Money creation by bankers, central banks or individuals

That the Swiss are going to have a referendum on changing the way in which they create money is great news. That the referendum is certain to fail is even greater news.

(First link and second link.)

As regular readers of Economics 102 will know this blogger is extremely committed to reforms in how we create money. You will also know that I am strongly opposed to state control over the economy. I also believe there is an urgent need for reforms in the way we produce and exchange goods and services. There is a 99.99 percent probability of economic turmoil as the economy continues its downward decline and without major changes there will be a lot of human suffering.

CurrencyThe Swiss proposal is that the creation of money be restricted to the central bank rather than the current fraction reserve process in which money is created when banks make loans. The authors of the proposal should be lauded for recognizing that there are big-time problems with money based on debt and that charging interest on money created makes our economic problems even worse.

My problem with the proposal is that it wants all money creation to be in the hands of the central bank. The central bank would have direct control over lending. “The money created by the monetary authority would be transferred to the Treasury and would come into circulation by public spending; thus, it would benefit the public purse and contribute to the reduction of national debt. ” Money creation and this type of spending would also mean a lot of economic control by the government.

The essay about this proposal lists private control as one of the problems with the current system. Control is a major economic issue and I can see where a lot of people are strongly opposed to anything but “public” control.  However “public” control is just control by different people with slightly different interests from the bankers. They will still be acting in their own interests – such as getting re-elected. I want an economic system in which control and decision-making is by individuals and I believe the way to get this with a true competitive market economy which we do not have. I also figure the current system is marginally better than money creation in the hands of a government agent.

The authors also point out there is a need to “secure the independence of the monetary authority.’ This is a serious concern as the people who control money creation get to determine which economic projects go ahead and by whom. There are very few prime ministers of any political leanings who would allow that kind of power into any hands but their own.

There is an alternative to money creation by a central bank and that is to combine money creation with a guaranteed annual income scheme. This would solve the problems of lots of people without jobs and it would put primary economic decision-making into the hands of all of us as individuals.

This guy has written extensively about this on this weblog and in an e-book Funny Money: Adapting to a down economy. The book is available free by following the link on the sidebar.

Any changes in how money is created, whether to a central bank or to an income scheme, would hit the profits and power of bankers. Expect them to be more than just vocal in their opposition if either becomes a serious threat.

I figure economics is largely about relationships and to be satisfactory relationships need to be based on a more or less equal two-way exchange. I also believe money should be considered a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services and it should encourage good relationships rather than be an instrument for exploitation. To maintain good relationships money should not give power to some people over others. I fear that giving a central bank the sole right to create money would make it easy for governments to exploit their citizens.

There are lots of serious problems with the fractional reserve way of creating money and there is an urgent need for reform. The big question is what the reforms will do to the way in which we exchange goods and services and how we relate to each other.

Advertisements

The quantity theory of money and transforming economists into fairy godmothers

It could be that the quantity theory of money is controversial and often dismissed because it deals with two aspects of economics where we most want to deceive ourselves – money and economic growth.

When I  started to research and think about this post I quickly got so ticked off that I went downstairs to my lathe to transform a piece of firewood into a magic wand for one of my grandchildren.  (Abracadabra.  All economists will become fairy godmothers – in their next reincarnations.)

The theory states that MV=PQ  where M is the money supply, V is the velocity at which the money changes hands,  P is the price level and Q is the quantity of goods and services exchanged.  What gets me ticked off is that this is frequently taken to mean there is a direct, proportional relationship between the money supply and the inflation rate or price level.   Can’t people see there are four variables in this formula?

The value in this formula is in that it explains relationships and shows how the real or physical side of the economy connects to the financial.  It is difficult because there are problems with fractional reserve money and because some people believe (or need to believe) that economic growth will always continue.  I think these are two aspects of economics where some people have psychological problems accepting the truth.    It becomes even more difficult if one tries to use this formula in a computer model as the four variables are difficult if not impossible to measure.

To maintain the equality, if one variable goes up then one or more of the other variables must also change,  For example, if the money supply increases then velocity must go down and/or one or both of the price level or the quantity of goods and services produced must go up.  It could be that during  recent decades the money supply was increasing faster than Q was increasing. We saw the difference as inflation.

The way we create money is a  major problem.

The fractional reserve creation of money works only so long as more and more money is being created.  Bankers create money by making loans. The problem is the interest.  If all loans plus interest had to be repaid at one time there would not be enough money in the system.. This is similar to a Ponze scheme and works only so long as more and more money can be created.

This means there is constant upwards pressure on the M in the formula – until the money creation breaks down and the M goes down suddenly and either prices fall or the quantity of goods and services produced goes down or both.  When the United States was trying to stick to a gold standard there were frequent economic crises because there was not always enough gold to support the amount of economic activity for which there were human and material resources.  The gold discoveries of the 19th century contributed to prosperity because they added to the money supply.

The big problem on the other side of the equation is Q.  A lot of people believe or assume economic growth will continue forever.  I figure Q behaves as a fractal, that is with ups and downs and ups and downs within each up and down – something like the seashore.

Some of the things which drive Q are not likely to be steady.  Discoveries of energy and mineral resources are erratic;  agricultural  production can vary with the weather; and new technology comes in spurts.  I think Q is currently being restrained because we have used up the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  We have picked the low-hanging fruit and what is left is going to take a lot of energy to get.

As Q is a fractal its changes in direction are likely to throw the equation out of balance and force one or more of the other variables to adjust.

Prices appear to respond mostly to changes in M or Q.  Sometimes governments decide to try to control inflation with price controls. and this usually causes problems with the balance of the equation.  Inflation is to the advantage of borrowers and deflation is to the advantage of lenders.  To be fair to everyone we need price stability.   As governments are large borrowers it is natural for people concerned with government finances to favor inflation.  Probably the best way to price stability would be to find another way of creating money so that the total is flexible.  Then the money supply rather than prices could respond to changes in the quantity of goods and services produced.

To the best of my knowledge not much is known about velocity.  I understand that in the days of the gold standard people would hoard gold if they were worried about other forms of money.

To call the formula MV+PQ the quantity theory of money is probably a little misleading. It would be better to think of it as the connectivity formula.  As such I believe it is very valuable in understanding what is happening to the economy.

Perhaps if we had more fairy godmothers we would have  a better understanding of what is happening to us.

 

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.

A credit/money bubble and the financial crisis

The Buttonwood column in this week’s Economist discussed a book by Richard Duncan which proposes a quantity theory of credit and suggests the current financial crisis results from the collapse of a credit bubble

That Mr. Duncan would talk of a “credit bubble that would end in collapse” is surely a step towards understanding financial crises.

I am not sure there should be a distinction between credit and money because money is created when bankers make loans. As there is a fractional reserve system involved the bulk of our money supply is credit.  Thus the quantity theory of money and the quantity theory of credit are basically the same thing.

We could just as easily say the money bubble ended in collapse.

A further complication is that all this credit/money involves interest charged on those loans.

I am not aware of any economist who has tried to think out the implications of charging interest on the loans that make up the money supply but I suspect it is a big problem.  It seems to be something like a Ponzi scheme and Ponzi schemes eventually collapse.

A more detailed look the problems of money creation  is a part of the essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic  crisis” on this weblog.

 

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.

Temporary money for a bailout

Here’s n interesting little story about money.

A tourist in a small depressed Irish town leaves a hundred pound note with the hotel keeper while he inspects the rooms.

While the inspection is happening the money is used to by a series of business people to pay off their debts to each other and lands back with the innkeeper just as the tourist returns to collect his money and leave..

The story ends with these lines:

“No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking forward to a brighter future.

And that, gentle reader, is how a successful bailout works.”

This town was using debt as money which is the case in our own economies.  However, this “bailout” was only able to work because there was no interest charged on any of the debts.  It could be that we would be much better off if we were to create our own money supply without interest charges to make things more complicated.

The people of this town would probably be better off if they were to use playing cards or candies as money or better still adopt a LETS (local exchange trading system).

%d bloggers like this: