The No-Nonsense Guide to Global Finance. By Peter Stalker. New Internationalist.. 150 pages. £7.99.
By and large this book, one of a series published by the New Internationalist, is what its title says. But not quite. Stalker, himself a former co-editor of the magazine, writes correctly that commercial banks “make most of their money by charging borrowers a higher rate of interest than they give to the depositors” and that “without businesses prepared to put money to work, banks would be unable to offer interest on loans”, but then:
“Suppose, for example, 20 people have each deposited one hundred pounds of silver in the bank’s vaults. The total amount of money is thus two thousand pounds of silver. Then the 21st person comes along. He or she wants to borrow one hundred pounds. Certainly, sir or madam, please step this way. We can open an account for you and write into it one hundred pounds of silver. Now 21 people think they have 100 pounds and can spend it. The total amount of money has magically increased to 2,100 pounds of silver.”
No it hasn’t. How could it? If a bank could turn 2000 lbs of silver into 2100 lbs by a mere stroke of the pen that really would be magic, alchemy even. What it actually means is that one of the 100 lbs deposited has been lent to someone else to spend. There are still only 2000 lbs in existence, 100 in the hands of the borrower and 1900 in the vaults of the bank. The same would apply whether the original deposits were made in token money or by electronic transfer, but using metallic commodity money to illustrate the claim that banks “magically” create money is a good way to show it up as nonsense.
There follow chapters (most of the book) where Stalker explains in easy-to-understand terms, shares, hedge funds, derivates, deficit swaps and the like as well as international currency transactions and loans. It is only in the final chapter where he outlines the reforms he’d like to see that he goes off the rails again.
In a subsection entitled “Revoke licenses to print money” he says that 95 percent of money “materialises as if by magic, when commercial banks make loans to their customers”. He doesn’t seem to realise that this is because, confusingly, he along with most modern economists includes bank loans in the definition of ‘money’. On this definition, revoking the banks’ supposed “license to print money” ought, logically, to mean not allowing them to make loans. Yet on the next page:
“Banks would continue to offer loans, but they would do so in a much simpler fashion. Anything they lend would have to come from money deposited with them by savers, or borrowed from other banks, or from their tills, or from their own accounts held at the central bank.”
But this, essentially, is what happens today! Also, he is tacitly accepting here that bank loans don’t increase the ‘money supply’ and so are not really part of it. Banks today no more have the power “to cream off extra profits by creating money” than they would have in his reformed capitalism.
Adam Buick
No comments:
Post a Comment