3 ms·
> telling two or more people they own the same dollar This is the main issue, and it's called a "reserve requirement", which is a percentage of the deposits th
by frellus 4y ago
> telling two or more people they own the same dollar
This is the main issue, and it's called a "reserve requirement", which is a percentage of the deposits that the bank must keep on hand to mitigate risk of issues like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#United_States_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#United_Sta...
In March 2020 the US Federal Reserve lowered it from 8% to 0%, which is where it is today. Just to give you an idea of how the economy works then, let's say you put $100 into your account at Bank A. Company X takes a loan from the bank for $100. Where do they put their money from the loan? Well, they spend most of it but part of it ends up in, let's say, Bank B. Bank B then takes that money and loans it out 100% to Company Y, who spends some of it and also puts some reserve into their bank account in Bank A. Which lends it out 100%.
So this is an over-simplified example but just to give a visual that this is where inflation is coming from. The "government" isn't printing money -- the banks are. It's a deck of cards with no safety net.
Watch the movie "The Big Short" and tell me how this isn't the same situation.
source: I am also a lot of fun at parties
- 88913527 4y agoIt's surprising that QT is occurring, yet there was no change in reserve requirements. It seems like a policy tool that would be part of the monetary tightening toolbelt.
- lxgr 4y agoThis "money multiplier" model is not an accurate description of how money creation actually works in modern central banking. Besides a minimum reserve requirement, banks also have liquidity and (risk-weighted) capital adequacy requirements, which are practically much more relevant. The 2008 financial crisis was effectively caused by "laundering"/structuring the risk weights.
- frellus 4y agoI get what you're saying, but also I'm going to call BS on whatever liquidity testing banks need to do currently to satisfy the Fed. They're obviously not required to cover changing risks. I think what's happening now is equivalent to 2008, it's just the underlying security was bonds and, in SVB's case, emerging equity. There were risks on all sides of the equation.