4 ms·

> Fractional reserve banking absolutely does not create money[1]. It creates credit exactly the same as if you lend a friend of yours some of your money. You no

• NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  You assert that the act of individual act of lending creates the money - this is known as the credit creation theory of money; the GP asserts that the central bank creates the money and banks are just moving it around - this is known as the financial intermediation theory of money. That also happens to be the theory that underlies most banking regulation, like the various Basel Accords. You can look at it either way; or indeed you can take a third view, the fractional reserve theory of money, which suggests that the banking system as a whole creates money in aggregate, but not individual banks. All of these are theories with their adherents and none has yet been proven right or wrong. The only wrong position is a failure to acknowledge that discussion is still open on this point, or to believe that these are anything other than macroeconomic models.
  • kgwgk 4y ago
    As far as I can understand seanhunter asserts that bank lending doesn't create money - pointing to the definition of M1/M2 money - and claims that bank lending is not different from me lending you $100 and that the amount of M1 or M2 money in supply doesn't changed in either case. > The only wrong position is a failure to acknowledge that discussion is still open on this point Saying that bank lending doesn't increase M1/M2 money supply is wrong. I don't think that discussion is still open on that. It's just how those things are defined. That's the only thing that I asserted.
    • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      >As far as I can understand seanhunter asserts that bank lending doesn't create money - pointing to the definition of M1/M2 money - and claims that bank lending is not different from me lending you $100 and that the amount of M1 or M2 money in supply doesn't changed in either case. Right. That is the basic definition of the financial intermediation theory of money. It's actually a predominant view in the literature: for example, the Diamond-Dybvig model is based on the assumption that banks are not special as intermediaries; and it won the Nobel Prize for its authors in 2022.
      • kgwgk 4y ago
        I don't know if the financial intermediation theory of money has its own definition of M1 and M2 but the one given by seanhunter is the standard one. If we're using the same definition [are we?] then it either changes or it doesn't. If money supply is "currency in circulation plus deposits[, etc.]" how does bank lending not increase the "currency in circulation plus deposits[, etc.]" amount? (Of course lending between friends doesn't: the $100 bill in circulation is the same as before and the friendly IOU is not a deposit nor included in the [, etc.]")
        • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
          A loan only increases the money supply if it's made without replacing the deposits that were loaned out. The financial intermediation theory is that that doesn't happen: a bank is just a place where money flows come together to find allocations to investments, and that the benefit is that the size mismatches between those in surplus and those who need to borrow can be reconciled, so banks that do this skillfully are economically valuable and make profits. This is not, prima facie a bad theory, right? Go take a look at JP Morgan's balance sheet. The asset and liability sides of the sheet are basically loans and investments (on the asset side) plus deposits and outstanding debt (on the liability side), and these balance.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]