is r and base money is H ("high-powered money"), then the demand for H is r*D. So we end up with the equation H=r*D or

D = H/r

If r=0.10, then the multiplier is 10. Other than a change in symbols, this is what you guys said.

The next complication is that the money supply also includes currency in the hands of the public, C, which also absorbs high-powered money. We have

M = C + D

Suppose the public likes to hold 5 cents in cash for every dollar in deposits. Call the ratio C/D= cu. Then we can write

M = cu*D + D
H = cu*D + r*D

We get

M = ([cu+1]/[cur+r])*H

This gives a more accurate version of the money multiplier, but you can see that your formula is a special case and that pretty much all the intuition from your formula stays in place. That's why you have a good model for most purposes even though it isn't "realistic."

(This version of the model can be further extended to account for different kinds of deposits and M1 versus M2, etc., but the added intuition is rarely important.)

In your model, r was taken as set by the regulator. More importantly, it's taken to be a more-or-less fixed parameter. In the United States, this has historically been a good description. The Fed set a required reserve ratio and banks held almost no excess reserves.

Since the financial crisis, banks have held very large amounts of excess reserves. (Before the crisis, excess reserves were $1~4 billion. Now they're around $1.6 trillion.) So in the past, "r" was just whatever the Fed said it was. Now it is determined by the choice of the banks to hold excess reserves. So the money multiplier is very low.

Sorry for going on at such length. Hope this is helpful.
 
Well that would explain why your posts are so factual. ;)

One thing puzzles me though. It has to do with your response to my original equations:Are you claiming that the effect of interest payments is not to take money out of the hands of the public and put it into the hands of the bank?

There is no question that the people who make the interest payments (if the bank has chosen wisely) can well afford to and are probably making a profit out of their loan. Nevertheless, the money supply has been reduced and that has to spell problems for at least some (other) people.

And why is "intermingling" a flow with a stock such a no no? Stocks are affected by flows and my equations showed how the stocks are affected.

Let me try to give a better answer. (I agree that the mixing stock and flow comment wasn't useful in this context.) I think this is a case where the math is right, but the model is misleading.

It's certainly true that if you cumulate interest payments, the total grows exponentially. This is true for any loan. Nothing special about banks loans.

The hole in the analysis is that banks don't just let interest payments accumulate on the books. Some of the payments go to pay bank operating expenses. Some of the payments go to repay loans the bank has taken. And some of the interest is paid out to the banks owners as profits. Think about how this last one is done. The bank adds profits to the deposits of its owners. Presto, deposits are back to where they were.
 
Let me try to give a better answer. (I agree that the mixing stock and flow comment wasn't useful in this context.) I think this is a case where the math is right, but the model is misleading.
I tried to couch my maths in terms of conditional statements. Unfortunately, words like "if" tend to be invisible to many people and conditional statements tend to be interpreted as absolute statements.

In my original maths I made two statements:
If the bank spends the interest money back into the economy, it is effectively transferring its liability from its shareholders back to its depositors.
and
The most likely scenario is that the bank will create new debt-based money to replace that which was taken out by the interest payment.
Maybe the latter statement wasn't neutral enough.

It's certainly true that if you cumulate interest payments, the total grows exponentially. This is true for any loan. Nothing special about banks loans.
The maths is certainly the same but there is one minor difference. IF the bank has interest to spare after deducting expenses then the bank has the option of making new loans to new people. That is, the decision to "cumulate interest payments" is up to the bank.

The hole in the analysis is that banks don't just let interest payments accumulate on the books.
Ah! the bone of contention! I agree that banks are unlikely to sit on the interest they collect. So the question remains, are they spending all of the interest back into the economy or are they lending some of it (or is some of it disappearing overseas)?

So far I haven't come across a definitive answer to this question but information from Steve Keene suggests that over the last 20 years, private (not government) debt as a percentage of GDP has been increasing at approximately 4% per year. (If you like pretty graphs, check THIS out). This growth rate is far too big to be explained by banks re-lending interest. What is causing it I don't know but I'm scared.

Some of the payments go to pay bank operating expenses. Some of the payments go to repay loans the bank has taken. And some of the interest is paid out to the banks owners as profits. Think about how this last one is done. The bank adds profits to the deposits of its owners. Presto, deposits are back to where they were.
So the balancing equation becomes: R + D = ((M - i) + i) + ((S + i) - i)
 
If deposits are D and the ratio of reserves to deposits is r and base money is H ("high-powered money"), then the demand for H is r*D. So we end up with the equation H=r*D
Just to be picky, you seem to be equating bank reserves with base or high powered money.

If bank reserves are R then my understanding is that H = R + M0 and R = r*D.

(This doesn't change your fundamental point).
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom