Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. US Housing Market Real Estate Crash The Next Shoe To Drop – Part II - Chris_Vermeulen
2.The Coronavirus Greatest Economic Depression in History? - Nadeem_Walayat
3.US Real Estate Housing Market Crash Is The Next Shoe To Drop - Chris_Vermeulen
4.Coronavirus Stock Market Trend Implications and AI Mega-trend Stocks Buying Levels - Nadeem_Walayat
5. Are Coronavirus Death Statistics Exaggerated? Worse than Seasonal Flu or Not?- Nadeem_Walayat
6.Coronavirus Stock Market Trend Implications, Global Recession and AI Stocks Buying Levels - Nadeem_Walayat
7.US Fourth Turning Accelerating Towards Debt Climax - James_Quinn
8.Dow Stock Market Trend Analysis and Forecast - Nadeem_Walayat
9.Britain's FAKE Coronavirus Death Statistics Exposed - Nadeem_Walayat
10.Commodity Markets Crash Catastrophe Charts - Rambus_Chartology
Last 7 days
Has the Fed Let the Inflation Genie Out of the Bottle? - 10th Aug 20
The Strange Food Trend That’s Making Investors Rich - 10th Aug 20
Supply & Demand For Money – The End of Inflation? - 10th Aug 20
Revisiting Our Silver and Gold Predictions – Get Ready For Higher Prices - 10th Aug 20
Storm Clouds Are Gathering for a Major Stock and Commodity Markets Downturn - 10th Aug 20
A 90-Year-Old Stock Market Investment Insight That's Relevant in 2020 - 10th Aug 20
Debt and Dollar Collapse Leading to Potential Stock Market Melt-Up, - 10th Aug 20
Coronavirus: UK Parents Demand ALL Schools OPEN September, 7 Million Children Abandoned by Teachers - 9th Aug 20
Computer GPU Fans Not Spinning Quick FIX - Sticky Fans Solution - 9th Aug 20
Find the Best Speech Converter for You - 9th Aug 20
Silver Bull Market Update - 7th Aug 20
This Inflation-Adjusted Silver Chart Tells An Interesting Story - 7th Aug 20
The Great American Housing Boom Has Begun - 7th Aug 20
NATURAL GAS BEGINS UPSIDE BREAKOUT MOVE - 7th Aug 20
Know About Lotteries With The Best Odds Of Winning - 7th Aug 20
Could Gold Price Reach $7,000 by 2030? - 6th Aug 20
Bananas for All! Keep Dancing… FOMC - 6th Aug 20
How to Do Bets During This Time - 6th Aug 20
How to develop your stock trading strategy - 6th Aug 20
Stock Investors What to do if Trump Bans TikTok - 5th Aug 20
Gold Trifecta of Key Signals for Gold Mining Stocks - 5th Aug 20
ARE YOU LOVING YOUR SERVITUDE? - 5th Aug 20
Stock Market Uptrend Continues? - 4th Aug 20
The Dimensions of Covid-19: The Hong Kong Flu Redux - 4th Aug 20
High Yield Junk Bonds Are Hot Again -- Despite Warning Signs - 4th Aug 20
Gold Stocks Autumn Rally - 4th Aug 20
“Government Sachs” Is Worried About the Federal Reserve Note - 4th Aug 20
Gold Miners Still Pushing That Cart of Rocks Up Hill - 4th Aug 20
UK Government to Cancel Christmas - Crazy Covid Eid 2020! - 4th Aug 20
Covid-19 Exposes NHS Institutional Racism Against Black and Asian Staff and Patients - 4th Aug 20
How Sony Is Fueling the Computer Vision Boom - 3rd Aug 20
Computer Gaming System Rig Top Tips For 6 Years Future Proofing Build Spec - 3rd Aug 20
Cornwwall Bude Caravan Park Holidays 2020 - Look Inside Holiday Resort Caravan - 3rd Aug 20
UK Caravan Park Holidays 2020 Review - Hoseasons Cayton Bay North East England - 3rd Aug 20
Best Travel Bags for 2020 Summer Holidays , Back Sling packs, water proof, money belt and tactical - 3rd Aug 20
Precious Metals Warn Of Increased Volatility Ahead - 2nd Aug 20
The Key USDX Sign for Gold and Silver - 2nd Aug 20
Corona Crisis Will Have Lasting Impact on Gold Market - 2nd Aug 20
Gold & Silver: Two Pictures - 1st Aug 20
The Bullish Case for Stocks Isn't Over Yet - 1st Aug 20
Is Gold Price Action Warning Of Imminent Monetary Collapse - Part 2? - 1st Aug 20
Will America Accept the World's Worst Pandemic Response Government - 1st Aug 20
Stock Market Technical Patterns, Future Expectations and More – Part II - 1st Aug 20
Trump White House Accelerating Toward a US Dollar Crisis - 31st Jul 20
Why US Commercial Real Estate is Set to Get Slammed - 31st Jul 20
Gold Price Blows Through Upside Resistance - The Chase Is On - 31st Jul 20
Is Crude Oil Price Setting Up for a Waterfall Decline? - 31st Jul 20
Stock Market Technical Patterns, Future Expectations and More - 30th Jul 20
Why Big Money Is Already Pouring Into Edge Computing Tech Stocks - 30th Jul 20
Economic and Geopolitical Worries Fuel Gold’s Rally - 30th Jul 20
How to Finance an Investment Property - 30th Jul 20
I Hate Banks - Including Goldman Sachs - 29th Jul 20
NASDAQ Stock Market Double Top & Price Channels Suggest Pending Price Correction - 29th Jul 20
Silver Price Surge Leaves Naysayers in the Dust - 29th Jul 20
UK Supermarket Covid-19 Shop - Few Masks, Lack of Social Distancing (Tesco) - 29th Jul 20
Budgie Clipped Wings, How Long Before it Can Fly Again? - 29th Jul 20
How To Take Advantage Of Tesla's 400% Stock Surge - 29th Jul 20
Gold Makes Record High and Targets $6,000 in New Bull Cycle - 28th Jul 20
Gold Strong Signal For A Secular Bull Market - 28th Jul 20
Anatomy of a Gold and Silver Precious Metals Bull Market - 28th Jul 20
Shopify Is Seizing an $80 Billion Pot of Gold - 28th Jul 20
Stock Market Minor Correction Underway - 28th Jul 20
Why College Is Never Coming Back - 27th Jul 20
Stocks Disconnect from Economy, Gold Responds - 27th Jul 20
Silver Begins Big Upside Rally Attempt - 27th Jul 20
The Gold and Silver Markets Have Changed… What About You? - 27th Jul 20
Google, Apple And Amazon Are Leading A $30 Trillion Assault On Wall Street - 27th Jul 20
This Stock Market Indicator Reaches "Lowest Level in Nearly 20 Years" - 26th Jul 20
New Wave of Economic Stimulus Lifts Gold Price - 26th Jul 20
Stock Market Slow Grind Higher Above the Early June Stock Highs - 26th Jul 20
How High Will Silver Go? - 25th Jul 20
If You Own Gold, Look Out Below - 25th Jul 20
Crude Oil and Energy Sets Up Near Major Resistance – Breakdown Pending - 25th Jul 20
FREE Access to Premium Market Forecasts by Elliott Wave International - 25th Jul 20
The Promise of Silver as August Approaches: Accumulation and Conversation - 25th Jul 20
The Silver Bull Gateway is at Hand - 24th Jul 20
The Prospects of S&P 500 Above the Early June Highs - 24th Jul 20
How Silver Could Surpass Its All-Time High - 24th Jul 20

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

How to Get Rich Investing in Stocks by Riding the Electron Wave

The Form of Saving Matters For Free-market Fractional Reserve Banking

Economics / Economic Theory Aug 09, 2010 - 10:11 AM GMT

By: Robert_Murphy

Economics

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleAlthough Austrian economists agree on most of the "big picture" issues, even so there are some internal controversies. One of the most heated debates within the Austrian camp centers on the economic benefits (or lack thereof) of the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Just about every Austrian today thinks that our current financial system — cartelized and propped up by the government — is prone to excessive inflation and the boom-bust cycle.


Even so, many prominent Austrian banking experts believe that in a truly free market, private institutions could usefully engage in limited fractional-reserve banking (see, e.g., Steve Horwitz's book). On the other hand, Murray Rothbard and his followers thought that fractional-reserve banking per se was illegitimate and economically harmful.

In the present article I respond to a very thoughtful analysis from Bill Woolsey, who tries to show the economic equivalence between conventional household saving through bond purchases and household saving via the accumulation of more money created by the banking system. I'll point out that there are important differences between the two scenarios, and that Woolsey has not really met the Rothbardian challenge to fractional-reserve banking.

Woolsey's Case for Bank Money Creation

In the interest of brevity, I can't reproduce Woolsey's full blog post, but it really is one of the clearest and most succinct expositions of what is dubbed the "free-banking" position on these matters. Below I excerpt just enough to bring the reader up to speed:

My view is that only an excess supply of money can possibly lead to malinvestment. If the quantity of money and supply of credit rises to match an increase in the demand to hold money, the consequences are the same as an increase in the supply of credit due to an increase in the demand for bonds.

Let's stop right there. The standard Misesian/Hayekian explanation of the business cycle is that the commercial banks arbitrarily increase the supply of loanable funds, even though the community hasn't actually increased its real savings. (I describe how a commercial bank can "create money out of thin air" here.) In order to lend out the newly created funds, the banks lower the actual market rate of interest below the "natural" rate. At the false, artificially depressed interest rate, businesses borrow too much money and begin long-term projects that society doesn't have enough actual savings to complete. This is what happens during an unsustainable boom, such as the recent housing bubble.

Just about all modern Austrians agree with this basic story. The disagreement arises in the case when the commercial banks increase the supply of loanable funds in response to a sudden increase in demand to hold money. In this case, people like Steve Horwitz and Bill Woolsey believe that the banks do not set in motion a boom–bust cycle. On the contrary, they think that the banks merely offset painful readjustments that would otherwise have to take place to restore equilibrium between the supply and demand for actual money balances. In this scenario, claim the "free bankers," the banks' creation of new money doesn't disturb the economy at all, because in the new equilibrium, producers haven't been given an artificial incentive to start projects for which there is inadequate real savings.

Let's return to Woolsey and let him make his case:

[The free bankers'] approach focuses on a scenario where an increase in the demand to hold bank deposits or banknotes is an increase in saving. Households reduce consumption out of current income and accumulate bank liabilities. The banks expand their lending, issuing new money to borrowers. The monetary equilibrium theorists argue that the increase in the quantity of money just offsets the decrease in velocity, and so there is no addition to the stream of monetary expenditures to cause malinvestment.

The Rothbardians, however, insist that the … [new] money issued to fund bank loans … still distorts relative prices because it doesn't go exactly to those individuals who demanded more money by reducing their monetary expenditures. They accuse the monetary equilibrium theorists of "macroeconomic thinking."

I side with the monetary equilibrium theorists in this debate. The element of truth in the Rothbardian argument is that there is little doubt that the process of money creation does impact relative prices. Where he and his followers go wrong is in assuming that any changes in the pattern of relative prices resulting from an increase in the quantity of money that matches an increase in the demand to hold money is usefully characterized as malinvestment.

The best way to see this is to compare the effects of a change in the demand for bonds with a change in the demand for money. Following the conventional approach, I will start with a scenario where there is an increase in saving by households. Some particular households spend less of their incomes on consumer goods and services. Those households save. Savings in aggregate increase as well. This saving could take the form of purchasing bonds or it could take the form of accumulating money.

First, suppose that some households increase saving, reducing their consumption out of income and instead use the money they earn to purchase corporate bonds.…

Woolsey then spells out how the economy readjusts to the higher level of saving — in the form of more corporate bonds held by the public — by sustainably lengthening the structure of production.

[Now, on the other hand, s]uppose that the households increase saving by reducing consumption expenditures out of income, exactly as before, but instead of spending the money on corporate bonds, they instead increase their money balances. The effects on those from whom the households would have purchased the consumer goods are the same. They sell less and earn less. They hire less labor and use fewer other resources. The incomes earned by those workers and other resource owners fall.

Assume that the banks expand their lending at this same time, and lend out newly created money exactly equal to the amount of money the households have accumulated. The quantity of money expands exactly the same amount as the demand to hold money.

Further assume that the banks expand lending by purchasing corporate bonds, the exact same corporate bonds that the households purchased in the previous scenario. The market interest rate decreases exactly in the same way as before. The added demand for corporate bonds raises their prices and lowers their yields. This creates the exact same signal and incentive for firms to purchase additional capital goods. As before, the firms purchasing the capital goods finance the purchase by issuing new corporate bonds.

Those selling those same capital goods receive greater profits. The increased profitability of producing additional capital goods creates a signal and incentive, exactly as before, to direct more financing into this field of endeavor, and so raises the demand for labor and existing capital goods to expand the production of capital goods.

Using Austrian terminology, the change in demands, away from consumer goods and to capital goods, and the decrease in the market interest rate, results in a shift in the structure of production away from lower order goods to higher order goods. Less production is directed towards the production of consumer goods in the near future and more towards the production of consumer goods in the more distant future. Again, the gap between the prices of resources and their products shifts to reflect the new lower interest rate.

Let's review to make sure we understand Woolsey's point: He first walked us through a standard scenario where households save more by cutting back on consumption spending, and by increasing their purchases of corporate bonds. (In this scenario, the banks don't mess with the total supply of money in the economy.) The switch in household spending causes consumer sectors to contract, interest rates to fall, and higher-level capital-goods sectors to expand. This is the Austrian description of normal, sustainable economic growth through savings and investment.

Woolsey then argues that the same physical adjustments would occur in the structure of the economy if the households decided to increase their saving not by buying corporate bonds, but instead by accumulating larger cash balances. Now, if the banks stood idly by while this process unfolded, the prices of goods and services (in general) would fall, because households want to hold more money, but there's the same amount of money to go around.

However, if the banks intervene and create more money — in the exact quantity that households want to increase their cash balances — then there is no reason for the overall level of prices to change. Some prices still go down (in the consumer-goods sectors), while others go up (in the capital-goods sectors). If we further suppose that the commercial banks "create" the new money by granting new loans to businesses in the capital-goods sectors, Woolsey concludes that the economic transformation is identical to the standard case. So how could Rothbardians endorse the former scenario but reject the latter?

Two Problems With Woolsey's Analysis

In an online article, I obviously can't give a definitive treatment to these complex matters. But I want to point out two major shortcomings in Woolsey's analysis.

First, Woolsey is simply begging the question when he claims that the money created in the second scenario would flow precisely to those businesses that would have benefited from household bond purchases in the first scenario. To his credit, Woolsey acknowledges that his story relies on "heroic assumptions." But he doesn't seem to realize that one of his heroic assumptions is, "The Rothbardians are wrong when they accuse the free bankers of engaging in crude 'macroeconomic thinking.'" It is not surprising, then, that Woolsey is able to conclude that the Rothbardians were wrong to accuse their opponents of relying on crude macroeconomic thinking.

This is a crucial point, so let me restate it: With a fixed stock of money in the economy, suppose some households decide to save more by restricting their purchases of consumer goods (TVs, iPhones, etc.) and accumulating extra cash balances. At the same time, the other households in the community want to maintain their original levels of saving, investment, and cash balances.

Overall, the community's demand to hold money has increased, while the stock or supply of money is constant. This means that the "price" of money must increase, which is the same thing as saying that its purchasing power must increase. In other words, prices of goods and services in general must fall.

In the new equilibrium, the households who want to accumulate larger cash balances will have more dollar bills in their bank accounts and/or in their wallets, whereas the other households will have smaller bank accounts and currency holdings. However, because prices in general would have fallen, the households who saw their money holdings drop will still have the same purchasing power in their (smaller) cash holdings.

On the other hand, the households who wanted to increase their money holdings would actually have more purchasing power than one would think by just looking at the increase in the number of dollar bills to their names. For not only have they taken possession of a larger fraction of the (fixed) number of dollar bills in the economy (both in the form of checking account balances and actual currency), but now prices in general are lower. So the amount of purchasing power in their overall wealth has increased, which is just what they had intended when they began accumulating money.

Here's a tricky point: The change in some households' behavior won't merely rearrange the community's holdings of cash balances and lower the price level. It will also lead to a lengthening in the structure of production. This is because the households who accumulated extra cash didn't cut back on their expenditures symmetrically, but instead focused their cutbacks on consumer goods. In other words, the households who wanted to hold more money didn't say, "This month we're contributing less to our Individual Retirement Account and less to the local diner." On the contrary, they said, "This month we're still investing the same amounts from our paycheck in life-insurance premiums and our IRA, but we're cutting back on dining out, and then socking that money into our checking account."

"The Rothbardians level an objection, saying the free bankers are ignoring an important real-world consideration; then Woolsey assumes away the problem and declares that he has met the Rothbardian objection."

In the grand scheme, what happens is that the "general price level" falls because the prices in consumer sectors fall, while prices in capital goods sectors stay about the same. This leads to a shift of actual, physical resources away from making TVs and iPhones, and into the production of drill presses and other tools.

We are finally ready to reiterate the Rothbardian objection to the so-called free-banking argument: If the commercial banks see that the general price level is falling because some households are trying to accumulate larger cash holdings, and the banks respond by creating more money, then this process in practice cannot possibly reproduce the same sectoral adjustments, with the only difference being that the overall price level will stay constant.

There are many reasons for this. In the first place, suppose that the banks somehow could isolate the households who wanted to accumulate more cash, and simply gave it to them. This action would eliminate the need for prices in general to fall. But at the same time, it would also obliterate the differential spending on consumer- versus capital-goods sectors. Before, when a household wanted to, say, build up an extra $500 in its checking account, the household would have to cut back on $500 worth of spending on restaurants, movie tickets, etc. But now, if the banks simply add $500 to certain households' checking account balances — without subtracting numbers from anybody else's checking accounts — then these households will have achieved their objective without needing to cut back on spending anywhere else.

Of course, in practice the banks don't "offset an increased demand to hold cash" in this fashion. But I walked through that point to show that if they did, then clearly they would not be "restoring equilibrium" but would instead distort the saving "signal" that the households would have sent.

So let us suppose that we still have households trying to accumulate more money balances, which is starting to cause a general fall in prices. This time, the banks intervene by creating more money. But rather than simply handing it over as a gift to those households who wanted to save more, instead the banks offer loans to businesses at a lower interest rate. This expansion in the amount of loans creates more total money (in the form of checking account reserves) in the community, so that now the households can increase their money balances without causing a general decline in prices.

Here is the crucial Rothbardian objection: What reason do we have to suppose that the people who get the new bank loans in this scenario will be precisely the ones who would have sold more bonds in the scenario where the household savers simply bought more bonds? In general, the Rothbardians argue, the banks' creation of new money will benefit the clients of the expanding banks, endowing the bankers and their prime clients with extra purchasing power, at the expense of everyone else in the community. By focusing on broader aggregates such as "supply and demand for money," the free bankers are overlooking these issues of who gets the new funding, under the two scenarios of (1) households buying more bonds and (2) private banks issuing new loans.

To repeat, Woolsey thinks he has answered this objection by telling a story in which the banks do lend money to precisely those firms who would have sold more corporate bonds to the public, in the first scenario. And then Woolsey admits that this is a "heroic assumption." Does everyone see the problem here? The Rothbardians level an objection, saying the free bankers are ignoring an important real-world consideration, then Woolsey assumes away the problem and declares that he has met the Rothbardian objection.

The Form of Saving Matters

There is a second problem with Woolsey's entire discussion: He acts as if the form of saving were irrelevant. But in the real world, surely it matters to the individual household whether additional savings take the form of a higher cash balance or a larger stockpile of corporate bonds. The obvious difference is that cash balances don't earn interest but they are much more liquid than corporate bonds.

Therefore, I challenge the entire premise of Woolsey's argument. He is trying to show that the injection of new money by banks, can make increased household saving of money the same as increased household purchases of bonds. But that can't possibly be right, because in the real world it definitely does make a difference if households want to collectively stockpile more cash rather than stockpiling more corporate bonds.

Because Woolsey's simple model can't account for the distinction between savings in the form of money balances and in the form of bonds, we should be suspicious of its use to validate the free-banking position on a question where this distinction is important.

Conclusion

Bill Woolsey has offered a very clear and succinct summary of the case for free-market fractional-reserve banking. Yet he hasn't really addressed the Rothbardian objections. Instead he has assumed them away by creating a model where the objections aren't allowed to operate.

Robert Murphy, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a faculty member of the Mises University, runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, the Human Action Study Guide, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Send him mail. See Robert P. Murphy's article archives. Comment on the blog.

© 2010 Copyright Robert Murphy - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Comments

Shelby Moore
09 Aug 10, 18:09
Fractional banking not free market

This article is pointless, because saving in cash on fractional reserve system is stealing:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21650.html

Systems that enable mass denied theft can not possibly be characterized as free market (nor prosperous).

Even if the saving is not fractional reserve loanable (i.e. under the mattress), the masses can steal in denial, via money printing by the government.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules