Although I've taken issue with various MMT claims in the past (see, e.g. here and here), I've grown to respect several Modern Monetary Theorists. Far from being ill-informed, people like Eric Tymoigne and Nathan Tankus (the list is by no means exhaustive–these happen to be two whose work I know best) know a lot more than many orthodox economists do about the workings of the U.S. monetary system. Knowing this, I'm not inclined to accuse Modern Monetary Theorists of being ignorant just because I disagree with many of the school's positions and arguments.
But on the subject of bank runs, at least, Warren Mosler shows no signs of being well-informed. Although his talk is laced with knowing chuckles, along with disparaging references to "so-called neo-liberals" who are so foolish as to think markets work in banking, his attitudinizing is so much bluff and bluster. The truth is rather that, so far as knowledge of runs is concerned, Mosler is no less destitute than some of the banks whose demise he so heedlessly laments.George Selgin disputes Warren Mosler's assertions about the dire consequence of free banking, namely, bank runs.
I would have no problem with allowing free banking for institutions that are not members of the central bank's payments system and have no recourse to either the lender of last resort function or government guaranteed deposit insurance. This would mean that such institutions would have to either issue their own private notes as liabilities of the institution or get currency from raising capital or deposits. A sovereign government would be advised not accept such liabilities in payment of obligations to it in place of the currency that the government issues, since this would be ceding sovereignty.
I would also require such institutions to advertise that customers' have no recourse in the case of bank failure other than the civil courts. Let people take a chance if they choose but the choice should be an informed choice. Thus, I would also require all financial institutions other than banks that are member of the government payments system to adopt the partnership model that characterized financial institutions before they were allowed to incorporate and thereby limit the liability of the owners. Note that is is not bank regulation but rather definition of legal liability.
"Let a hundred flowers bloom." Chairman Mao.
Alt-M
Warren Mosler and the Great American Banking Myth
George Selgin | senior fellow and director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the Cato Institute and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Georgia.
Alt-M
Warren Mosler and the Great American Banking Myth
George Selgin | senior fellow and director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the Cato Institute and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Georgia.
7 comments:
Warren is quoted: "Even the banks that failed in '08 and were liquidated, on a look back, they were not insolvent. It was just liquidity issues…"
In Sept 08 the Fed added 100s of $Bs of Reserve Assets at the Depositories thus there was 100s of $B of new excess Reserve Assets so where was the "liquidity" issues? Banks were given $bazillions of excess "liquidity"...
The Depositories were insolvent due to the fact that they did not have the Tier1 capital to comply with Leverage regulations to support the higher asset levels created in near immediate time by the Fed addition of the 100s of $B of the Reserve Assets at the Depositories....
They were indeed insolvent the Fed made them so by adding the Reserve Assets...
Same thing is happening this week...
This technical incompetence is what you liberal arts morons call the "vast neoliberal conspiracy!"...
And btw Cato is a libertarian cesspool...
I left a couple of comments after Selin's article yesterday. May leave some more today.
"But the fundamental problem wasn't that people ran on U.S. banks. It was that bad regulations gave people a good reason to run on them. Had there been no regulations, there wouldn't have been any reason, and the runs simply wouldn't have happened.
This a bunch of laissez-faire, free market crap.
And comparing the 1800s, when bank currency issuance was largely backed by silver (i.e. hard money) makes the whole argument an ignorant one.
Mosler gets A LOT wrong, like the fact that he's fixated on "the deficit" (stock) and not flows. He's been wrong for nearly 6 years now, with his bearish outlook on the economy, however, he is not wrong in saying that the banks in 2008 that "failed" were not insolvent.
I still dont see where 'liquidity' was ever an issue...
Here from Fed report:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-november-supervision-and-regulation-report-banking-system-conditions.htm
"Besides capital, another critical ingredient to a resilient banking system is liquidity. Firms are required to maintain adequate levels of highly liquid assets (cash and securities easily convertible to cash) to be able to meet their obligations, even during times of financial stress. While the banking industry's holdings of liquid assets (reserves plus securities that qualify as high-quality liquid assets) declined slightly over the past several years, as of the second quarter of 2019, they remain substantially higher than before the financial crisis (at the beginning of 2007, this ratio was less than 3 percent) "
So if the Fed adds Reserve Assets to banks, which they did by 100s of $Bs in Sept 2008, then "liquidity" is increased... "liquidity" as defined by the Fed here... an increase in Reserve Assets increases "liquidity"... as defined here...
'Leverage Ratio' decreases... with a "liquidity" (Reserve) increase...
I dont see how it was ever a "liquidity" problem in 2008... there were created excess Reserves...
Oh and btw the Liberal Art trained Cato guy here right on cue brings "myth!" into this here ... they ALWAYS do this... cant understand what is going on via their figurative methodology so they play the "myth!" card... every time...
Mike Norman seems to be advocating full reserve banking, a system I fully support.
Post a Comment