Posted on 11/29/2005 1:19:18 PM PST by hubbubhubbub
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." [1]
Abstract
Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse) is a well established principle dating back thousands of years. Roman and English law, precursors of the American system of jurisprudence, both recognized the maxim.
Be it not forgotten – justice excuses not the law. The laws of the land are to be made in pursuance of the Constitution. The Constitution has precedent. Any law not in pursuance of the Constitution is null and void, as if it never occurred. So the court has ruled.
"And there is virgin Justice, the daughter of Zeus, who is honored and reverenced among the gods who dwell on Olympus, and whenever anyone hurts her with lying slander, she sits beside her father, Zeus the son of Cronos, and tells him of men's wicked heart, until the people pay for the mad folly of their princes who, evilly minded, pervert judgement and give sentence crookedly." [2]
No man is above the law – not even the King. No law is above the Constitution – not even the King’s. All men are created equal. All men are judged accordingly. He without sin cast the first stone.
The ignorance of coin, credit, and circulation is unfortunately, a widespread occurrence – causing perplexities, confusion, and distress, all tearing at the social fabric of our nation. But who is guilty of these defects – who has caused them to be?
Is it the fault of the common man that he cannot understand the complexities of a monetary system that moved Lord Keynes to say that not one man in a million understands money?
No, the common man is not at fault, the blame lies elsewhere: it rests with those who have purposefully made the monetary policy so bizarre that even its keepers have a hard time understanding the delusion they have created.
John Kenneth Galbraith clearly understood the illusionary nature of the elite’s monetary economists when he stated that they:
“use complexity to disguise or to evade the truth, rather than to reveal it.” [3]
Fractional Reserves
The most dishonest monetary illusion is the shadow cast by fractional reserve lending.
"Because of 'fractional' reserve system, banks, as a whole, can expand our money supply several times, by making loans and investments." [4]
Let’s take a closer look at the sword of State the magi use to create their tricks of prestidigitation – the scepter of fractional reserves.
What is meant by fractional reserves? It would seem that reserves are reduced to a fraction, but a fraction of what? Perhaps we should seek the wise counsel of the Federal Reserve, as this is their raison d’etre.
Required Reserve Balances
“Required reserve balances are balances that a depository institution must hold with the Federal Reserve to satisfy its reserve requirement. Reserve requirements are imposed on all depository institutions – which include commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions – as well as U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks and other domestic banking entities that engage in international transactions.
Since the early 1990s, reserve requirements have been applied only to transaction deposits, which include demand deposits and interest-bearing accounts that offer unlimited checking privileges. An institution’s reserve requirement is a fraction of such deposits; the fraction – the required reserve ratio – is set by the Board of Governors within limits prescribed in the Federal Reserve Act.” [5]
According to the above, the Board of Governors set required reserve balances within limits as prescribed by the Federal Reserve Act that depository institutions must hold on account.
The required reserve ratio is clearly stated to be a fraction of demand deposits and interest-bearing accounts that offer unlimited checking privileges.
Notice the wording “since the early 1990s, reserve requirements have been applied only to transaction deposits”, as such language demonstrates that previous to the early 1990’s reserve requirements were applied to a larger composite – according to the usage of the word “only.”
Which in fact is true, as reserve requirements have been reduced several times since the Fed took control in 1913? A closer look at reserve requirements is in order.
Reserve Requirements
The Federal Reserve has the following to say in regards to reserve requirements:
“Reserve requirements have long been a part of our nation’s banking history. Depository institutions maintain a fraction of certain liabilities in reserve in specified assets. The Federal Reserve can adjust reserve requirements by changing required reserve ratios, the liabilities to which the ratios apply, or both.” [6]
Once again, we see the use of the word “fraction” when discussing reserve requirements, however, we now have the further clarification of reserves in “specified assets.” Obviously, these “specified assets” are critically important, as they are the reserves of our monetary system.
“A depository institution satisfies its reserve requirement by its holdings of vault cash (currency in its vault) and, if vault cash is insufficient to meet the requirement, by the balance maintained directly with a Federal Reserve Bank or indirectly with a pass-through correspondent bank (which in turn hold the balances in its account at the Federal Reserve).” [7]
Now we see that depository institutions satisfy their reserve requirements by holding cash (currency) in their vaults, or if short, they get some help from the Fed or a correspondent bank. The next logical question is: how much cash are they required to have on reserve in their vaults.
From the same Fed publication, we find the following table:
(table didn't come across)
As can be seen from the above chart there isn’t a heck of a lot of reserves on reserve. Three of the five categories listed in the chart have zero (0) reserve requirements. One of the five categories has three (3%) percent reserves, and the remaining category has approximately ten (10%) percent reserve requirements.
So, what are the ramifications of the above listed reserve requirements? From the Fed’s publication, we find the following:
Autonomous Factors
“The supply of balances can vary substantially from day to day because of movements in other items on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. These so-called autonomous factors are generally outside the Federal Reserve’s direct day-to-day control.
The largest autonomous factor is Federal Reserve notes. When a depository institution needs currency, it places an order with a Federal Reserve Bank. When the Federal Reserve fills the order, it debits the account of the depository institution at the Federal Reserve, and total Federal Reserve balances decline.
The amount of currency demanded tends to grow over time, in part reflecting increases in nominal spending as the economy grows. Consequently, an increasing volume of balances would be extinguished, and the federal funds rate would rise, if the Federal Reserve did not offset the contraction in balances by purchasing securities. Indeed, the expansion of Federal Reserve notes is the primary reason that the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities grow over time.” [8]
Federal Reserve notes are those little green pieces of paper we all carry around in our wallet or purse and refer to as cash. A dollar bill is a Federal Reserve note, as are fives, tens, twenties, fifties, and one hundred dollar bills.
From where does the Fed get the Federal Reserve Notes? Good question. Let’s try and find the answer.
Notice in the above quote the last sentence, which reads, “Indeed, the expansion of Federal Reserve notes is the primary reason that the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities grow over time.”
With the Fed’s holding of securities entering the picture, we now have two questions to answer: Federal Reserve notes come from where; and what securities is the Fed holding due to the expansion of Federal Reserve notes?
The Treasury
The Treasury has a role to play in this monetary game of musical chairs. The Fed has this to say regarding the Treasury:
“Another important factor is the balance in the U.S. Treasury’s account at the Federal Reserve. The Treasury draws on this account to make payments by check or direct deposit for all types of federal spending. When these payments clear, the Treasury’s account is reduced and the account of the depository institution for the person or entity that receives the funds is increased. The Treasury is not a depository institution, so a payment by the Treasury to the public (for example, a Social Security payment) raises the volume of Federal Reserve balances available to depository institutions.” [9]
From this we see that the Treasury has an account at the Federal Reserve, and that the Treasury draws on the account to make payments by check and direct deposit. Where did the Treasury’s account at the Fed come from? Rather than finding answers, we are discovering more questions.
Open Market Operations
“Open market operations are the most powerful and often-used tool for controlling the funds rate. These operations, which are arranged nearly every business day, are designed to bring the supply of Federal Reserve balances in line with the demand for those balances at the FOMC’s target rate.” [10]
The more we look, the greater our task becomes. That is good, as often times its not just the answers that matter, but asking the right questions as well. We are getting warmer by the minute.
“In theory, the Federal Reserve could conduct open market operations by purchasing or selling any type of asset. In practice, however, most assets cannot be traded readily enough to accommodate open market operations. For open market operations to work effectively, the Federal Reserve must be able to buy and sell quickly, at its own convenience, in whatever volume may be needed to keep the federal funds rate at the target level. These conditions require that the instrument it buys or sells be traded in a broad, highly active market that can accommodate the transactions without distortions or disruptions to the market itself. The market for U.S. Treasury securities satisfies these conditions.” [11]
United States Treasury securities are the main market the Fed uses to conduct open market operations. As the money supply continually grows, the buying of Treasury securities by the Fed occurs more often then selling.
Summary To Date
Fractional Reserves refers to monetary reserves required to be on deposit in banks. The reserve requirements go from zero, to 3%, to 10%. Federal Reserve notes (cash) are the predominant reserve deposit. When banks need cash, they go to the Fed. The Fed holds U.S. government securities in its accounts. The U.S. Treasury has an account at the Fed. The Fed conducts open market operation of buying or selling Treasury securities. The remaining questions before us are:
Where does the Fed get the ever-increasing supply of Federal Reserve notes? Where did the Treasury account at the Fed come from? Where The Money Comes From
Trillions of dollars are said to be everywhere. I remember as a kid that a million was a big number. Today billions of dollars are tossed around from computer to computer without the blink of an eye. Trillions are now the topic de jour.
Budgets, deficits, and international money flows are all described using trillions or parts thereof. We have come a long way. The financial wizards circle high above the common man. But perhaps the way so chosen is the wrong way, for the good of all of the people – not just the elite few who control the strings of the purse, and profit thereby.
Let’s go within the Temple of the Wizards of Finance, to see what arts the conjuring is done by, to see what potions and spells are cast within fortune’s cauldron, and what strange brew precipitates there from.
The Beginning
On that fateful day when Federal Reserve Notes were first issued, it is obvious that a huge number of dollar bills had to be printed. Now, the printing press is pretty much obsolete; the only money that actually gets printed is used to replace old and worn Federal Reserve notes already in circulation. In vogue today is electronic money – fast food style.
The process actually begins with the Treasury Department printing a piece of paper called a bond, which is done electronically. Treasury bonds are debt obligations (liability) of the government to repay a loan - with interest.
The Treasury sells bonds to the public. The bonds the public does not buy, the Treasury deposits with the Federal Reserve. When the Fed accepts the bond from the Treasury, it lists the bond on its books as an asset.
The Fed assumes the government will make good on its promise to pay back the loan. This is based on the belief that the government’s power to tax the people is sufficient collateral.
Because the Fed now has an asset that it didn't have before receiving the Treasury bond, the Fed can now create a liability that is offset by its new asset.
The liability that the Fed creates is a Federal Reserve check. It gives the Treasury the check in payment for the Treasury bond.
THERE IS NO EXISTING MONEY IN THE FED'S ACCOUNT TO COVER THIS CHECK.
The Federal Reserve check is endorsed by the Treasury and is deposited in one of the government's accounts at the Federal Reserve. The government can use the deposits to write checks against, to pay for government expenses.
This is the first new money flow to enter the system. Various government contractors, vendors, etc. receive these checks as payment for services rendered, and they take the checks and deposit them in their commercial banks.
The Second Step
This is when the wizards of finance perform their greatest feats of magic. The deposits in the commercial banks take on a sort of split personality or dementia, brought on by a preponderance of delusional thinking.
On the one hand, the deposits are the bank’s liabilities, as they owe the total sums to their depositors.
However, because of FRACTIONAL RESERVE lending, the bankers get to lend out 9 times what they have on deposit.
The commercial banks get to list the deposits as RESERVES.
In other words, FRACTIONAL RESERVE lending allows the commercial banks to create 9 times more money then they have on reserve. The banks lend money they don’t have, and:
They get to charge interest on it.
As the newly issued money is put to work by borrowers, they then spend it and the receiver then deposits it in their bank account, and the bank starts the reserve lending policy all over again. This is why the
Money supply must expand by the amount of interest owed on the debt.
If it didn't, the debt would not be able to be serviced. There is no money created without creating debt, they are one and the same. Wealth is not created by creating money by fiat – only debt. As the Fed has admitted:
"Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU." [12]
Conclusion
Fractional reserve lending invokes the moral hazard of fidelity of contract. Banks have on deposit (reserve) at most 10% of the “money supply.”
This means that if more than 10% of depositors go to the bank at one time to withdraw “our” money – there isn’t any money to withdraw beyond the 10% reserves.
Which means that 90% of the money supply is non-existent, nothing more than a fleeting illusion.
The bank’s solvency stands on the faith that no more than 10% of depositors will want their money at the same time. This means that although
Banks may appear to be solvent – they are without question illiquid.
Fractional reserve lending insures and guarantees that banks cannot possibly be liquid.
Banking is the only type of business that is allowed to function this way. If any other business used a similar modus operandi it would be subject to censor, arrest, court, and possibly imprisonment. Banks cannot fulfill all of their contracts if demand occurred at the same time. Thus, the banks are illiquid.
Why the double standard? Why the dishonesty? Why are they afraid of gold and silver money as the Constitution mandates? Because it would make them tow the line or go bankrupt. Less they forget - be ever mindful - even Zeus cannot deny Destiny.
Coming Soon – Open Letter To Congress Seeking Redress For The Return To Honest Money
[1] John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson [2] Hesiod, Works and Days [3] John Kenneth Galbraith Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went [4] Federal Reserve Bank, New York The Story of Banks, p.5. [5] The Federal Reserve System Purposes and Functions The Implementation of Monetary Policy [6] Same as above [7] Same [8] Same [9] Same [10] Same [11] Same [12] Federal reserve Bank of New York, I Bet You Thought, p.19
It is the truth. You take that period and revolutionary France as the Rule when, in fact, they are the exception. One of the reasons that the world is in an unparalleled period of material prosperity is the existence of modern banking and monetary systems.
That of the Alchemists was overruled by greater forces, the forces of capitalism. Now the metals are merely commodities important to many industries they will never again be money.
Oh, and revolutionary America's monetary solution that is your other period of serious inflation. There would have been no need to resort to such massive issuance had there been a strong Union and a suitable government. The Articles were a good first attempt at self-government but its weaknesses did not allow provision of the military hence it had to resort to issuance of the Continentals or be defeated.
But Hamilton's genius and tireless labors solved those financial problems and set the US on its miraculous course in human affairs by providing a program which strengthened the Union; provided a money supply; made the US credit tops in the world; funded the government. This, of course, didn't stop Jefferson's economic quacks from trying to undermine the whole affair. And you spread that quackery still. What next are you also going to laud Dr. Benjamin Rush's cure for Yellow Fever?
Did the French experience slip your mind?
"From 1790 to 1795 the assignat inflation was a staggering 13000%. Sound money was restored in 1795, when the franc was defined as 4.5 grams pure silver, and Napoleon completed the reform with a full complement of silver and gold coinage in 1803."
In the early '30s the money supply contracted 30%. Since you operate on the belief that a gold regime can't easily expand its money supply, maybe you can tell us your explanation for this phenomenon. Did the gold coins go "poof"? Or do you have some other explanation for this mystery? I've been led to believe it was a credit contraction, but that was from the likes of Friedman, and Mises, and James Grant. And they certainly can't hold a candle to the toddster when it comes to the operation of banking in a gold standard.
"The performance of fiat currencies in the past century has been dreadful. But what has changed? If anything, the monetary setting of today is much worse than that of the 20th century, for at least in the earlier part of that century there was still a gold standard. Up until 1971, there was some semblance, however weak, of an international gold standard. The monetary shackles on today's central bankers are, much more lenient. Hence, the threat of inflation is far more lethal. As horrid a performance as the dollar turned in for the 20th century, the 21st might make it look pretty good in comparison.
"Paper monetary systems have a tendency to blow up, in what is commonly called a hyperinflation. They are really not so rare. looking back at the 20th-century experience, has heard of the famous German hyperinflation of 1922-23, where price inflation was 3,422% in 1922 alone (and where, in January 1923, one could buy a dollar for 20,000 marks - but by early November it took 630 billion marks to buy that same dollar). The numbers are simply staggering and hard to comprehend. Yet, Hungary's hyperinflation of 1945-46 was even more spectacular, with price inflation of 19,800% per month. Phillip Cagan wrote, in the 1950s, what many consider to be a classic study of hyperinflation, in which he set the definition of the term hyperinflation at an arbitrary inflation rate exceeding 50% per month. Even so, Cagan still manages to find seven hyperinflations meeting his definition, the limiting factor being that these seven were the only ones where monthly price data was available. They include the great German hyperinflation, two in Hungary and also hyperinflations in Austria, Greece, Poland and Russia. These all occurred between 1921 and 1946. Witness, then, that the phenomenon was not a rare thing.
"To update Cagan, the more recent hyperinflations were mostly in emerging markets. According to "The Realities of Modern Hyperinflation") some of the more recent ones occurred in places like Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and the Ukraine and that doesn't cover them all. Further searching provided examples of devastating hyperinflations in Zimbabwe, Zaire, Georgia and Nicaragua. Large inflations but not quite Hyperinflations occurred since 1998 in Malaysia and other far east emerging countries as well as Russia and I suspect there are many more but they did not keep records."
That was during a revolution. Hardly business as usual for any modern government.
All of those in Central Europe were part of the fall out from the Treaty ending WWI. They were the remnants of a destroyed empire allied with Germany. Once again hardly examples of established governments. As to the others they are not places were there is any responsible government so to expect the monetary authorities would be any more responsible than the rest of the government.
Without responsible government no monetary regime will be safe from corruption.
Didn't England's resumption of the Gold standard cause gold outflows from the US? Wasn't that part of the reason that Roosevelt seized private gold holdings and voided payment in gold contracts?
Generally speaking, in an economics discussion, as soon as someone uses the phrase "fiat money" it's time to pronounce last call at the bar and start calling cabs to get the regulars home safe.
But, Travis, I respect for your opinion given your long and distinguished history here. I do have a question, though:
If the value of the dollar is locked into the value of some commodity, be it gold, silver, platinum or whatever... how does this properly reflect the earning power of the economy? Or more properly: why should the boundary on the money supply be limited by how much of some metal we can dig out of the ground?
Seems like a static-model argument to me. As if the mining sector of the economy should control the whole of the value of all other markets.
England's resumption of the gold standard at the end of WWI resulted in deflation because they attempted to return the Pound to its prewar value. If they had resumed convertability at a lower value they would have been fine, and would have escaped deflation. I'm not aware that this had anything to do with gold outflows from the US, although it may have. On the other hand European powers had parked a lot of gold in the US to protect it during the war, and brought it home afterwards.
Roosevelt wanted to alleviate the collapse of the money supply of the early 30s. If he revalued gold to $33 dollars an oz from $20, he could instantly expand the money supply. However, this would have the unintended effect of providing a windfall to those who held gold coin, which during the Depression was a small number indeed. Thinking that making the rich richer during a national crisis wasn't going to be especially popular, his remedy was to call in gold before revaluing the dollar against it. It's not as exciting as the conspiracy explanations, but that's pretty much all there was to the idea.
LOL
Then, please do a little reading. Start here, it's only a couple pages.
THE DILEMMA FOR WEALTH, THE CASE FOR GOLD
Yes, he didn't forecast that we had one more bubble to inflate, real estate, but that doesn't matter.
After you read that one, please answer the same question nobody can answer here.
Name ONE nation which went to unlimited unbacked fiat money and unlimited credit and debt, where the system did not implode into disastrous ruin.
Then ask yourself, are we so much smarter today, than EVERY other nation in HISTORY that walked down this road?
As we pile up TRILLIONS of dollars of debt, owed to foreigners with no love for us?
Can you spell "hubris?"
Perhaps now, YOU will mention just ONE nation which went out on the unlimited fiat money limb, and did not come crashing down in ruin.
JUST ONE?
BTTT
H.u.b.r.i.s.
Can you spell "Didn't answer the question?" :-)
nor was marital fidelity or not diddling with the help...
The Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to shrink. You need me to explain how it can shrink under a gold regime?
I've been led to believe it was a credit contraction, but that was from the likes of Friedman, and Mises, and James Grant.
We've already established that credit can expand the money supply. You never answered my questions.
So I guess there is no need for the Federal Reserve to ever increase the money supply? I guess an increase in credit can do the trick? In our $12.6 trillion economy I'd guess $1,000,000 in actual money should be enough? Or do you have a slightly larger figure in mind?
He'll answer you in a year. Of course he'll still be wrong. :^)
A mortgage is a CONTRACT by which banks may NOT willy-nilly decide to call all their outstanding loan balances in without breaking the agreement.
You might want to read your mortgage "contract" and see what the bank is legally permitted to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.