Hacker News Reader

> 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.

Yes, it creates credit that people think is money. I suspect that's a big problem with it. People think their money is in the bank. Instead the bank is just extending them some credit that they can pass on to others when they "purchase" something.

I feel like there are quite a lot of people here that do not understand that the relationship between theories of money and the actual day-to-day operations of banks is about as close as that between weather forecasting and umbrella manufacturing.

This is the way. It's too bad this can't be pinned to the top. Thanks for laying this out so clearly.

It may be clear but it's not correct.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35108659

> 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 now have an asset (the loan) and your friend has a liability (the debt) and the amount of M1 or M2 money in supply has not changed.

When a bank gives someone a loan M1/M2 increases (unlike in your loan-between-friends example). The increase in "currency in circulation plus deposits" is the very thing that those numbers try to measure.

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.

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.

>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.

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.]")

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.

Sure one thing can be offset by another.

One may also say that turning up the heater doesn't increase the temperature of a room - because I open the window at the same time.

Anyway, my point was that saying that bank lending is like lending money to a friend and "You now have an asset (the loan) and your friend has a liability (the debt) and the amount of M1 or M2 money in supply has not changed." doesn't make sense.

M1 would change if it was defined as "currency in circulation plus debts between friends" and the "oh, but my friend would sell the debt to the central bank or whatever in the end so there is no change in money supply" argument seems goalpost moving. The original analogy doesn't work and bank lending does increase money supply everything else being equal.

>Still, my point was that saying that bank lending is like lending money to a friend and "You now have an asset (the loan) and your friend has a liability (the debt) and the amount of M1 or M2 money in supply has not changed." doesn't make sense.

On the one hand, you go to a friend and say "hey, can you lend me $100; I'll pay you back $105 in a year?" and your friend agrees.

On the other hand, your friend puts $100 into a 12 month CD, and the bank pays him a 2% interest rate. The bank then turns around and lends $100 to you as a 12 month personal loan with 5% APR.

Can you not see why there are some who would say "it is obviously wrong to suggest money has been created in the second case, but not the first" or indeed "in neither case has money been created"?

By the way, in case it is not obvious: the fact you don't have a compelling rationale to make me believe your description of the world, and I don't have a compelling rationale to convince you of my view of the world is why there are multiple competing theories.

I am not trying to tell you that you're wrong; just that you're not right.

I don't debate any of that!

I'm just claiming that saying that M2 money supply doesn't change in the second case is wrong because it has been defined to measure exactly that. Under the assumption that money has been created in the second case, but not the first - whether we find that obviously wrong or not is irrelevant.

> the fact you don't have a compelling rationale to make me believe your description of the world

I'm only trying to make you believe that the thing that seanhunter wrote is seems incompatible with his own definition of money supply which makes the bank loan situation different from the friend loan situation.

No; M2 has been defined to measure the money stock. You're a believer in the credit theory of money creation, so you obviously think increase in the money stock happens due to lending. If you're a believer in the financial intermediation theory, you don't think that - you think the central bank adds to or removes from the money stock (by controlling short-term interest rates, and therefore the amount of loanable funds), and the banks just move it around.

These are macro theories; they don't tell you anything at all about an individual loan - only aggregate behavior of the entire system.

I'm not a believer in anything.

The only think I've been repeating all along is that in your own example

  On the one hand, you go to a friend and say "hey, can you lend me $100; I'll pay you back $105 in a year?" and your friend agrees.

  On the other hand, your friend puts $100 into a 12 month CD, and the bank pays him a 2% interest rate. The bank then turns around and lends $100 to you as a 12 month personal loan with 5% APR.

M2 goes up in the second case where they end with $100 each (but doesn't in the first case where $100 change hands) because the example doesn't include any mention to a central bank removing from the money stock.

In the first case, the friend has given you $100 and won't see it back for a year, and then will get $5 interest.

In the second case, the friend has given the bank $100 and won't see it back for a year, and will then get $2 interest. The bank then lends you $100 which it won't see back for a year, and will then get $5 in interest.

The cases are economically the same; except in the second case, the bank takes the net interest margin of $3.

The second case, scaled up hugely, is observably what happens in the real world; it's not my theoretical construct. I refer you again to JP Morgan's balance sheet - the extent to which assets (mostly loans) exceed liabilities (mostly deposits) is simply the equity of the bank. That's the whole point of a balance sheet; it balances. If deposits exceed loans then, well, we saw what happens there, right?

You can't break half of the balance sheet off and say "look, these loans are increasing deposits at other banks; M2 has gone up"; that's literally meaningless.

> that's literally meaningless.

But that's literally the definition of M2. You look at the currency in circulation, the deposits at banks and other things not present in that example and you add them up.

(I'm not sure why would you think that I'm not aware that the balance sheet of a bank is full of deposits and loans among other things, by the way. The whole discussion is about banks taking deposits and making loans!)

I'm confused. Under link [3] you posted, the section entitled "Fractional Reserve Banking Process" states the following:

>The fractional reserve banking process creates money that is inserted into the economy. When you deposit that $2,000, your bank might lend 10% of it to other customers, along with 10% from five other customers' accounts. This creates a loan of $1,000 for the customer needing a loan.

>The bank essentially created $1,000 and lent it to the borrower.

The above explanation was always my understanding. Is this a case of semantics?