Banks Make Money Out of Thin Air?

Conspirator

Prince
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
388
What do you guys know about fractional reserve banking and the 'multiplier effect' which is used by all modern banks when making loans? Effectively when someone wants a loan, the loan is created out of thin air, it is not someone's deposit they loan.

If you were to deposit £100 into a bank, the bank is obliged only to reserve £10 of that £100 in the Bank of England, and is now allowed to loan out £90. The only thing is that rather than loaning out the £90 it has its vault, what the bank does it 'create' £90 out of thin air, because when you sign the piece of paper saying you will pay back that £90, that very promissory note is worth £90. So the bank actually has £190 in its balance sheet.

If the person who loaned £90 spent it on some clothes and the clothes store manager deposited £90 into the same bank that loaned it out, that bank is now allowed to loan out £81 of new money. This can continue until the bank has created £1000 out of £100.

This is called fractional reserve banking and it is how modern banking functions. Banks are allowed to create money out of thin air, and charge interest on that money. The weird thing is that because banks don't produce the interest, i.e. when they loan out the £900 out of £100 they don't also loan out the interest to pay that back, there is always going to be a shortfall of currency in the economy, therefore someone will always be in debt, so more debt needs to be created to pay the interest on that £900 of newly created money. Which simply makes more interest payable. Basically we're all in a massive debt cycle - we won't ever be out of debt because when all national, business and private debt is payed off there won't be a single pound in the economy!

Apparently Abraham Lincoln decided to abolish this system because he was offered ridiculous interest charges on loans to fight the confederate south, so what he did was simply print his own debt-free money. This was very easy to do, and can be done right now. Instead of the government borrowing money from private banks - who create the money out of thin air - the american government gave itself an interest free loan. This is what the London Times had to say about this:

"if that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in th history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

There are many people advocating monetary reform at current, and what they mean by monetary reform is a change to this damaging system of perpetual debt creation which simply serves to prolong our destruction of the planet (new debt needs to be created to pay off old debt, so more and more resources need to be plundered).

Here are some of the propositions of the monetary reformers:

1. A return to the gold standard (or silver standard or bimetallism).

2. The issuance of interest-free credit from a government-controlled and fully owned central bank. These interest free but repayable loans would be used for public infrastructure and productive private investment. This proposal seeks to overcome the charge that debt-free money would cause inflation.

3.The issuance of social credit - "debt-free" money issued directly from the Treasury - rather than the sourcing of fresh money from a central bank in the form of interest-bearing bonds. These direct cash payments would be made to "replenish" or compensate the populace for the net losses some monetary reformers believe the populace suffers in a fractional reserve-based monetary system.[11][12]

4.The enforcement of full reserve banking for the privately-owned banking system. (i.e. banks can only loan what they physically have in their vaults)

Here is a link to a documentary that explains how this all came about:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#

For those who don't want to watch it:

Banking began when goldsmiths started storing other people's golds in their vaults for safe keeping, and in return the goldsmith would give a receipt, or a note, for the amount deposited. Over time the goldsmith started loaning out his own gold, but what he found was that instead of asking for the gold, the borrowers would ask for a receipt. Over time these receipts were used instead of gold in the local city because everyone had faith that the goldsmith backed up the receipts with gold in his vaults.

Eventually the goldsmith realised that people never came in to collect the gold, and instead just traded with the receipts. As more and more people started asking for loans, he decided to do a crafty thing. He wrote receipts out for gold that he did not possess. This is fractional reserve banking. And it is what banks do to this day. Banks don't make 6% interest on the loan, they make 100% on the principle, as well as 6% interest.

What are your thoughts on this phenomenon of the modern financial system? Do you think it's right that private banks should have the right to create money and charge interest on it? Why do we borrow money nationally from banks when the government has the power to issue its own interest free loans, rather than bonds? Is it possible that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because he went against the international banking elites and created his own debt free money?
 
Well it's how the world works now. They don't call them bankers for nothing.

Offering a loan is profitable for the bank since they make money on the interest. What happened was that bad loans were traded around between banks (sub-prime mortgages) which then defaulted. We then had to bail the banks out to prevent a run on them (i.e. loads of people withdrawing their money which would bankrupt the bank).
 
Well it's how the world works now. They don't call them bankers for nothing.

Offering a loan is profitable for the bank since they make money on the interest. What happened was that bad loans were traded around between banks (sub-prime mortgages) which then defaulted. We then had to bail the banks out to prevent a run on them (i.e. loads of people withdrawing their money which would bankrupt the bank).

They don't make money just on the interest. They make money on the principle as well as interest because the principle was never loaned out in the first place. When they make a loan based on their fractional reserve, the loan itself is worth money. SO when they loan out £90 from £100 deposits, £100 is still in the bank, and £90 has been created out of thin air. The bank now has £190 on its balance sheet from only £100. If they made money only from interest, then the bank would only have £106 on their balance sheet (on 6% interest).

The reason the recent financial downturn happened was assets collapsed which resulted in a lack of credit which resulted in a shortfall of money in the economy. More debt was being payed off than new debt was being created, hence a lack of money in the system, hence economic downturn.
 
Well technically they still gave someone £100 ;)

If everyone did a run on the banks they would all collapse. They just rely on the fact that people aren't going to do it (although Northern Rock came pretty close apparently).
 
Of course they gave someone £100, but that £100 has to be payed back! So they make 106% profit on a loan at 6% interest, not 6%, 106%! Of course the banks would collapse if there was a run on the banks, because they only have a few billion in liquid assets available, while there are a few hundred billion in deposits and double that amount in loans. As long as people keep circulating the new money around, i.e. new money keeps flowing in and out of the banks, there isn't a problem, it's when new money cannot be created because deposits have slowed down that there is trouble.

Spending in the economy needs to be strong so that new loans can be created from the old loans deposited, and interest can be payed off. In the example above if that £90 wasn't deposited into the bank, then the bank wouldn't be able to make any more loans, so the money creation would stop. As long as the money keeps going back into the bank, they can continue the process until as much as £900 is created out of only £100 reserve.

Paradigm, have you watched the documentary? Do you understand that when a bank makes a loan, it doesn't loan out deposited money, it creates new money which is only limited by the fractional reserve the central bank allows?
 
No, I didn't watch the documentary, sorry. I'm a mathematician so I'm not keen on economics ;) I'm just bored there aren't many interesting threads on the go at the moment, and I'm too hungover to play my turn in the SGOTM at the moment.

EDIT: Mise, Whomp and Integral are probably the people you want to be debating with ;)
 
The main problem occurs when they use the money to buy tax-funded debt in order to make profit. At that point, the actual money made off of the deposits is paid for by the taxpayer and the deposited money isn't actually being invested.

I've heard a couple of people suggest that the gov't offer 0% on their short-term debt. Right now, someone can earn a safe 0.25% off of the taxpayers and a 'safe' 0.25% is better than a riskier higher percentage. However, if the gov't was only offering 0% then the banks would be forced to look elsewhere for their 0.25%, and that would be the actual economy. And once they're investing in a 'risky' 0.25%, they might decide to balance risk/return like the old days.

(as an aside: I've seen a Ponzi scheme that was based on smoke-and-mirrors like 'regular' banking seems to be, and so people actually believed the high rate of return the Ponzi scheme offered)
 
The main problem occurs when they use the money to buy tax-funded debt in order to make profit. At that point, the actual money made off of the deposits is paid for by the taxpayer and the deposited money isn't actually being invested.

I don't understand this point? If the banks use this money to buy up government bonds then of course the money is being invested? It would be invested in public services and to pay civil servants?
 
No, I didn't watch the documentary, sorry. I'm a mathematician so I'm not keen on economics ;) I'm just bored there aren't many interesting threads on the go at the moment, and I'm too hungover to play my turn in the SGOTM at the moment.

EDIT: Mise, Whomp and Integral are probably the people you want to be debating with ;)

Well I would really appreciate a mathematicians opinion on all this. How come this doesn't interest you? I'm fascinated by this, suddenly a lot of things make sense. It never occurred to me before that banks make money out of nothing, I always assumed they made their money from tiny interest percentages - which always confused me, I always wondered how they afforded to have the largest and best buildings in every town and city.

Not only that but it angers me that we pay interest, both national and personal, when there really is no need to. If currency had an intrinsic value and people loaned their personal wealth out on a 1:1 ratio then of course interest charges should apply, but when the currency is FIAT and there is no lost opportunity cost when money is loaned out, why should anyone pay interest?

All interest charges do is stifle the economy because there is never enough money in the system to pay off the principle and the interest, so more debt has to be continuously created! Interest in a huge and hidden tax that we pay to the banking elite! Something like £70 billion is payed by the British government, yearly, in interest charges alone! That's more than we pay schools or the army! Imagine how much public services could be created with that money, or the increased amount of spending in the economy due to lower taxes and more personal wealth!
 
Economics is pseudo science with mathematical fluff sprinkled over it. That's why I'm not keen on it ;)
 
They're not really creating 90 pounds though, are they? They're creating a situation where they're on the hook for 90 pounds. There's a subtle difference there, or so I think...
 
OK it's not as beautiful as mathematics but surely you have to have some fascination in the fact that the world economic system is functioning only because more and more debt needs to be created? I would have hoped that people would show an interest in this topic so that we can all further understand how it all functions.

I mean if more and more debt needs to be created every day to service old debts then companies need to continuously plunder the earth in ever increasing amounts to meet targets, targets that have to be met to cover interest, which causes even more useless good to flood onto the market place, requiring more debt to be created to purchase and causing countries to need to export these excess products, which causes other counties to get into debt which causes them to need to produce more products which they then try to flood into our economy, ad infinitum!

War, poverty, debt, over exploitation - it's all caused by this system!
 
I'm too old to start a global revolution ;)
 
They're not really creating 90 pounds though, are they? They're creating a situation where they're on the hook for 90 pounds. There's a subtle difference there, or so I think...

No, they really do create £90, out of thin air.

To really grasp this you need to think of the goldsmith. He has £100 gold in his vault. He loans out that £100 gold in receipt form. He then loans out another £100 in receipt form. He has created £200 out of only £100 worth of gold. If both individuals pay back their loans, the gold smith now has £300 worth of gold, which he can now loan out, £600, as long as they all continue to use his receipt notes.

This is what the banks do! The only difference is THERE IS NO GOLD BACKING THE MONEY AT ALL. IF THEY WANT MORE MONEY, THEY SIMPLY BORROW IT FROM THE CENTRAL BANK.
 
sigh.

Okay, let an economist explain a few things

1) A return to a gold standard would only accomplish one thing : monetary inflexibility. It is not something we want to return to.

2) A fractional reserve system isn't mysterious. If we did away with fractional reserve banking, liquidity would dry up and the economy would be a disaster. You would destroy any lending, to anyone (I dont care if its a homebuilder, homebuyer, or small business owner. All are affected).

3) Interest free loans? Why would anyone loan money when they earn nothing on it?

The system you are talking about would be awful. I suggest a course on monetary theory.

EDIT: Abraham Lincoln was assassinated for the known historical reasons. There is no conspiracy.
 
Banks have always been making up money. If they actually had to keep their reserves you would never get a loan.
 
sigh.

Okay, let an economist explain a few things

1) A return to a gold standard would only accomplish one thing : monetary inflexibility. It is not something we want to return to.

2) A fractional reserve system isn't mysterious. If we did away with fractional reserve banking, liquidity would dry up and the economy would be a disaster. You would destroy any lending, to anyone (I dont care if its a homebuilder, homebuyer, or small business owner. All are affected).

3) Interest free loans? Why would anyone loan money when they earn nothing on it?

The system you are talking about would be awful. I suggest a course on monetary theory.

1) Fair enough, I won't argue with this.

2) I never said it was mysterious.

3) No one loans money at the moment. The money that is loaned is FIAT money. AS an economist you should understand that? The money that is loaned out HAS NO VALUE. It does not come from anybody's personal wealth.

2 + 3) If there was a central government bank that loaned out FIAT money at 0% interest there would be all the benefits of a fractional reserve banking system (homebuilder, homebuyer and small business owner would all be able to obtain finance) without it causing debt or sucking non-existent interest money from the market place.
 
Banks have always been making up money. If they actually had to keep their reserves you would never get a loan.

Of course. But why should we get a loan from the banks and pay interest on that loan when the money they loan out is made up on the spot? Couldn't this be done by a national body as a national service, with 0% interest? Yes, because the money they loan is not gold, it's FIAT money, something of no intrinsic value, no one actually gives their personal wealth out when a loan is made.

To those arguing that the only way to obtain credit is from banks, look at Abraham Lincoln, he obtained 500 million dollars from the state at 0% interest. Why doesn't the government do this now?
 
I don't understand this point? If the banks use this money to buy up government bonds then of course the money is being invested? It would be invested in public services and to pay civil servants?

Oh, in general, yeah. Purchasing government debt can be a type of investment in the society.
However, you'll notice that currently the government is doing more than 'investing in the public' with their debt issuances.
 
You mean they borrow money from the banks and then give that borrowed money back to the banks? Which the banks then go and buy government bonds with, so we effectively give money to the banks, which they then loan back to us at interest? Is that what you're saying??? Incredible. The banks get free money and free interest on that money?
 
Back
Top Bottom