Financial crisis ! whats your opinion and why :)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by py0alb
B Their "business" is to transfer credit around the economy
Again, this is the problem. They do not redistribute existing money (credit) around the economy. They actively create credit and inject it into specific parts of the economy.
Original post by Classical Liberal
Nooooooooooo. This is not how the system works. It is so obvious the system does not work like that when you consider how much more debt there is to banks than there is savings with banks.
The banks only need savers to meet their reserve requirements, not to hand out money to debtors (this is how I actually want the system to work, that what you think is true, is actually true). And even the banks can just get the reserves straight from the bank of england or from other banks if needs be. It is a complete illusion to think that the debts of debtors equates to the assets of savers.
The banks only need savers to meet their reserve requirements, not to hand out money to debtors (this is how I actually want the system to work, that what you think is true, is actually true). And even the banks can just get the reserves straight from the bank of england or from other banks if needs be. It is a complete illusion to think that the debts of debtors equates to the assets of savers.
You clearly don't understand how banks or the money multiplier works, either in theory or real life. I don't know where you've got your ideas from, but I think you have read some weird propaganda and you just can't shake off these bizarre ideas.
Go on then, how much money is there deposited in banks, and how much is their loaned out? Give us some figures and explain how it works. Assume a reserve ratio of 0.1.
The bank has a liability of £1000 in total. And you have an asset of £1000 to balance it out. You do not have £1000, you have a promise to £1000.
Which is a completely negligible difference. Money is simply a tool to buy real goods. I can buy real goods identically with £1000 in bank credit or £1000 in cash (government credit) or £1000 in gold.
The only meaningful difference is that the first only requires a small plastic card, the second requires a huge pocket full of notes, and the third requires a van, and probably wouldn't be accepted anyway.
Original post by Classical Liberal
Again, this is the problem. They do not redistribute existing money (credit) around the economy. They actively create credit and inject it into specific parts of the economy.
No they don't, not in the way you mean. They never lend out more than they have deposited, they can't, they don't have the money. My god, is this what you think the money multiplier means?
Loans = Deposits - reserves. This is an iron clad identity.
Original post by py0alb
and the third requires a van,
A van to carry around an ounce? You lazy git.
Banks stretch assets into extra liquidity.
Adrian has £1000. He puts it in the bank. The bank puts £100 in reserves and lends £900 to Brian.
Brian buys a car off Colin.
Colin puts it in the bank. The back put £90 in reserves and lend £810 to David
David buys a car off Edward
Edward puts it in the bank etc etc etc.
Anyway, eventually you get £1000 in reserves, £10,000 deposited, and £9,000 loaned out.
So as you can see, loans = deposits - reserves.
The only real assets still belong to Adrian. But liquidity has allowed the economy to function.
Adrian has £1000. He puts it in the bank. The bank puts £100 in reserves and lends £900 to Brian.
Brian buys a car off Colin.
Colin puts it in the bank. The back put £90 in reserves and lend £810 to David
David buys a car off Edward
Edward puts it in the bank etc etc etc.
Anyway, eventually you get £1000 in reserves, £10,000 deposited, and £9,000 loaned out.
So as you can see, loans = deposits - reserves.
The only real assets still belong to Adrian. But liquidity has allowed the economy to function.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by py0alb
Might be because your sources are referring to a mythical land that does not exist.
Go on then, how much money is there deposited in banks, and how much is their loaned out? Give us some figures and explain how it works. Assume a reserve ratio of 0.1.
Well right now I don't have the time to get the data.
But suppose the monetary base was £100,000. And the reserve requirement is 0.1.
Then the maximum total amount of money would be £1111,111.11.
Original post by Classical Liberal
Might be because your sources are referring to a mythical land that does not exist.
Well right now I don't have the time to get the data.
But suppose the monetary base was £100,000. And the reserve requirement is 0.1.
Then the maximum total amount of money would be £1111,111.11.
Well right now I don't have the time to get the data.
But suppose the monetary base was £100,000. And the reserve requirement is 0.1.
Then the maximum total amount of money would be £1111,111.11.
Well that depends on public cash. And I assume you mean M1 money supply by maximum total amount of money.
M0 = R + PC
M1 = R/a + PC
Original post by py0alb
The deposits need not come savers though. They can get the base money straight from the central bank. The BoE will automatically give them money, at a charge, if they (the bank) exceeds its reserve requirements.
Banks do not lend out existing money of savers though. They lend out credit, on the basis of deposits, which was originally a promise to pay from another bank. The deposits are promises to pay, not the actual money.
Original post by Classical Liberal
The deposits need not come savers though. They can get the base money straight from the central bank. The BoE will automatically give them money, at a charge, if they (the bank) exceeds its reserve requirements.
Banks do not lend out existing money of savers though. They lend out credit, on the basis of deposits, which was originally a promise to pay from another bank. The deposits are promises to pay, not the actual money.
Banks do not lend out existing money of savers though. They lend out credit, on the basis of deposits, which was originally a promise to pay from another bank. The deposits are promises to pay, not the actual money.
Money is a promise to pay. Read what it says on a £10 note. What do you think money is?
There is no difference between "lending out existing money of savers" and "lending out credit on the basis of deposits". Those two sentences mean exactly the same thing.I think the point you're perhaps missing is that the loans that banks make are all immediately redeposited - the money actually never leaves the bank - otherwise they would be part of public cash and therefore wouldn't be affected by the money multiplier. Money is just extended credit.
Original post by py0alb
This has been a good revision session for my upcoming exams!
Just to get this straight, are you arguing that the money multiplier model is correct?
That the amount of lets call it, central bank money, and the reserve requirement, determines the maximum amount of money in the economy?
Original post by Classical Liberal
Just to get this straight, are you arguing that the money multiplier model is correct?
That the amount of lets call it, central bank money, and the reserve requirement, determines the maximum amount of money in the economy?
That the amount of lets call it, central bank money, and the reserve requirement, determines the maximum amount of money in the economy?
It has its acknowledged flaws, but certainly nothing that you've brought up so far, which seems to resolve around the assumption that banks have their own printing presses for £20 notes.
Banks create extra credit within the economy, they don't create extra cash.
Original post by py0alb
Banks create extra credit within the economy, they don't create extra cash.
Banks create extra credit within the economy, they don't create extra cash.
Which for all intents and purposes, is cash. I can't remember the last time I bought something on credit and somebody said
"Nahh mate, I want something from the Mint"
Infact, commercial bank money, is probably more like money than actual cash today. Unless you are a money launderer you are unlikely to make payments of above, say, £200 in cash.
It has its acknowledged flaws, but certainly nothing that you've brought up so far, which seems to resolve around the assumption that banks have their own printing presses for £20 notes.
What are those flaws in your opinion?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Classical Liberal
Which for all intents and purposes, is cash. I can't remember the last time I bought something on credit and somebody said
"Nahh mate, I want something from the Mint"
Infact, commercial bank money, is probably more like money than actual cash today. Unless you are a money launderer you are unlikely to make payments of above, say, £200 in cash.
What are those flaws in your opinion?
"Nahh mate, I want something from the Mint"
Infact, commercial bank money, is probably more like money than actual cash today. Unless you are a money launderer you are unlikely to make payments of above, say, £200 in cash.
What are those flaws in your opinion?
Well there is obviously a little flexibility there, seeing as banks are able to borrow from the LOLR through the discount window to make up any short falls in overnight reserve requirements. But this is never more than a couple of %. Obviously loans from other banks are irrelevant because its the system as a whole that counts.
Most "criticisms" I read - I'm sure you've read the same ones - stem from an undergraduate level misunderstanding of the model. Many of them seem to think that it matters which time order the loans and deposits are made, lik the "loan first" model. Oh dear
Obviously it doesn't matter. The number of deposits and loans are constantly fluctuating on a minute by minute basis. But the numbers will still add up the same - without a printing press its impossible for them not to.Original post by Classical Liberal
Which for all intents and purposes, is cash.
Well for the individual perhaps, but in terms of the monetary system its not. One is affected by the money multiplier and the other is not. I've already explained this. If all the money that people had was held in cash instead of in banks, our money supply would only be a fraction of what it is. So there is a big difference.
Topsy Turvy world..crooks/"banksters"/incompetent govts are spending our taxpayers' (+ future money).
Those banksters are making money now and are laughing their way to the bank...poor taxpayers!
Look at Spain now, they are to pay more (interest) at today's bonds auction. They're desperate.
Those banksters are making money now and are laughing their way to the bank...poor taxpayers!
Look at Spain now, they are to pay more (interest) at today's bonds auction. They're desperate.
Original post by py0alb
Most "criticisms" I read - I'm sure you've read the same ones - stem from an undergraduate level misunderstanding of the model. Many of them seem to think that it matters which time order the loans and deposits are made, like the "loan first" model. Oh dear Obviously it doesn't matter. The number of deposits and loans are constantly fluctuating on a minute by minute basis. But the numbers will still add up the same - without a printing press its impossible for them not to.
Most "criticisms" I read - I'm sure you've read the same ones - stem from an undergraduate level misunderstanding of the model. Many of them seem to think that it matters which time order the loans and deposits are made, like the "loan first" model. Oh dear
Obviously it doesn't matter. The number of deposits and loans are constantly fluctuating on a minute by minute basis. But the numbers will still add up the same - without a printing press its impossible for them not to.That is not my primary criticism. My point, which I have not really made clear, is that the money multiplier analysis is pointless and things like the IS/LM model. The central bank does not influence, commercial bank, money supply to any significant extent. The banking system endogenously creates money, the system is not controlled by the central bank, the monetary base (central bank money), or the reserve requirement.
Here is an example that knocks the money multiplier analysis out of the window.
Suppose there are three parties. The Bank. The Man. The Woman. The Woman owns a Car worth £10,000. The Man wants the car, but does not have £10,000.
The Man decides to take a loan out from the bank to buy the car. The Bank promises the the Man £10,000 and credits his account with £10,000. The Man in return promises to pay the bank £10,000 in the future (no interest in this example).
Looking at the balance sheets, this has happened.
_____________________The Man______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Banks promise]__|_____£10,000 [Debt to the bank]_____
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_______________________The Bank________________________________
____________Assets____________|____________Liabilities___________
_£10,000 [The debt of The Man]___|__£10,000 [Promise to the Man]____
_____________________________|____________________________
_____________________________|_____________________________
The Bank and the Man have in effected created £10,000 of commercial bank moeny. Now you are probably thinking that this is silly because I have not declared any reserves on the part of the bank and that the Bank will ask for central bank money to finance this. They do not need to. Observe the following.
The Man then buys the car, with the £10,000 promise from the Bank, from the Woman. The Woman then deposits this £10,000 promise into the Bank.
Looking at the balance sheets again, this has happened.
_____________________The Man______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Car]______|_____£10,000 [Debt to the bank]____
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_____________________The Woman______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Banks promise]__|__________________________
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_______________________The Bank________________________________
____________Assets____________|____________Liabilities___________
_£10,000 [The debt of The Man]___|__£10,000 [The deposit from the Woman]____
_____________________________|____________________________
_____________________________|_____________________________
Notice how the bank has met its own reserve requirements by lending the money. There is no need for central bank money. And the reserve requirement does nothing to stop the creation of commercial bank money. The money multiplier analysis is quite frankly, irrelevant.
Magic like this is usually only seen on stage
And once we add interest onto this, you can see that the banks are laughing.
(Now I am going to assume you will think, what about multiple banks? Well it makes no difference. But for the time being I cannot be bothered to type it up).
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Classical Liberal
That is not my primary criticism. My point, which I have not really made clear, is that the money multiplier analysis is pointless and things like the IS/LM model. The central bank does not influence, commercial bank, money supply to any significant extent. The banking system endogenously creates money, the system is not controlled by the central bank, the monetary base (central bank money), or the reserve requirement.
Here is an example that knocks the money multiplier analysis out of the window.
Suppose there are three parties. The Bank. The Man. The Woman. The Woman owns a Car worth £10,000. The Man wants the car, but does not have £10,000.
The Man decides to take a loan out from the bank to buy the car. The Bank promises the the Man £10,000 and credits his account with £10,000. The Man in return promises to pay the bank £10,000 in the future (no interest in this example).
Looking at the balance sheets, this has happened.
_____________________The Man______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Banks promise]__|_____£10,000 [Debt to the bank]_____
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_______________________The Bank________________________________
____________Assets____________|____________Liabilities___________
_£10,000 [The debt of The Man]___|__£10,000 [Promise to the Man]____
_____________________________|____________________________
_____________________________|_____________________________
The Bank and the Man have in effected created £10,000 of commercial bank moeny. Now you are probably thinking that this is silly because I have not declared any reserves on the part of the bank and that the Bank will ask for central bank money to finance this. They do not need to. Observe the following.
The Man then buys the car, with the £10,000 promise from the Bank, from the Woman. The Woman then deposits this £10,000 promise into the Bank.
Looking at the balance sheets again, this has happened.
_____________________The Man______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Car]______|_____£10,000 [Debt to the bank]____
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_____________________The Woman______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Banks promise]__|__________________________
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_______________________The Bank________________________________
____________Assets____________|____________Liabilities___________
_£10,000 [The debt of The Man]___|__£10,000 [The deposit from the Woman]____
_____________________________|____________________________
_____________________________|_____________________________
Notice how the bank has met its own reserve requirements by lending the money. There is no need for central bank money. And the reserve requirement does nothing to stop the creation of commercial bank money. The money multiplier analysis is quite frankly, irrelevant.
Magic like this is usually only seen on stage
And once we add interest onto this, you can see that the banks are laughing.
(Now I am going to assume you will think, what about multiple banks? Well it makes no difference. But for the time being I cannot be bothered to type it up).
Here is an example that knocks the money multiplier analysis out of the window.
Suppose there are three parties. The Bank. The Man. The Woman. The Woman owns a Car worth £10,000. The Man wants the car, but does not have £10,000.
The Man decides to take a loan out from the bank to buy the car. The Bank promises the the Man £10,000 and credits his account with £10,000. The Man in return promises to pay the bank £10,000 in the future (no interest in this example).
Looking at the balance sheets, this has happened.
_____________________The Man______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Banks promise]__|_____£10,000 [Debt to the bank]_____
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_______________________The Bank________________________________
____________Assets____________|____________Liabilities___________
_£10,000 [The debt of The Man]___|__£10,000 [Promise to the Man]____
_____________________________|____________________________
_____________________________|_____________________________
The Bank and the Man have in effected created £10,000 of commercial bank moeny. Now you are probably thinking that this is silly because I have not declared any reserves on the part of the bank and that the Bank will ask for central bank money to finance this. They do not need to. Observe the following.
The Man then buys the car, with the £10,000 promise from the Bank, from the Woman. The Woman then deposits this £10,000 promise into the Bank.
Looking at the balance sheets again, this has happened.
_____________________The Man______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Car]______|_____£10,000 [Debt to the bank]____
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_____________________The Woman______________________
__________Assets_____________|__________Liabilities___________
__£10,000 [The Banks promise]__|__________________________
____________________________|______________________________
____________________________|______________________________
_______________________The Bank________________________________
____________Assets____________|____________Liabilities___________
_£10,000 [The debt of The Man]___|__£10,000 [The deposit from the Woman]____
_____________________________|____________________________
_____________________________|_____________________________
Notice how the bank has met its own reserve requirements by lending the money. There is no need for central bank money. And the reserve requirement does nothing to stop the creation of commercial bank money. The money multiplier analysis is quite frankly, irrelevant.
Magic like this is usually only seen on stage
And once we add interest onto this, you can see that the banks are laughing.
(Now I am going to assume you will think, what about multiple banks? Well it makes no difference. But for the time being I cannot be bothered to type it up).
Oh sweet jesus. You really don't understand how this works do you?
So before the story started,
the man had nothing, £0
the woman had a car worth £10k
the bank had nothing, £0
after the story ended,
the man had a car worth 10k - debt of 10k = £0
the woman had credit of 10k with the bank = £10k
the bank had debt of 10k + credit of 10k = £0
So everyone has exactly the same assets as where they started.
So where is this new money you keep banging on about? Answer: there is none.
Original post by py0alb
the bank had debt of 10k + credit of 10k = £0
So where is this new money you keep banging on about? Answer: there is none.
the bank had debt of 10k + credit of 10k = £0
So where is this new money you keep banging on about? Answer: there is none.
Right ****ing there.
And, if you add interest onto the debt of the Man then you see that the banks are now getting an income on money they manufactured out of thin air.
The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Classical Liberal
Right ****ing there.
And, if you add interest onto the debt of the Man then you see that the banks are now getting an income on money they manufactured out of thin air.
And, if you add interest onto the debt of the Man then you see that the banks are now getting an income on money they manufactured out of thin air.
I hate to break it to you but 10-10 = 0. If you're claiming that the bank is creating £0 out of thin air, then I suppose you would technically be correct although that's pretty much meaningless.
No, they're taking a cut for their extremely valuable service of creating liquidity within the economy, which is used to pay their staff for their labour and reward their shareholders for the risk they take.
For the priviledge of being able to own a car he cannot pay for up front, "the man" pays a small fee to the bank for their labour and risk. There is still no money being created out of thin air though, its coming out of "the man's" pocket.
Is this really what gets your goat? That bank staff get paid?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should i do my epq on the 2008 financial crisis?
- Worried about the Durham housing crisis 2023 applicant
- Cost of Living Crisis: Things you haven't heard until now
- why are families getting smaller and smaller?
- Facebook Marketplace??? Financial difficulties for years, living with nothing
- Finding Your Place: How to Get Involved in Student Life
- what's the most useless job?
- Economics Personal Statement Advice (LSE and UCL)
- Things I can do for economics course at uni without doing at a level
- can i have a good career with out going to a russel group
- I don't like my dad's attitude
- Rejoining the military
- Are my uni choices too aspirational
- Worrying about student life and affording university
- Durham University - Full of Rich Privately Educated people?
- Which university should I pick?
- How does it work?! Mature students…
- How open is consultancy/finance to me after an engineering degree apprenticeship?
- parents forcing me into dentistry - update
- Cost of living support at Kingston University
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
year 13 gyg journal : trying not to become an academic victim 🤡📖Last reply 5 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 6 minutes ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 10 minutes ago
Can I do medicine with these gcse grades and what unis would be most likely to acceptPosted 12 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 13 minutes ago
Work experience opportunity related to finance/economiczLast reply 17 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
