This week’s The Economist has a column on the implications of high and low interest rates.
One of the problems with money is that we treat it as a commodity – something which has a value of its own. Every time I use the bank’s ATM I told to let the bank put my money to work for me (and the bank).
We would have fewer macro financial problems if we were to think of money as a tool that facilitates the exchange of goods and services. It is a concept which represents purchasing power.
One of the things I like about local exchange trading systems (LETS) is that they create money that only facilitates exchange. It has no value of itself and there is no interest involved.
This is in contrast to fractional reserve money which is based on debt issued by banks and upon which interest is charged.
In a fractional reserve system when we deposit money in a bank or make a loan to somebody we are transferring purchasing power to somebody else. We do this expecting a return of even more purchasing power. But this additional purchasing power is an illusion. It comes at the expense of somebody else or it leads to inflation.
When the economy is growing more goods and services are being produced so there is extra to be purchased and the problem is not so obvious. When the economy is stagnant there are no extra goods and services to be distributed and this is showing up in the form of low interest rates.
If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment. While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.
Filed under: banks, money, Economics | Tagged: banking, Economics, fractional reserve system, interest rates, LETS, local exchange trading systems, money, purchasing power, reserve money | Leave a comment »