Hello,
I am a layperson only recently exposed to the Austrian school of economics. I'm fascinated by it and I'm buying what you're selling. I do have a question:
I've read a few books by Murray Rothbard and he's critical of the fractional reserve banking system. What I do not understand: without fractional resreve banking, how can money be loaned and how could a bank possibly pay me interest? I certainly understand the risk of fractional reserve banking, especially when rerserve requirement is very low but I don't understand what the alternative is.
Thanks.
Don
Thanks for your answer.
But - how do you loan the first dollar? i.e., if, as a bank, all my deposits must be backed, isn't 100% of my money not loanable?
This is an easy answer:
There are a bunch of ways to get money without making fractional reserve loans on deposits that users can claim immediately:
1. Most Common: Issue equity. That is you sell ownership in a bank, normally done through stock holders but can be done through a mutual system. In either case the investors are not contractually obligated to be paid the money back. Understand that if the bank makes more than the interest rates then the investors get more money paid back. There are many more insurance companies that use the mutual system and it has advantages.
2. Contract deposits now for money later. A certificate of deposit is an example. The agreement for higher interest rates means the depositor has limit access to their deposit unlike a checking account or passbook savings. This method includes selling long term bonds.
In all likelyhood there would arise, in a stateless society, two different kinds of institutions.
The first would be a true financial intermediary, who would facilitate the loaning of money. There profits would be the result of arbitrage. For example, person A comes to the bank offering them money for 5% per annum, they would then lend this money at a rate higher than that and (e.g. 6% per annum) and then pocket the difference as a profit.
The second would be more like a warehousing business with whom individuals would conduct a monetary irregular deposit contract. The bank would charge a sum of money in order to guard the gold (or whatever other commodity) and this is how they would make money.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
dmuldoon:how do you loan the first dollar?
You have to get a depositor (or an investor) to allow you to do so. That's what a CD is for example. Remember you only need to maintain 100% backing for demand deposits.
The definitive work on this subject from an Austrin perspective is De Soto's book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles. It's available online in pdf format here.
Angurse: Angurse:Unless you are using some bizarre terminology, bank notes and "demand deposits with a clause" both fully constitute fiduciary media (a money-substitute) as defined by Mises.
Angurse:Unless you are using some bizarre terminology, bank notes and "demand deposits with a clause" both fully constitute fiduciary media (a money-substitute) as defined by Mises.
Again with the clause? I asked you for the quote that Mises equates bank notes with a clause (meaning that the public is aware of the practice) and you did not provide it This is because Mises NEVER claimed that the public was aware of anything, but simply described the practice as is currently taking place.
I am really getting tired of your obfuscation. I think my argument with you has gone long enough.
DD5:"week" is an assertion. It could be "month" or even "year",
Its merely an example.
DD5:but that is besides the point that by your own admission, these tickets are not substitutes for the money commodity sitting in the vault as reserves. So if gold is the money commodity, then these tickets cannot constitute gold substitutes.
Not quite. No, they cannot be considered substitutes for substitutes for the money "sitting in the vault as reserves" what they are substitutes for are the assets held by the bank equal to their value in said commodity money, which they will have been traded for by "week X." Its still convertible for money at its face value, its still a form of money in both the broad and narrow sense, still a money-substitute.
DD5:Again with the clause? I asked you for the quote that Mises equates bank notes with a clause (meaning that the public is aware of the practice) and you did not provide it This is because Mises NEVER claimed that the public was aware of anything, but simply described the practice as is currently taking place.
You are simply asking for more than required. His definition of fiduciary includes fractional reserve bank notes (i.e. with a clause) you may not like it, I don't care.
Please show where Mises said the public wasn't aware or cease this nonsense (as it doesn't add to the debate whatsoever).
Angurse:His definition of fiduciary includes fractional reserve bank notes (i.e. with a clause) you may not like it, I don't care.
no, it only includes the portion of the notes which are not backed. it leaves out the portion that are backed.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I'm not sure why you believe that "most non-time deposits" would begin to dissapear. I think that most money would be kept in demand deposits, or warehoused (in other words), or it would depend heavily on time preference.
I'm not sure why you believe that "most non-time deposits" would begin to dissapear. I think that most money would be kept in demand deposits, or warehoused (in other words), or it would depend heavily on time preference.
Because there would be no interest in it, therefore it is more profitable for the individuals who would be opening the accounts to go for time accounts because that way they not only keep all of their money, but they get more through interest... So basically because there remains little actual insentive for keeping intermeidiate sums of money in a bank as opposed to at your house, indeed the shift from paying the deposit owner, to paying the bank would deinsentivise many individuals from even considering demand deposits.
nirgrahamUK:no, it only includes the portion of the notes which are not backed. it leaves out the portion that are backed.
Yes. The portion backed by money is a money-certificate, the rest is fiduciary media. But you'd need to see the bank sheets to know the percentages. Regardless, its still, a100% money-substitute.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Because there would be no interest in it, therefore it is more profitable for the individuals who would be opening the accounts to go for time accounts because that way they not only keep all of their money, but they get more through interest...
Because there would be no interest in it, therefore it is more profitable for the individuals who would be opening the accounts to go for time accounts because that way they not only keep all of their money, but they get more through interest...
Obviously, this is subjective and not always true. We have already established that interest would not be high all the time. There could be low demand for loans, and there can already be a high supply of loanable funds as compared to demand. There has always been demand in money warehousing, because it is a means of keeping your money safe, and with the advent of electronic bookkeeping it also makes accounting for your money far easier.
If it was true that time deposits would garner more for all individuals, then all individuals today would invest their money in time deposits and not in checking accounts (today, interest on checking accounts tend to be <.2%, to give you an idea).
Exactly, thats why I said most non timed deposits would dissapear, not most of them. Also some interest is better than none, particualarly with the larger deposits. And of course people save if they don't have enough for significant paybacks on interest by not keeping money in banks although this would only apply with certian sums.
DD5:So if gold is the money commodity, then these tickets cannot constitute gold substitutes. The public, aware of this fact, will not accept these tickets for gold substitutes as it will not accept apples for oranges.
They did. END OF STORY.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Time deposits: Have the advantage under a full reserve banking system because this way banks would know that however many people would not want their money back before whatever date, this would actually mean that more money could be lent out because they wouldn't have to keep any reserve for person X before the date that their deposite expires and thier interest is due. This would also utterly end the practice of bank runs.
Not really. Investments of a bank can always go bust making it unable to pay depositors, timed or not.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Exactly, thats why I said most non timed deposits would dissapear, not most of them. Also some interest is better than none, particualarly with the larger deposits. And of course people save if they don't have enough for significant paybacks on interest by not keeping money in banks although this would only apply with certian sums.
No, most deposits would probably remain demand deposits. The interest rate depends both on demand and on supply, and those who decide to invest their time in time deposits also face a variable amount of uncertainty. Like I said, if what you were saying were true then people would already invest most of their time in time deposits, but they don't.
But is this not largly due to the fact that they currently recieve money through this? There is an insentive to save in demand deposites. I'm not arguing but please simply tell me what the insentive of demand deposites would be, and wouldn't interest in time deposites be rather high? Especially if few people wanted to work with time deposites because then there would be little money with which banks can recieve their funds.
The Late Andrew Ryan: But is this not largly due to the fact that they currently recieve money through this?
But is this not largly due to the fact that they currently recieve money through this?
No, like I said, interest on demand deposits is extremely low (less than a fifth of a percentage point). Demand deposits exist because they act as money warehouses and accounting services.
There is an insentive to save in demand deposites.
These are not savings, and never were. Demand deposits have existed throughout history for specific reasons (when specie was used, mostly for protection, now for electronic storage and accounting).
I'm not arguing but please simply tell me what the insentive of demand deposites would be, and wouldn't interest in time deposites be rather high?
The interest on time deposits depends entirely on the demand for loans and the supply of loanable funds. It could be low, or it could be high.
scineram: DD5:So if gold is the money commodity, then these tickets cannot constitute gold substitutes. The public, aware of this fact, will not accept these tickets for gold substitutes as it will not accept apples for oranges. They did. END OF STORY.
Yep, that response pretty much summarizes the "scientific" theory behind free banking.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I'm not sure why you think that's a valid argument, but I'm interested to hear an explanation. Demand for money is demand to hold money as cash or in demand deposits, as a form of providing liquidity. I have already said that money is not capital, it represents capital. An increase in the supply of money does not create an increase in the supply of capital. Why? You haven't provided a reason.
I'm not sure why you think that's a valid argument, but I'm interested to hear an explanation. Demand for money is demand to hold money as cash or in demand deposits, as a form of providing liquidity. I have already said that money is not capital, it represents capital. An increase in the supply of money does not create an increase in the supply of capital.
Why? You haven't provided a reason.
So what is your argument again in regards to the supply of and demand of money?
My reason is that Shostak's argument is strange and I don't think he's really addressing what monetary economics is all about and how velocity of money places a part in the equation of exchange.
What I've been taught is that the velocity of money is related to the level of inflation and deflation in the economy relative to the price of money. Shostak seems to either ignore this or just not give it any thought. I'm really not sure what he's getting at, to be honest. Is it that all economic transactions must be, in the long run, paid for not with money, but by products? Ummm... Ok. But that's not really the point of what monetarists like Friedman are getting at.
So, I guess it's not so much that I disagree is it is that I don't really get what you guys are getting at.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: So what is your argument again in regards to the supply of and demand of money?
Within the context of your original post, that they are not proportional or equal.
You wrote:
Say there's no increase in the money supply at all, but velocity increases ten fold. What's the difference?
Shostak actually engages the mainstream view on the velocity of money. If you read the article, he explains why the velocity of money does not effect money's particular purchasing power. Shostak is not the only Austrian economist to critisize the theory of velocity as a determinant of prices: