The Myth of Money as the Mere Concept of an IOU - page 2.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 12:14:48 PM

If you do not understand the difference between monetary exchange and barter, then it will be very hard for you to understand that between money and an IOU.

I don't think there is any difference between money (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) and an IOU.
It is just an IOU issued by a very trusted institution.
As such it functions as a general unit of value transfer, because it is worth the same to both sides of the transaction.

That is what we all think and how we all act, but there unit used (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) to transfer value change over time so it isn't the same to both sides of the transaction. The value of the unit is manipulated by FRB and the Central Bank.

It is akin to a builder changing the units of measure so he can reduce his building expenses and claim he has done a good by coming in under budget.

* edit
The money meme can only work effectively for all participants in the economy if the unit of measure is fixed, or if it is an actual commodity that is readily exchanged, then the unit of measure must be fixed to the commodity. It should be fraud to create a mechanism that allows banks to increase the unit of measure but not the represented time value commodity. FRB is thus the mechanism behind the business cycle, allowing Malinvestment in economic activities and unfairly distributing the risk.

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 12:14:48 PM

If you do not understand the difference between monetary exchange and barter, then it will be very hard for you to understand that between money and an IOU.

I don't think there is any difference between money (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) and an IOU.
It is just an IOU issued by a very trusted institution.
As such it functions as a general unit of value transfer, because it is worth the same to both sides of the transaction.

Money has not always been dollars, pounds, euros, or yen, and even in those forms it is not just an IOU: it is rather both practically and conceptually mistaken by an IOU. Please (re)read the post opening this thread.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 12:14:48 PM

If you do not understand the difference between monetary exchange and barter, then it will be very hard for you to understand that between money and an IOU.

I don't think there is any difference between money (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) and an IOU.
It is just an IOU issued by a very trusted institution.
As such it functions as a general unit of value transfer, because it is worth the same to both sides of the transaction.

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 12:00:24 PM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

It works, for the most part, just fine.

It does for the banks, not for the rest of us - and soon it will not even do for the banks.

The purpose of money is as a general purpose IOU or instrument of barter, which is trusted enough that people accept it.

If you do not understand the difference between monetary exchange and barter, then it will be very hard for you to understand that between money and an IOU.

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:57:32 AM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

Only the central bank can 'create' money.
Normal retail banks cannot just print more money.

Commercial banks create money just as the central bank does.

No, only the central bank can 'create' money, that is increase the total amount of X currency in existence.

So when commercial banks make a reserve of $1,000.00 become $10,000.00 by loaning it, they are not creating money?

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

It works, for the most part, just fine.

It does for the banks, not for the rest of us - and soon it will not even do for the banks.

The purpose of money is as a general purpose IOU or instrument of barter, which is trusted enough that people accept it.
It works fine for that.
People get paid, they pay rent, they buy gas and groceries.
That is what money is for, in everyday use.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

Only the central bank can 'create' money.
Normal retail banks cannot just print more money.

Commercial banks create money just as the central bank does.

No, only the central bank can 'create' money, that is increase the total amount of X currency in existence.

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnyj on September 23, 2013, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 11:02:02 AM

You said yourself that 81.5% of QE money are sitting on bank reserves at the FED. What about the other 18.5%? Remember: it is 18.5% of some trillions (more money than the amount Apple is hoarding, which you were so worried about). There is inflation already: the government cannot stop changing the way of calculating its index in an increasingly desperate attempt to hide it. What the current situation "negates" is neither the "multiplier effect" itself nor hence whichever inflation, but rather just hyperinflation.

Yes the government part is more difficult to deal with, as I understand, they will keep raising the debt ceiling no matter what. But eventually they will be forced into default, or central banks write off their bond holdings (more likely)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/81-5-of-money-created-through-quantitative-easing-is-sitting-there-gathering-dust-instead-of-helping-the-economy.html

It is amazing to see how people still assume this money finding its way into the market would "help the economy": what a huge disappointment is "in reserve" for them.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 11:02:02 AM

You said yourself that 81.5% of QE money are sitting on bank reserves at the FED. What about the other 18.5%? Remember: it is 18.5% of some trillions (more money than the amount Apple is hoarding, which you were so worried about). There is inflation already: the government cannot stop changing the way of calculating its index in an increasingly desperate attempt to hide it. What the current situation "negates" is neither the "multiplier effect" itself nor hence whichever inflation, but rather just hyperinflation.

Yes the government part is more difficult to deal with, as I understand, they will keep raising the debt ceiling no matter what. But eventually they will be forced into default, or central banks write off their bond holdings (more likely)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/81-5-of-money-created-through-quantitative-easing-is-sitting-there-gathering-dust-instead-of-helping-the-economy.html

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

Only the central bank can 'create' money.
Normal retail banks cannot just print more money.

Commercial banks create money just as the central bank does. The differences are:

1. The central bank loans money to the government while commercial banks loan it to private entities.

2. Commercial banks have reserve requirements, which the central bank does not.

Despite those differences, the two processes are essentially the same: historically, the first originates from the second.

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

Quote

but then the question become: Why exchange your work for some paper that can be printed at will (to save the banks)? When people start to understand how fiat money works and lose their trust in fiat money, the risk of a systematic failure is very high, none of the insurance can cover

And yet, money has survived in its current form for hundreds of years.

The current monetary system (with money not backed by any gold) now has 42 years.

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

People know how money works.

Most of them do not even bother to think about it, which is the stage just before not having a clue about it.

Quote from: murraypaul on September 23, 2013, 11:07:26 AM

It works, for the most part, just fine.

It does for the banks, not for the rest of us - and soon it will not even do for the banks.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnyj on September 21, 2013, 11:18:08 PM

I'd rather believe it is unawareness of how bank operates instead of "accepting the risk in exchange for convenience". 1% of insurance capital means only 1% of depositors are insured

No it doesn't.
You have completely misunderstood what the words capital and insurance mean.

Quote

, it only works psychologically. Of course the banks can always print more money to reduce the risk

No they can't.
Only the central bank can 'create' money.
Normal retail banks cannot just print more money.

Quote

but then the question become: Why exchange your work for some paper that can be printed at will (to save the banks)? When people start to understand how fiat money works and lose their trust in fiat money, the risk of a systematic failure is very high, none of the insurance can cover

And yet, money has survived in its current form for hundreds of years.
People know how money works.
It works, for the most part, just fine.

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnyj on September 23, 2013, 10:43:23 AM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 09:33:16 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 23, 2013, 08:24:28 AM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 22, 2013, 07:28:06 PM

FED is playing with fire now, they have printed so much money and most of these money were hoarded (in bank accounts) when people were facing uncertain future

But when economy recovered and the future perspective improved, people will spend those stashed money and accelerate inflation. Then the only thing FED can do is to tighten the money supply by selling assets at hand. But this operation will reduce the liquidity for banks, so people will find out that they can not spend their saved money since banks have ran out of money

In a loan driven economy, this is not a problem, since most of the spending coming from the loan, when FED tightens, they reduce the spending by reducing the available loan. But after financial crisis, people are returning to "Save first, spend later" type of consumption style

This is not quite so: the reason all this new money has not yet hit the market is because the FED is paying banks interest for them to park their new reserves with itself instead of loaning them to (purely) private entities. For this to work, the FED is paying those banks an interest rate above the market, which it can only afford as long as interest rates remain at record-low levels. When interest rates finally rise, it will no longer be able to pay those above-market rates on bank reserves: banks will again prefer to loan those reserves to (purely) private entities. Then, all that money will finally do what many analysts naively regret it not yet did - hit the market.

True, I read somewhere that more than 81.5% of those QE money are sitting in the bank reserve and collect interest from FED. But as long as FED keep the interest rate extremely low for a foreseeable future, those money will not be released. But the threat comes from those highly profitable businesses like APPLE, they have already stashed huge amount of cash reserve. And it is possible there are other savings that is hidden during these years

Apple is hoarding cash on the order of magnitude of the hundreds of billions while the banks' reserves are in the order of magnitude of the trillions. Additionally, when banks finally start reusing those reserves in fractional-reserve loaning, the "multiplier effect" will turn trillions into tens of trillions (assuming an already old-fashioned reserve requirement of 1/10).

As long as FED is paying interest on those reserves, the multiplier effect is negated, there will not be inflation, but there will be high unemployment

You said yourself that 81.5% of QE money are sitting on bank reserves at the FED. What about the other 18.5%? Remember: it is 18.5% of some trillions (more money than the amount Apple is hoarding, which you were so worried about). There is inflation already: the government cannot stop changing the way of calculating its index in an increasingly desperate attempt to hide it. What the current situation "negates" is neither the "multiplier effect" itself nor hence whichever inflation, but rather just hyperinflation.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 09:33:16 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 23, 2013, 08:24:28 AM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 22, 2013, 07:28:06 PM

FED is playing with fire now, they have printed so much money and most of these money were hoarded (in bank accounts) when people were facing uncertain future

But when economy recovered and the future perspective improved, people will spend those stashed money and accelerate inflation. Then the only thing FED can do is to tighten the money supply by selling assets at hand. But this operation will reduce the liquidity for banks, so people will find out that they can not spend their saved money since banks have ran out of money

In a loan driven economy, this is not a problem, since most of the spending coming from the loan, when FED tightens, they reduce the spending by reducing the available loan. But after financial crisis, people are returning to "Save first, spend later" type of consumption style

This is not quite so: the reason all this new money has not yet hit the market is because the FED is paying banks interest for them to park their new reserves with itself instead of loaning them to (purely) private entities. For this to work, the FED is paying those banks an interest rate above the market, which it can only afford as long as interest rates remain at record-low levels. When interest rates finally rise, it will no longer be able to pay those above-market rates on bank reserves: banks will again prefer to loan those reserves to (purely) private entities. Then, all that money will finally do what many analysts naively regret it not yet did - hit the market.

True, I read somewhere that more than 81.5% of those QE money are sitting in the bank reserve and collect interest from FED. But as long as FED keep the interest rate extremely low for a foreseeable future, those money will not be released. But the threat comes from those highly profitable businesses like APPLE, they have already stashed huge amount of cash reserve. And it is possible there are other savings that is hidden during these years

Apple is hoarding cash on the order of magnitude of the hundreds of billions while the banks' reserves are in the order of magnitude of the trillions. Additionally, when banks finally start reusing those reserves in fractional-reserve loaning, the "multiplier effect" will turn trillions into tens of trillions (assuming an already old-fashioned reserve requirement of 1/10).

As long as FED is paying interest on those reserves, the multiplier effect is negated, there will not be inflation, but there will be high unemployment

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnyj on September 23, 2013, 08:24:28 AM

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 22, 2013, 07:28:06 PM

FED is playing with fire now, they have printed so much money and most of these money were hoarded (in bank accounts) when people were facing uncertain future

But when economy recovered and the future perspective improved, people will spend those stashed money and accelerate inflation. Then the only thing FED can do is to tighten the money supply by selling assets at hand. But this operation will reduce the liquidity for banks, so people will find out that they can not spend their saved money since banks have ran out of money

In a loan driven economy, this is not a problem, since most of the spending coming from the loan, when FED tightens, they reduce the spending by reducing the available loan. But after financial crisis, people are returning to "Save first, spend later" type of consumption style

This is not quite so: the reason all this new money has not yet hit the market is because the FED is paying banks interest for them to park their new reserves with itself instead of loaning them to (purely) private entities. For this to work, the FED is paying those banks an interest rate above the market, which it can only afford as long as interest rates remain at record-low levels. When interest rates finally rise, it will no longer be able to pay those above-market rates on bank reserves: banks will again prefer to loan those reserves to (purely) private entities. Then, all that money will finally do what many analysts naively regret it not yet did - hit the market.

True, I read somewhere that more than 81.5% of those QE money are sitting in the bank reserve and collect interest from FED. But as long as FED keep the interest rate extremely low for a foreseeable future, those money will not be released. But the threat comes from those highly profitable businesses like APPLE, they have already stashed huge amount of cash reserve. And it is possible there are other savings that is hidden during these years

Apple is hoarding cash on the order of magnitude of the hundreds of billions while the banks' reserves are in the order of magnitude of the trillions. Additionally, when banks finally start reusing those reserves in fractional-reserve loaning, the "multiplier effect" will turn trillions into tens of trillions (assuming an already old-fashioned reserve requirement of 1/10).

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: mirelo on September 23, 2013, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 22, 2013, 07:28:06 PM

FED is playing with fire now, they have printed so much money and most of these money were hoarded (in bank accounts) when people were facing uncertain future

But when economy recovered and the future perspective improved, people will spend those stashed money and accelerate inflation. Then the only thing FED can do is to tighten the money supply by selling assets at hand. But this operation will reduce the liquidity for banks, so people will find out that they can not spend their saved money since banks have ran out of money

In a loan driven economy, this is not a problem, since most of the spending coming from the loan, when FED tightens, they reduce the spending by reducing the available loan. But after financial crisis, people are returning to "Save first, spend later" type of consumption style

This is not quite so: the reason all this new money has not yet hit the market is because the FED is paying banks interest for them to park their new reserves with itself instead of loaning them to (purely) private entities. For this to work, the FED is paying those banks an interest rate above the market, which it can only afford as long as interest rates remain at record-low levels. When interest rates finally rise, it will no longer be able to pay those above-market rates on bank reserves: banks will again prefer to loan those reserves to (purely) private entities. Then, all that money will finally do what many analysts naively regret it not yet did - hit the market.

True, I read somewhere that more than 81.5% of those QE money are sitting in the bank reserve and collect interest from FED. But as long as FED keep the interest rate extremely low for a foreseeable future, those money will not be released. But the threat comes from those highly profitable businesses like APPLE, they have already stashed huge amount of cash reserve. And it is possible there are other savings that is hidden during these years

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnyj on September 22, 2013, 07:28:06 PM

FED is playing with fire now, they have printed so much money and most of these money were hoarded (in bank accounts) when people were facing uncertain future

But when economy recovered and the future perspective improved, people will spend those stashed money and accelerate inflation. Then the only thing FED can do is to tighten the money supply by selling assets at hand. But this operation will reduce the liquidity for banks, so people will find out that they can not spend their saved money since banks have ran out of money

In a loan driven economy, this is not a problem, since most of the spending coming from the loan, when FED tightens, they reduce the spending by reducing the available loan. But after financial crisis, people are returning to "Save first, spend later" type of consumption style

This is not quite so: the reason all this new money has not yet hit the market is because the FED is paying banks interest for them to park their new reserves with itself instead of loaning them to (purely) private entities. For this to work, the FED is paying those banks an interest rate above the market, which it can only afford as long as interest rates remain at record-low levels. When interest rates finally rise, it will no longer be able to pay those above-market rates on bank reserves: banks will again prefer to loan those reserves to (purely) private entities. Then, all that money will finally do what many analysts naively regret it not yet did - hit the market.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

FED is playing with fire now, they have printed so much money and most of these money were hoarded (in bank accounts) when people were facing uncertain future

But when economy recovered and the future perspective improved, people will spend those stashed money and accelerate inflation. Then the only thing FED can do is to tighten the money supply by selling assets at hand. But this operation will reduce the liquidity for banks, so people will find out that they can not spend their saved money since banks have ran out of money

In a loan driven economy, this is not a problem, since most of the spending coming from the loan, when FED tightens, they reduce the spending by reducing the available loan. But after financial crisis, people are returning to "Save first, spend later" type of consumption style

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: grue on September 22, 2013, 02:27:57 PM

Really? So you believe that most people are unaware that banks operate on a fractional reserve system? I would argue that anyone coming out of highschool would know:

banks lend/invest depositor's money*

as corollary, banks do not have enough "cash" on hand to cover every depositor's deposits (aka fractional reserve)**

in the case of bank failure, part or all their deposits may be lost***

You over estimate 99% of high-school graduates. Even studying business economics I am lumped in with the 99%
* Agreed this is understood most believed banks "lend/invest depositor's money" but @ 1:1, FRB is not understood.

** "Not having enough "cash" on hand" didn't defalt to FRB, it is understood that not all money is in cash (notes and coin) and it is never all stored at the bank.

*** Not so your deposit is understood to be insured by the government.

My money in the Bank is understood to be "my money"

When the Bank uses FRB the problem is understood if you imagine money as a commodity everyone uses, like wheat, it is a problem when the economy shrinks and you draw on your reserves only to find they are imaginary. Now using FRB and dealing in the opposite of a commodity I.e. an IOU for a commodity or time value equivalent, just results in printing more IOU's. The net effect is way worse than a run on the Bank. It is immoral and results in the 99% partaking in voluntary slavery.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1431

Quote from: johnyj on September 21, 2013, 11:18:08 PM

I'd rather believe it is unawareness of how bank operates instead of "accepting the risk in exchange for convenience". 1% of insurance capital means only 1% of depositors are insured, it only works psychologically. Of course the banks can always print more money to reduce the risk, but then the question become: Why exchange your work for some paper that can be printed at will (to save the banks)? When people start to understand how fiat money works and lose their trust in fiat money, the risk of a systematic failure is very high, none of the insurance can cover

Suppose that fiat money start to lose its purchase power 20% per year, and people start to withdraw all their savings to purchase value holding assets like gold and bitcoin, what can FDIC help?

Really? So you believe that most people are unaware that banks operate on a fractional reserve system? I would argue that anyone coming out of highschool would know:

banks lend/invest depositor's money
as corollary, banks do not have enough "cash" on hand to cover every depositor's deposits (aka fractional reserve)
in the case of bank failure, part or all their deposits may be lost

Quote from: benjamindees on September 22, 2013, 07:46:41 AM

Bitcointalk: the forum of a revolutionary new cryptocurrency, where the moderators don't understand the downsides of fiat and fractional reserve, and argue that government regulation is a good thing.

I could've sworn this place was populated by relatively intelligent people at one point, but that memory is getting pretty fuzzy.

Ad hominem
For the record, I am aware of the downsides of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. Also, I never argued that "government regulation is a good thing". That is a strawman.

mirelo

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Quote from: benjamindees on September 22, 2013, 07:46:41 AM

Quote from: grue on September 21, 2013, 03:43:09 PM

Quote from: mirelo on September 21, 2013, 12:30:56 PM

Quote from: grue on September 21, 2013, 11:20:19 AM

What exactly is wrong with losing ownership of the money? Deposit insurance covers in case of a bank failure. It's technically a IOU, but the possibility of not being able to withdraw their is slim. What you're arguing over is semantics. Yes, the money deposited in a bank is an IOU, but for all intents and purposes it's just as good as real money.

If you cannot see anything wrong with losing ownership of your money, then why don't you give it all to me?

Because:

you don't have deposit insurance
you can't give me my money at moment's notice
i don't know or trust you
you are not bound by any government regulation or audits

Bitcointalk: the forum of a revolutionary new cryptocurrency, where the moderators don't understand the downsides of fiat and fractional reserve, and argue that government regulation is a good thing.

I could've sworn this place was populated by relatively intelligent people at one point, but that memory is getting pretty fuzzy.

Government regulation is a good thing: no cartel survives much without it.

Topic: The Myth of Money as the Mere Concept of an IOU - page 2. (Read 5132 times)