• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The exponentiality of credit growth

Explain what happened in 2008/2009. To state that adding new bills decreases the value of those already in circulation is simply fallacious. Demand for money became close to infinite elasticity in the wake of TARP, credit easing, and various liquidity programs. You are simply incorrect. Let's see if you are willing to admit it.

We would have gone through a period of what you would call deflation and I would calling a falling price level. Because new bills were added into circulation the new value of the bills was lower than it otherwise would have been without that injection of new money.
 
We would have gone through a period of what you would call deflation and I would calling a falling price level. Because new bills were added into circulation the new value of the bills was lower than it otherwise would have been without that injection of new money.

That does not address my comment. Why did the demand for dollars become infinitely elastic during a period of what you would call.... inflation?
 
Is this true of bigger businesses?

I honestly don't know. Personally, I don't understand why big businesses would be treated any differently when year after year my very small business has litterally made billions more than some mega-businesses (that loose money). Why would lending my small business $100,000 be any riskier than lending GM billions?

I suspect that big businesses get most of their expansion money from investors, not the bank.
 
And I was just thinking about this. The growth isn't exponential, as it does eventually converge. I think that it would be logarithmic.

So from $1000, a 50% reserve requirement means $500 is loaned. If that is saved then $250 is loaned. If that is saved then $125 is loaned and so on and so on until from that original $1000 you have $2000 in claims on that original $1000.

I totally agree. And that can only happen if 100% of the funds loaned is redeposited without being spent.

I've never claimed that the "fractional reserve banking system" can't increase our money supply, only that it does not increase our money supply exponentially. I suspect that it only increases our money supply by a few percent unless the reserve requirement is lowered, and even then it would only increase our money supply by a few more percent.
 
Last edited:
Explain what happened in 2008/2009. To state that adding new bills decreases the value of those already in circulation is simply fallacious. Demand for money became close to infinite elasticity in the wake of TARP, credit easing, and various liquidity programs. You are simply incorrect. Let's see if you are willing to admit it.

I for one agree. The common theory was that increasing the money supply would cause inflation to increase because we would then have "too much money chasing too few goods", but this only occurs if people are actually spending the "too much money". When it is being horded and not spent then it is not "chasing goods". When we supply banks with "extra" money it does absolutely nothing unless banks actually lend it and unless borrowers are actually spending it. Currently banks arn't lending and businesses/consumers arn't spending so regardless how much our money supply increases we will not have inflation.

If for some reason banks started lending more and consumers started purchasing more, and if businesses fail to increase production then we will have crazy inflation. But seeing how there are lots of people looking for jobs, and lots of unused business capacity, I would expect businesses to be able to very easily increase production to meet any increase in demand - thus it may be a long long time before we start seeing "too much money chasing too few goods".

Most economic reports are indicating that we may be at the begining of a "double dip", if this is happening then we will have even more unused business capacity leading to even higher unemployment levels leading to even less consumer confidence and spending capability of the consumer class. A very long spiral downward into a deep depression that may only be stopped by WW2 type governmental spending levels.
 
It forms a geometric series.

You have $n to deposit into the bank. The bank can lend r% of the money.

Start with n.

Money supply:

n

The bank lends n * r

Money supply now equals:

n + n * r

This gets deposited and is lent again:

( n * r ) * r

Except you also have to subtract out any borrowed money that gets spent before being deposited. Deposits from money that is recieved in exchange for a lateral transfer (normal trade) are not the same as simply re-depositing borrowed money. Thats were the mistake is in popular "expansion of money" theory.
 
Except you also have to subtract out any borrowed money that gets spent before being deposited. Deposits from money that is recieved in exchange for a lateral transfer (normal trade) are not the same as simply re-depositing borrowed money. Thats were the mistake is in popular "expansion of money" theory.

Well it was just showing the maximum amount that could be added to the money supply.
 
That does not address my comment. Why did the demand for dollars become infinitely elastic during a period of what you would call.... inflation?

The price level was kept relatively constant, was it not? However, we would have seen prices in general fall had money not been added to the economy. This was so that loans would not fail and businesses would not fail. We avoided creative destruction.
 
The price level was kept relatively constant, was it not?

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


There was nothing close to a linear relationship between the money supply and price levels in the short run.

However, we would have seen prices in general fall had money not been added to the economy. This was so that loans would not fail and businesses would not fail. We avoided creative destruction.

Liquidity constraints would have definitily put downward pressure on prices. Thankfully such a scenario was overted.
 
fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


There was nothing close to a linear relationship between the money supply and price levels in the short run.

Because we were supposed to have a fall in the price level at the start of the crash, but the injection of money stopped that.

Liquidity constraints would have definitily put downward pressure on prices. Thankfully such a scenario was overted.

Prices would have fallen, but because of the injection of money the price level stayed stable. Creative destruction was avoided. Surely you know the negative consequences of that.
 
Except you also have to subtract out any borrowed money that gets spent before being deposited. Deposits from money that is recieved in exchange for a lateral transfer (normal trade) are not the same as simply re-depositing borrowed money. Thats were the mistake is in popular "expansion of money" theory.

And why do you think this is so? Can you demonstrate?
 
Tony,

You are misusing the term creative destruction (not sure if it is on purpose, or by mistake). Creative destruction is based upon the innovation process, e.g. the shift from transportation via horse and buggy to motorized vehicles.

To use it as a means of exonerating liquidationism is intellectually dishonest.
 
And why do you think this is so? Can you demonstrate?

Money circulates with or without a banking system. The circulation of money does not increase our supply of money it just facilitates trade. If I was to purchase something for $1 from Joe, and then Joe used that $1 to purchase something from Sam, and then Sam used that $1 to purchase something from Fred, and then Fred spent that same $ in my shop, would the money supply be $5 or would it be $1. It seems like it is $5, but once you add up all the dollar bills, you will only find one. Once someone has spent their money they no longer have it. Circulation of money does not expand our money supply.

It is no different if I borrowed that $1. If I borrowed that $1 and immediately spent it with Joe who then spent it with Sam who then spent it with Fred who then spent it with me, and I then repaid my $1 loan to the bank, there would still only be $1. At no time was there more than $1 although it seems like there may have been more than $1. Once I borrowed that dollar the bank no longer had it and once I spent it I no longer had it, and once Sam and Fred spent it they no longer had it, and when I repaid the bank the only entity left with a dollar is the bank (who acutally owes it to some depositor). There is still only $1.

Thus any money borrowed and spent (as opposed to being redeposited in a bank and thus re-lent) has absolutely zero effect on enlarging our money supply. The only time that banks can "create" money is if money that they loan is deposited without being spent (which then allows the bank to loan the money again). Banks cant loan money that is spent because once it is spent the bank no longer has it. Banks can't loan money that they don't hold. Sure, if it is spent the proceeds from that transaction may be deposited in another bank, but those proceeds are not from a loan, they are from normal circulation (which occurs with or without the banking system) and thus even though the bank might can loan that money again, it is not in any way "new" money - it's just money that has circulated (note that the money that was origionally borrowed and lent is no longer in the bank because it was lent and spent).

I know, it's all really confusing, I think what is so confusing is the fact that money "seems" to multiply from circulation, but when you count how much money exists, it is the origional amount. This effect happens whether a bank is involved or not. If I put my money in a bank and then spend it, the bank CANNOT make loans against the money I deposited because the bank no longer holds the deposit (remember, I spent it). Even if whoever I spent it with deposits it into a bank, the bank still cant make a loan against that deposit if the depositor immediately spend the money. So only deposits that remain unspent can increase our money supply, and since any money that I have not spent already existed, it is questionable even then that it has increased the money supply - it just changes hands and is offset by an equal amount of debt.

It is easy to think that everytime money exchanges hands that it is "new money", but it just aint.

"New" money really never happens unless someone counterfits money (like the fed loaning fictious money to the treasury, or someone using some type of private currency such as accounts recievable invoices as cash).
 
Last edited:
Tony,

You are misusing the term creative destruction (not sure if it is on purpose, or by mistake). Creative destruction is based upon the innovation process, e.g. the shift from transportation via horse and buggy to motorized vehicles.

To use it as a means of exonerating liquidationism is intellectually dishonest.

Don't even claim that I'm being intellectually dishonest. From the wikipedia article about creative destruction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction said:
Wal-Mart is a recent example of a company that has achieved a strong position in many markets, through its use of new inventory-management, marketing, and personnel-management techniques, using its resulting lower prices to compete with older or smaller companies in the offering of retail consumer products.

The point is that it's not just about technological innovation, but also about operation methods. If one company is run better than the other, the less efficient company will fail as the better company succeeds; that is an example of creative destruction. In the same way, companies that gave out bad loans and took risks and failed should also fail so that better companies can get more of a market share. Since these companies were not allowed to liquidate, it is fair of me to say that creative destruction was avoided.
 
Money circulates with or without a banking system. The circulation of money does not increase our supply of money it just facilitates trade. If I was to purchase something for $1 from Joe, and then Joe used that $1 to purchase something from Sam, and then Sam used that $1 to purchase something from Fred, and then Fred spent that same $ in my shop, would the money supply be $5 or would it be $1. Once someone has spent their money they no longer have it. Circulation of money does not expand our money supply.

It is no different if I borrowed that $1. If I borrowed that $1 and immediately spent it with Joe who then spent it with Sam who then spent it with Fred who then spent it with me, and I then repaid my $1 loan to the bank, there would still only be $1.

Thus any money borrowed and spent (as opposed to being redeposited in a bank and thus relent) has absolutely zero effect on enlarging our money supply. The only time that banks can "create" money is if money that they loan is deposited without being spent (which then allows the bank to loan the money again). Banks cant loan money that is spent because once it is spent the bank no longer has it as a deposit. Sure, if it is spent the proceeds from that transaction may be deposited in another bank, but those proceeds are not from a loan, they are from normal circulation (which occurs with or without the banking system).

I know, it's all really confusing, I think what is so confusing is the fact that money "seems" to multiply from circulation, but when you count how much money exists, it is the origional amount. This effect happens whether a bank is involved or not. If I put my money in a bank and then spend it, the bank CANNOT make loans against the money I deposited because the bank no longer holds the deposit (remember, I spent it). Even if whoever I spent it with deposits it into a bank, the bank still cant make a loan against that deposit if the depositor immediately spend the money. So only deposits that remain unspent can increase our money supply, and since any money that I have not spent already existed, it is questionable even then that it has increased the money supply - it just changes hands and is offset by an equal amount of debt.

It is easy to think that everytime money exchanges hands that it is "new money", but it just aint.

"New" money really never happens unless someone counterfits money (like the fed loaning fictious money to the treasury, or someone using some type of private currency such as accounts recievable invoices as cash).

You're still using static analysis. You have to realize that banks are perpetually overleveraged. There is never any time where they have enough actual money to fulfill all demand deposits. If you consider this dynamic analysis, then you'd see that loaning money by creating multiple demands to the same dollar is inflationary.
 
Don't even claim that I'm being intellectually dishonest. From the wikipedia article about creative destruction:

The point is that it's not just about technological innovation, but also about operation methods. If one company is run better than the other, the less efficient company will fail as the better company succeeds; that is an example of creative destruction.

No, not at all. You have merely described competition.

In the same way, companies that gave out bad loans and took risks and failed should also fail so that better companies can get more of a market share. Since these companies were not allowed to liquidate, it is fair of me to say that creative destruction was avoided.

Again, you are confusing competition with creative destruction, a most obvious error. Innovative practices can surely make a firm more competitive, yet so can lowering expected profit by lowering price (hardly an innovative practice).
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
I know, it's all really confusing, I think what is so confusing is the fact that money "seems" to multiply from circulation, but when you count how much money exists, it is the origional amount. This effect happens whether a bank is involved or not. If I put my money in a bank and then spend it, the bank CANNOT make loans against the money I deposited because the bank no longer holds the deposit (remember, I spent it). Even if whoever I spent it with deposits it into a bank, the bank still cant make a loan against that deposit if the depositor immediately spend the money. So only deposits that remain unspent can increase our money supply, and since any money that I have not spent already existed, it is questionable even then that it has increased the money supply - it just changes hands and is offset by an equal amount of debt.

You are on the right track, but getting continuing to get shuffled off on a side spur with your 'spent' versus 'deposit' assertions. Your main point seems to be that currency in circulation cannot be used to expand/contract the money supply, which is correct: in a static sense, currency in circulation is a part of the money supply (often referred to as M0) but cannot facilitate expansion or contraction of the money supply - it can only be hoarded or circulated.

Where you get sidetracked is assuming that a deposit, once withdrawn from a demand deposit account, becomes currency forever and ever: "If I put my money in a bank and then spend it, the bank CANNOT make loans against the money I deposited because the bank no longer holds the deposit (remember, I spent it). Even if whoever I spent it with deposits it into a bank, the bank still cant make a loan against that deposit if the depositor immediately spend the money." This is patently false on a couple of accounts: first, ask yourself in what ways can I withdraw money from a demand deposit account? Since funds in a demand deposit account are always accessible by writing a check or some form of draft, this is the most common way. And what happens to a check? It is either deposited into another demand deposit account or exchanged for cash. If it is deposited into another demand deposit account, your assertion is proven false because that deposit constitutes reserves (both required and excess, I'll discuss excess reserves in a moment) for the receiving bank. Consequently, your assertion is true if and only if funds are withdrawn in the form of currency and that currency is never again deposited into a demand deposit account.

Now, here is an important distinction in the process that we've been glossing over, but that might help if we insert it into the analysis. Remember that we said that when we or the bank made a deposit into a demand deposit account that it became available to expand/contract the money supply? Here is the distinction: nothing happens with the money supply until the bank makes a loan using the reserves created by that deposit. Until a loan is made, the reserves created by that deposit are in excess of those required of the bank, hence are called (logically enough), excess reserves. Example: you deposit $1,000 into your demand deposit account. If the reserve requirement is 10%, the bank now has $100 in required reserves and $900 in excess reserves. That $900 is available as credit but remains in excess reserves until it is lent. When it is lent, the money supply expands by $900 and excess reserves decrease by $900.

Does incorporating the distinction between required reserves and excess reserves clarify any of this for you?


Finally, if your check is exchanged for cash, what happens to the cash? Does it become forever and ever part of currency in circulation? Of course not. At least not in toto. Perhaps some fractional part becomes coins deposited somebody's 'change jar' and thus hoarded, perhaps some part goes into a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar buried in the back yard. Excluding those bits, the remainder is likely to wend its way back into another deposit account in exchange for goods and services. You pay for your drycleaning or gasoline purchases with cash, what does that merchant do with the cash? Most likely, he/she will deposit it along with the rest of his daily cash receipts into his/her checking account, where it once again becomes a commercial bank deposit subject to reserve requirements and available to expand/contract the money supply.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
You have to realize that banks are perpetually overleveraged.

According to what standard? How do you measure how much is 'overleveraged' and how much is 'justrightleverage?" Goldilocks leverage?

There is never any time where they have enough actual money to fulfill all demand deposits.

True, but is it really necessary?

If you consider this dynamic analysis, then you'd see that loaning money by creating multiple demands to the same dollar is inflationary.

Not necessarily. There are ways to offset expansion via lending such that money supply remains relatively constant. Historically, for example, when loan/deposit ratios have approached or exceeded about 80%, which left unchecked would accelerate money growth, the Fed has undertaken operations to offset and keep money growth less that what it might have been otherwise.
 
Example: you deposit $1,000 into your demand deposit account. If the reserve requirement is 10%, the bank now has $100 in required reserves and $900 in excess reserves. That $900 is available as credit but remains in excess reserves until it is lent. When it is lent, the money supply expands by $900 and excess reserves decrease by $900.

Does incorporating the distinction between required reserves and excess reserves clarify any of this for you?

There is no money created when "excess reserves" are created because the money that is now classified as "excess" already existed.

Finally, if your check is exchanged for cash, what happens to the cash? Does it become forever and ever part of currency in circulation? Of course not. At least not in toto. Perhaps some fractional part becomes coins deposited somebody's 'change jar' and thus hoarded, perhaps some part goes into a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar buried in the back yard. Excluding those bits, the remainder is likely to wend its way back into another deposit account in exchange for goods and services. You pay for your drycleaning or gasoline purchases with cash, what does that merchant do with the cash? Most likely, he/she will deposit it along with the rest of his daily cash receipts into his/her checking account, where it once again becomes a commercial bank deposit subject to reserve requirements and available to expand/contract the money supply.

Again, you are counting money circulating and recirculating. This happens with or without the banking system. The bank "creates" nothing.
 
You're still using static analysis. You have to realize that banks are perpetually overleveraged. There is never any time where they have enough actual money to fulfill all demand deposits. If you consider this dynamic analysis, then you'd see that loaning money by creating multiple demands to the same dollar is inflationary.


Banks are not allowed to lend more money than they have deposited in them. Although they may not have enough cash to meet all demands that may be made of the bank in the case of a run, those demands are offset by assets that the bank could sell or borrow against to meet the demands (given some time).

I really don't see how any new money created by the bank would be inflationary because banks can only create new money when money is borrowed and then deposited without being spent and lent out again. If money borrowed is just sitting in a bank account then it is not chasing goods.
 
imagep said:
There is no money created when "excess reserves" are created because the money that is now classified as "excess" already existed.

Correct. Note that I said that money was created when excess reserves were used to lend. Until it is lent, the money supply remains unchanged: only required reserves and
excess reserves change.
 
No, not at all. You have merely described competition.

Competition is in general just about market share. Creative destruction is more specifically about liquidation.

Again, you are confusing competition with creative destruction, a most obvious error. Innovative practices can surely make a firm more competitive, yet so can lowering expected profit by lowering price (hardly an innovative practice).

Creative destruction is a process that eliminates monopoly power, so this again would be an exaple of creative destruction.

But in the end, who cares about definitions, this isn't even worth arguing.
 
Banks are not allowed to lend more money than they have deposited in them. Although they may not have enough cash to meet all demands that may be made of the bank in the case of a run, those demands are offset by assets that the bank could sell or borrow against to meet the demands (given some time).

That's the problem, given some time. During bank runs, banks don't have that time, and people realize that they have less than they expected. You're right that banks can't lend more than they have, but lending against what they have and perpetually lending against what they have creates inflation (though this is not permanent since bank runs or permanent monetary inflation by increasing the actual money supply can counteract the inevitable pulling back).

I really don't see how any new money created by the bank would be inflationary because banks can only create new money when money is borrowed and then deposited without being spent and lent out again. If money borrowed is just sitting in a bank account then it is not chasing goods.

Except that the people who have the money deposited act with the thought that they have that money in the bank. If they didn't have the full value that they expected then they would be spending less and saving more (sounds like what happened when the crash started).
 
According to what standard? How do you measure how much is 'overleveraged' and how much is 'justrightleverage?" Goldilocks leverage?

The fact that banks can't possibly fulfill all demands at once.

True, but is it really necessary?

Apparently since it causes bank runs and malinvestment.

Not necessarily. There are ways to offset expansion via lending such that money supply remains relatively constant. Historically, for example, when loan/deposit ratios have approached or exceeded about 80%, which left unchecked would accelerate money growth, the Fed has undertaken operations to offset and keep money growth less that what it might have been otherwise.

I'm was talking about without a central bank.
 
Competition is in general just about market share. Creative destruction is more specifically about liquidation.

Creative destruction is a process that eliminates monopoly power, so this again would be an example of creative destruction.

But in the end, who cares about definitions, this isn't even worth arguing.

It is important to use terms appropriately, otherwise anyone can stretch meanings to fit anything they wish. If that is the case, then you are correct, there is no point in discussing the subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom