Read it at Washington's Blog
Federal Reserve, national debt nearly defeated during Great Depression; let’s finish the job
by Carl Herman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Disclaimer
Get our 2012 Yearly Outlook
| Get this 19-page report stacked with charts, graphics and MMT-based analyses. A forecast on how the major economic trends will play out this year along with stocks, bonds, commodities, gold and the dollar. If you’re looking for the definitive macro picture, this is it! A must read!! $39.95 |
Become a contributor to Mikenormaneconomics
Pitbull Economics
Follow me on Twitter
Get on my email list!
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Essential links
- John Thomas Financial Blog
- UMKC Economists
- Find me on Twitter
- How Banks Create Money
- Forex account
- Federal Reserve weekly statement
- The Skeptical Optimist
- Monthly Treasury Statement
- Federal Reserve
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- History of Economic Thought
- Index of Macroeconomic Topics
- 15 Fatal Falacies of Financial Fundamentalism
- Warren Mosler's blog
Money, what it is, how it works
Contributors
Warren Mosler's blog
Disclaimer
3 comments:
This is the fractional reserve banking versus full reserve banking argument. And it’s HORRENDOUSLY complicated. Here is some reading material.
George Selgin is pro fractional reserve. See:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_1_selgin.pdf
Also Selgin’s book is available online for free: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2307
I'm pro full reserve (with reservations).Two blog posts of mine which have links to other works:
http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-expanding-amount-of-debt-free.html
http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/2011/10/george-selgins-flawed-pro-fractional.html
Milton Friedman was pro full reserve, as was Abraham Lincoln.
This is a well informed blogger who is pro fractional reserve: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/
Isn't 100% reserve tantamount to nationalized banking? Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monitary Institute endorses 100% reserve and at one of the AMI conferences Michael Hudson was tweaking Zarlenga's nose a bit saying that the situation where the gov. guaranteed all the bankers bad debt was kind of like 100% reserve. I was thinking it was more like the government being bankerized rather than the banks being nationalized.
This is bsically Irving Fischer's idea from the '30's and Hudson also gently scolded the AMI people for having economic models that were stuck in that era. The MMT adherents would probably say the same thing, since they consider the money multiplier to be a myth.
I think that the AMI people equate 100% reserve banking to a 100% capital requirement. But there is a big difference.
Changing the reserve requirement just influences the bank's own borrowing cost in making a loan. With change in capital requirements, the amount of bank equity is changed. so that a 100% capital requirement means a bank is loaning $4$ against equity.
In other words, its not the reserve requirement that gives bank's leverage, it is the capital requirement.
Post a Comment