Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Bankers took 1/3 of money out of circulation?m

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 10 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
349 Posts
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew posted on Sun, Sep 9 2012 9:51 AM

I'm in a discussion on another board with a typical socialist type. She makes the claim that Glass Stegall was the root cause of the downturn. She also says it allowed bankers to take "1/3 of our money out of circulation". What does that even mean? I've never seen that argument before. 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 50

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
205 Posts
Points 2,945

Hva you asked her?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,490

I got it - I think she means that the money the Fed is giving them is merely being locked up in vaults and not loaned out. Iirc, this is one of the first times in history it's happening to such an extent.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,687 Posts
Points 48,995

There is a growing consensus that the alleged "repeal" of the Glass–Steagall Act had nothing to do with the 2007–09 financial crisis, because the original collapse was concentrated on investment banks (and the "shadow banking" system). And, bankers didn't "take" any money out of circulation in a 'voluntary' sense; rather, a collapse of debt instruments leads to a collapse in the volume of fiduciary media. This collapse in debt instruments is also probably why bank lending volume is still relatively low, and why banks hold huge reserves of money (moreso, perhaps, than the fact that the Fed pays [although, I think less now than before] banks to sit on these reserves).

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
1,612 Posts
Points 29,515

Does anyone else think that the Banks are taking the money from the FED and sitting on it because they are anticipating gigantic losses when the FED tries to sell those assets back to the market?  I think that capital is being built for the sole purpose of soaking up losses in the medium term.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,490

There is a growing consensus that the alleged "repeal" of the Glass–Steagall Act had nothing to do with the 2007–09 financial crisis

In the mainstream? Link?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,687 Posts
Points 48,995

Wheylous,

Here's one recent article published in the New York Times. I had an older piece in mind, I think published in the same newspaper, but I don't have time to search for it right now. There is also a recent blog post that cites a few orthodox economists that you might not expect to be on a list of people who don't think the "repeal" of the Glass-Steagall Act had anything to do with the 2008 crisis.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,490

Thanks!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
257 Posts
Points 4,920
Prime replied on Sun, Sep 9 2012 5:51 PM

I also read an article on Yahoo Finance not too long ago making the same point as what Jonathan eluded to. Lehman and Bear Stearns were investement banks only. AIG was of course an insurance company. And of course there is Fannie and Freddie. For the most part, none of the big players that collapsed first were commercial banks at all.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
6,953 Posts
Points 118,135

Does no one check out any of the links?  They're good, I promise.

 

Again, Tom Woods h/t's Bob Wenzel for pickup The Washington Post saying so...

The Glass-Steagall Myth Revisited

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS