Comment by giardini | Hacker News Reader

Comment by giardini | Hacker News Reader

Bankers are not necessarily evil but their incompetence/greed appears unbounded. Reference the current credit crisis and mortgage blowout. It is quite obvious that we can no longer allow them to make decisions and that the process of loan approval will have to be automated and safety checks (independent auditing) added. And bye-bye "investment banking" that has any government protection.

And how would the OP or anyone else know the Federal Reserve Board does "a half decent job?"

"Money is not debt" - Did he mean "currency is not debt"? When I borrow $10k at the bank, money is created (they need only maintain a fractional reserve) and there is also an associated debt created - I owe the bank $10k. The "money" and the debt are unconditionally linked.

I think he's overspecified his point, that possibly being that macroeconomists have no trustworthy predictive models. Inotherwords, he's repeating part of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's work: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=472964

This article, recently posted here, as well as my comments on it, should help you escape from your fallacious "bankers are evil" reasoning. Bankers are not evil. They're hard working, competent people most of whom have little to do with the mess we're currently in.

> When I borrow $10k at the bank, money is created

This is a perfect example of the kind of misunderstanding the OP was talking about. Money is created by depositing money at a bank, not by the bank lending it. Banks only lend base money, and it's illegal for them to print that.

Of course, people usually don't take the cash loan directly, but have the money deposited at the bank instead, which results in money (in the form of current account balances) being created. But it's the act of depositing, not the act of borrowing, that creates the money. If they took the cash, no money would be created.

Banks don't create money. When you deposit money, they give you the promise that you can have it back, but you are no longer owner of the money. Similarly, when you borrow money, they let you have some of their money (when you withdraw) on promise that you pay it back, with interest.

Banks don't create money. Government institutions do.

A current account is a bit like a short-term bond. It is a valuable commodity that is created by banks and can be traded in the market. The difference is that bank trading systems allow current account balances to be used directly as payment, without having to be converted into cash first. Therefore the current accounts themselves are being used as payment, and count as money in their own right.

This is why current account balances are counted in all the official measures of money quantities, including the most strict measures such as M0.

Account balances are not a part of M0. M0 is all of the bills and coins in existence. Your bank does not have all of the bills to back all of its customers account balances. Account balances are part of M1.

There is a subtle but important difference between money and currency. Only government creates currency, which is-a money. However, both banks and government can create money in other ways, such as through the fractional reserve system or through buying/selling securities (government only).

This is a bit of a mistake because fractional lending is creating money. If I deposit $100 in a bank and that bank lends you $100, $200 is in use even though only $100 exists.

If you deposit $100 at a bank then you will receive a $100 bank account. That account is the additional money. It remains money whether or not the bank lends out your original $100. So the money is created in the act of depositing, not the act of lending.

If the bank doesn't lend, no additional money is created. They could just hold on to it.

Whether they hold onto it or not is irrelevant. If a company issues a bond, but doesn't spend the money it has been loaned, the bond still exists. If the bank issues you with a current account, but doesn't spend the money you loaned it, the current account still exists. The current account is the new money. It exists. You could spend it by transferring it and yet the bank still has the original $100.

I stand by what I've said thus far and am finished.

If my company deposits a sun at a bank, my accountants will treat the deposit as an asset. If I then take out a loan from the same bank, that 'new' money is then treated as an asset. Companies and banks can trade on these 'assets,' in the form of stocks and bonds. In this way, the same money can be treated as an asset several times and the money supply, in the form of credit, can be effectively expanded. Reputable banks wouldn't allow this, but it's completely legal.

The way your accountants record your assets makes no difference to the money supply. That is a completely separate issue.

You are both right. When it comes to the Money Supply economists talk about M0 which is actual currency issued by the federal reserve (or your countries equivalent).

Then there are M1 to M3 which are count increasingly less hard money and those do consists of money created when banks lend money in the fractional reserve system. Banks can only lend money when people deposit so in this way you are both right.

For more see the wikipedia Money Supply page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

the federal reserve (or your countries equivalent)

This can be simplified to the phrase "the central bank".

You are right of course.

Er, did you read the whole post?

I’ve done a fair bit of reading on topics like the Federal Reserve and money creation, like any good amateur, and the only thing I know for certain is that it’s insanely complex.

In the final paragraph he's obviously being facetious.

That's not the impression I got. I go the impression that he was saying that because these things are incredibly complex, these opinion are necessarily wrong because they come from inexperts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com