3 ms·

The interest rate would be set by how many people want to borrow money (buy) and how many people want to lend (sell). The convergence point would be the price o

The interest rate would be set by how many people want to borrow money (buy) and how many people want to lend (sell). The convergence point would be the price of money aka interest rate. How does it not make sense?

chii 4y ago
The poster is alluding to the fact that an authority such as the Feds have the inclination to change this convergence point (for whatever reason). Therefore, this breaks the assumption that the money market is free.
SSJPython 4y ago
Because it is not realistic. In every nation that has ever existed, the supplier of money has always been a monopolist. And this is precisely because the supplier has requested taxes to be paid in that currency that they supply. If you have multiple suppliers of money, then you literally destroy the entire basis of the state. The whole thing comes crashing down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > In every nation that has ever existed, the supplier of money has always been a monopolist. In the era of free banking in the US, banks issued their own currency.
  - SSJPython 4y ago
    What do you mean by their own currency? They still issued USD, which was the only legal currency.
    - logicchains 4y ago
      No, they literally created their own currencies and issued them.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > What do you mean by their own currency? I mean exactly that. They issued banknotes (that's why paper money is sometimes called banknotes). The banknotes were denoted in dollars, like bank checks today. Here's an article with some pictures: https://thismatter.com/money/banking/history/free-banking-national-banking-system.htm https://thismatter.com/money/banking/history/free-banking-na...
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > They still issued USD, which was the only legal currency. As I recall, they issued the paper version of stablecoins: they were denominated in units of US dollars, but they weren’t government money, and they traded at floating values, typically (aside from many other factors influencing value) declining in value with distance from the issuing bank.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        The discount on the notes was inevitably related to the probability that the issuing bank would honor the notes and redeem them with gold. When the Fed lost all credibility with exchanging their banknotes for gold, we had the Great Depression. FDR then defaulted on the gold bonds, basically stealing from the good citizens who had trusted the government.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > When the Fed lost all credibility with exchanging their banknotes for gold, we had the Great Depression This was not a cause of the Great Depression. (You are correct on the default, however.)
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > era of free banking in the US, banks issued their own currency The free banking era illustrates the problem. Rates are endogenous to the money supply. That circularity promotes a hyper-volatile credit cycle. There is no natural counter-balance we’ve discovered to that tendency. (Apart from ruinous boom-and-bust cycles.)
imtringued 4y ago
The money supply is endogenous, that is, the people demanding money via loans are the ones that create their own money. The supply of money is effectively infinite and only limited by regulations, the banks risk assessment of the borrower and the profitability of the business Vs the interest rate. So there is no market for the interest rate of money that can be created. If you have a fixed money supply then the interest rate isn't set by supply and demand of funds either but by liquidity preference. As the interest rate falls below liquidity preference people will simply hold cash or keep their money in checking accounts. The interest available for borrowing does not fall all the way to zero. It gets stuck at some positive value. This money is "saved" in the sense of deferred spending but it is not "saved" in the sense that it is not lent out and only available in the future once the loan is repaid, no, it is available today to spend. The difference between classical and Keynesian economics is effectively that in the former you only have saving and consumption but in Keynesian economics you also have a third state "cash" (including bank account deposits) that is a hybrid of the two. It is neither consumption nor classical saving and this is what's the setting of the interest rate in the open market. Dieter Suhr effectively argues that this liquidity premium is the effect of money being a social network. Just like Facebook extracting profits from your data, people with cash/deposits benefit from the network effects of money and can sell these network effects for money keeping the interest rate high and if they can't sell them they will try to benefit from them directly (e.g. speculation) as that is more profitable than lending money. Businesses and consumers are the ones creating the network effect so they should be compensated and not the idle who do nothing with their money.

chii 4y ago

The poster is alluding to the fact that an authority such as the Feds have the inclination to change this convergence point (for whatever reason). Therefore, this breaks the assumption that the money market is free.

SSJPython 4y ago

Because it is not realistic. In every nation that has ever existed, the supplier of money has always been a monopolist. And this is precisely because the supplier has requested taxes to be paid in that currency that they supply. If you have multiple suppliers of money, then you literally destroy the entire basis of the state. The whole thing comes crashing down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

WalterBright 4y ago
> In every nation that has ever existed, the supplier of money has always been a monopolist. In the era of free banking in the US, banks issued their own currency.
- SSJPython 4y ago
  What do you mean by their own currency? They still issued USD, which was the only legal currency.
  - logicchains 4y ago
    No, they literally created their own currencies and issued them.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > What do you mean by their own currency? I mean exactly that. They issued banknotes (that's why paper money is sometimes called banknotes). The banknotes were denoted in dollars, like bank checks today. Here's an article with some pictures: https://thismatter.com/money/banking/history/free-banking-national-banking-system.htm https://thismatter.com/money/banking/history/free-banking-na...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > They still issued USD, which was the only legal currency. As I recall, they issued the paper version of stablecoins: they were denominated in units of US dollars, but they weren’t government money, and they traded at floating values, typically (aside from many other factors influencing value) declining in value with distance from the issuing bank.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The discount on the notes was inevitably related to the probability that the issuing bank would honor the notes and redeem them with gold. When the Fed lost all credibility with exchanging their banknotes for gold, we had the Great Depression. FDR then defaulted on the gold bonds, basically stealing from the good citizens who had trusted the government.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > When the Fed lost all credibility with exchanging their banknotes for gold, we had the Great Depression This was not a cause of the Great Depression. (You are correct on the default, however.)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > era of free banking in the US, banks issued their own currency The free banking era illustrates the problem. Rates are endogenous to the money supply. That circularity promotes a hyper-volatile credit cycle. There is no natural counter-balance we’ve discovered to that tendency. (Apart from ruinous boom-and-bust cycles.)

imtringued 4y ago

The money supply is endogenous, that is, the people demanding money via loans are the ones that create their own money. The supply of money is effectively infinite and only limited by regulations, the banks risk assessment of the borrower and the profitability of the business Vs the interest rate. So there is no market for the interest rate of money that can be created. If you have a fixed money supply then the interest rate isn't set by supply and demand of funds either but by liquidity preference. As the interest rate falls below liquidity preference people will simply hold cash or keep their money in checking accounts. The interest available for borrowing does not fall all the way to zero. It gets stuck at some positive value. This money is "saved" in the sense of deferred spending but it is not "saved" in the sense that it is not lent out and only available in the future once the loan is repaid, no, it is available today to spend. The difference between classical and Keynesian economics is effectively that in the former you only have saving and consumption but in Keynesian economics you also have a third state "cash" (including bank account deposits) that is a hybrid of the two. It is neither consumption nor classical saving and this is what's the setting of the interest rate in the open market. Dieter Suhr effectively argues that this liquidity premium is the effect of money being a social network. Just like Facebook extracting profits from your data, people with cash/deposits benefit from the network effects of money and can sell these network effects for money keeping the interest rate high and if they can't sell them they will try to benefit from them directly (e.g. speculation) as that is more profitable than lending money. Businesses and consumers are the ones creating the network effect so they should be compensated and not the idle who do nothing with their money.