Posted on 09/02/2011 7:50:17 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A recent piece from Foreign Policy Journal’s Jeremy Hammond offers a rare analysis on how money is created in the nation’s financial system — and also why not to expect very much in the way of fiscal responsibility and spending cuts from Washington, D.C. any time soon.
The issue boils down to capital requirements — how much a financial institution must hold in reserve versus how much it can lend. Say the capital requirement for a financial institution is 10 percent.
Usually, one might think that means that for every dollar of capital, it can lend out 90 cents and 10 cents must be kept in reserve, and there is no increase in the money supply. This is the Jimmy Stewart version of banking.
But according to Hammond’s analysis, “banks don’t really loan currency that way.” Instead, keeping with the 10 percent capital requirement example, for every dollar kept in reserve, the bank or financial institution can create $9 to lend — out of thin air — with the dollar itself held in reserve.
If true, all common conceptions of prudential financial standards are thrown out the window. Then, the banks are practically speaking nine times larger than they would be under a conventional understanding of what a bank is. That is not a fractional system at all.
In fact, balance sheets — i.e. all the loans — are subject to multipliers beyond deposits, instead of a fraction of those deposits. The perversity of this standard cannot be overstated. It means the dollar is based on a debt standard. “Under this system, money is debt,” writes Hammond.
This explains how obscene amounts of leverage were fed into the system leading to the market crash of 2008. Firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were overleveraged by factors as much as 30 to 1.
American Enterprise Institute scholar Edward Pinto found that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “only needed $900 in capital behind a $200,000 mortgage they guaranteed”. That’s leveraging by 222 to 1.
This is how treasuries are kept in reserve to serve as capital boosters. If an institution holds AAA-rated bonds, they can be used as collateral to leverage even more money to buy other financial instruments, or to make loans.
This is the manner that money is created under the Keynesian system. Everyone from a bank to an investment firm to an individual investor buying stocks on margin essentially has access to their very own printing presses.
That’s why the U.S. has over $50 trillion of total debts but only $6 trillion of savings deposits.
The more-than $13 trillion of mortgages are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the total lending that is taking place. When all the financial instruments are compounded, the $700 trillion figure for the derivatives market projected by the Bank for International Settlements comes into full view.
According to Hammond, because when debts are paid, the money supply decreases — and thus is deflationary — “the Federal Reserve monetary system requires that the U.S. government never be able to pay off its debt.”
This is most likely why Keynesians are Keynesians — the only way the economy can grow under such circumstances is for yet more debt to be created. Why? Because debt repayment on a massive scale would result in rapid deleveraging that would destroy trillions of dollars of notional wealth.
Hence Congress’ preference for annual deficit-spending at the federal level, and the resistance to even small spending cuts.
This explains why the national debt has grown every single year since 1958. Lawmakers fear that debt repayment would cause a tremendous economic contraction beyond reckoning.
In other words, Congress is not allowed to cut spending.
But, if gargantuan amounts of debt were the recipe for prosperity, the U.S. would be living in an economic utopia right now. Instead, we are in a dystopian state of decline where the national debt grows by more than 10 percent but the economy is only growing at a little more than 1 percent.
Making matters worse, a recent study by Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard University found that “median growth rates for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP are roughly one percent lower than otherwise; average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower.”
That’s bad because at $14.684 trillion, the national debt is already 97.9 percent of the $14.996 trillion Gross Domestic Product. The effects of excessive debt are already being felt.
This is why the system of perpetual debt creation is unsustainable: 1) beyond certain levels of debt, the economy stops growing; and 2) soon the debt becomes so large it cannot possibly be repaid, making default the only option to restore the nation’s balance sheet.
Therefore an alternative system is needed. One that is sustainable, fosters long-term economic growth without requiring credit expansion, and does not give the power to create money out of thin air to a banking cartel.
Jeremy Hammond is to be applauded for bringing attention to just how overleveraging by financial institutions — the way money is created — is wrecking the economy. To get back on track, we need a return to sound money.
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government.
The article confuses bank capital with bank reserves.
The brilliant physicist Richard Feynman said in 1988:
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
Too bad such meaningless blabbering got posted here on FR.
If people would actually learn some basic accounting, i.e., how to interpret a P & L and balance sheet, then actually learn a tiny little bit about financial statements in the banking environment, then review the financial statements of publicly traded banks which have them all out their for public viewing, they would not be so wacked out - if they really learned. Otherwise, conspiracy is very easy to believe when one has not the foggiest clue about the subject.
I think you for the most part nailed it, although some have called this "velocity of money" and not "new money". A technicality, but one worth noting. I cannot vouch for the 10% number, but I have read numbers close to that over the last 6 or 7 years. Either way, it impacts economic activity and inflation.
When I was in high school (longer ago than I care to admit) this number ranged from about 17% to 19%. I think the number began to come down drastically during the Greenspan years and may have helped create the housing bubble.
Thanks for posting the article. Keep it up.
ping a ding ding
” ...billionaires will be worthless street bums...”
Want me to name the ones who already are?
LOL!
Bfl
That quote is great!
The money-changers never change.
He's still missing it. The seed capital doesn't come from the deposit, but from (initially) sale of shares and (later) retained earnings. (It works slightly differently at mutuals - that's why there are almost none of them left).
Deposits aren't capital, they are liabilities.
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.