05. La banca commerciale non crea moneta..

[sandropascucci]

5. LA BANCA COMMERCIALE NON CREA MONETA
http://goo.gl/0mS79K

ih! ih! ih!

[sandropascucci]

".. Partiamo dalla seconda parte. Le banche commerciali partecipano all'offerta di moneta (non alla sua creazione) potendo impiegare (prestare) la maggior parte del denaro che i clienti vi depositano, e destinando il resto a riserve. Quando la banca presta, aumentano le sue attività (il prestito più le riserve), ma queste non superano mai le passività (le somme depositate dai clienti). La banca commerciale deve poi chiudere la partita contabile con il denaro che le ritorna in cassa sotto forma di restituzione da parte dei clienti (meno attività e meno passività). Alla fine dei giochi, non si è creato nessun denaro dal nulla, ma la banca ha guadagnato l'interesse e il cliente ha un bene o servizio acquistato con i soldi presi a prestito: ha lavorato per quel bene e non per regalare soldi alla banca [12]. C'è di più, tutte le banche funzionano come un unico sistema in cui esse sono collegate tra loro e quindi il denaro che noi depositiamo in banca non è denaro nuovo spuntato dal nulla, ma è praticamente denaro già presente nel sistema. Le banche tra loro regolano i propri conti come una clearing house, ovvero addebitando o accreditando le riserve delle une e delle altre. I signoraggisti sostengono quindi che col meccanismo della riserva frazionaria si creerebbe un vero e proprio signoraggio secondario; ciò è del tutto destituito di fondamento e per brevità si rimanda ai testi tecnici per approfondimento [13]. Diremo solo che, con il moltiplicatore della moneta, un'iniezione di nuova moneta nell'economia può creare depositi che sono un multiplo del deposito iniziale: a livello di sistema un euro di deposito si trasforma in diversi euro di credito bancario. Ad ogni euro di circolante corrisponde un euro di base monetaria; mentre ad ogni euro di depositi corrisponde solo una frazione di base monetaria. Ma ancora una volta le banche non creano moneta dal nulla e tutto si compensa all'interno del sistema, i debiti vengono estinti, così come le passività e tra le banche le partite si chiudono. Quello che generalmente appare strano è che le banche possano prestare molto più di quanto tengano in riserva [14], ma questo fatto rileva solamente in caso di corsa agli sportelli: la banca, in quel caso, non può far fronte a tutte le passività, perché in quel caso dovrebbero rientrare immediatamente anche tutti gli impieghi [15]. In condizioni normali il fatto di poter prestare più di quanto venga tenuto a riserva, e quindi, a livello di sistema, il moltiplicatore del credito, costituisce un motore per l'economia, che ne asseconda l'espansione. In un mondo dove accadesse il contrario sarebbe estremamente difficile per una azienda lavorare e sarebbe quasi impossibile ottenere un mutuo. .." parole di Aureliano Ferri (Movimento Internazionale per i Diritti Civili - Solidarietà) nel suo pezzo (AH! AH! AH!) intitolato "Su Ezra Pound e Signoraggio", pubblicato su: http://www.movisol.org/10news256.htm

fig. 9.3

[sandropascucci]

P R I M I T

[>>] I filoIGB usano tale Krugman (premio Nobel) per "demolire le frottole signoraggiste" ecc.. con tutte queste terminologie da 16enni segaioli e vabbè.. non importa.. son dei poracci.. ma TECNICAMENTE andiamo a leggere cosa dice questo santone di Krugman ultimamente, dal suo blogghettino-ino-ino (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/commercial-banks-as-creators-of-money/?_r=0#h[]) Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog August 24, 2013, 4:31 pm 54 Comments Commercial Banks As Creators of “Money” Thank you, Matthew Klein! In the course of critiquing Robert Hall’s paper for Jackson Hole, he mentions and links to another half-century-old paper by James Tobin, Commercial Banks as Creators of “Money” (pdf), that I had forgotten about, and is even more precisely on point than the Tobin-Brainard piece I’ve been citing. All the points I’ve been trying to make about the non-specialness of banks are there. In particular, the discussion on pp. 412-413 of why the mechanics of lending don’t matter — yes, commercial banks, unlike other financial intermediaries, can make a loan simply by crediting the borrower with new deposits, but there’s no guarantee that the funds stay there — refutes, in one fell swoop, a lot of the nonsense one hears about how said mechanics of bank lending change everything about the role banks play in the economy. Banks are just another kind of financial intermediary, and the size of the banking sector — and hence the quantity of outside money — is determined by the same kinds of considerations that determine the size of, say, the mutual fund industry «Sì, le banche commerciali, a differenza degli altri intermediari finanziari, possono creare un prestito semplicemente accreditando il conto del cliente con un nuovo deposito, ma non c’è garanzia che il deposito creato resti lì (presso la banca)» [Paul Krugman, premio Nobel, 24 agosto 2013, ore 16:31] quindi è confermato che le banche commerciali creano moneta (bancaria) dal nulla e prestano (creando nuovi depositi) senza bisogno di controllare preventivamente la riserva frazionaria. amen. [^]

F O R U M

[sandropascucci]

P R I M I T

[>>] Macroeconomia e teoria monetaria di Alejandro Nadal A CURA DEL SERVIZIO TRADUZIONI PRIMIT.IT ( ogni copia è permessa con un link all’originale: http://goo.gl/05vaDa ) [^]

F O R U M

[sandropascucci]

P R I M I T

[>>] Quindi chiudiamo anche questa CONTRObufala sulla creazione di moneta da parte di banca commerciale. La banca commerciale CREA MONETA DAL NULLA, sia secondo la FAVOLA ortodossa dei depositi creati in regime di riserva frazionaria (e moltiplicatore dei depositi bancari) sia secondo i Keynesiani (i prestiti creano depositi). I negazionisti PRO-IGB si mettano l'anima[ccialoro] in pace. [^]

F O R U M

[mr.spyder]

concludendo/riassumendo citiamo qualche fonte "ufficiale" e sicuramente non complottista :

“By far the largest role in creating broad money is played by the banking sector. When banks make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed the money.”
(Bank of england in Interpreting movements in broad money, p.377)

“Banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account … That is, banks extend credit [i.e. make loans] by creating money“
(Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor for Financial Stability)

“The essence of the contemporary monetary system is creation of money, out of nothing, by private banks’ often foolish lending.”
(Martin Wolf, Financial Times, 9th November 2010)

“When banks extend loans to their customers, they create money by crediting their customers’ accounts”
(Sir Mervyn King, Speech to the South Wales Chamber of Commerce at The Millenium Centre, Cardiff on 23rd October 2012)

“The financial crisis of 2007/08 occurred because we failed to constrain the private financial system’s creation of private credit and money“
(Lord Adair Turner, former chairman of the Finacial Services Authority, Speech to the South African Reserve Bank, 2nd November 2012)

“ damaged banking system means that today banks aren’t creating enough money. We have to do it for them.”
(Sir Mervyn King, then-Governor of the Bank of England, 2012)

serve altro??

[sandropascucci]

Parole di Adair Turner*

Stockholm School of Economics
Conference on: “Towards a Sustainable Financial System"
Stoccolma 12 settembre 2013

B K P

Third, that once you add the institutions of what he calls “organized credit”, i.e., commercial banks, you have a system which can clearly create credit and matching money, and as a result create purchasing power. This insight is fundamental. Banks do not, as too many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo – extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower’s money account. (Exhibit 1) That creates, for the borrower and thus for real economy agents in total, a matching liability and asset, producing, at least initially, no increase in real net worth. But because the tenor of the loan is longer than the tenor of the deposit – because there is maturity transformation – an effective increase in nominal spending power has been created.

B K P

Simons and Fisher therefore identified banks’ ability to create credit and money ex nihilo as a particularly pernicious driver of instability. “In the very nature of the system” Simons argued” banks will flood the economy with money substitutes during booms and precipitate futile attempts at general liquidation thereafter.” [Simons, 1936] In response to this destructive danger, they therefore proposed that bank credit and money creation should be not just constrained but abolished.

B K P

Orthodoxy on the eve of the crisis It therefore remains fair to say that the dominant pre-crisis orthodoxy was one in which the process of credit and purchasing power creation, discussed so insightfully by Wicksell and other early and mid-20th century economists, was largely ignored. And that orthodoxy remains only imperfectly challenged and revised. Thus: • Standard undergraduate textbook discussions of banking and money still tend to propagate three myths/simplifications. - First, that banks in sequence “raise deposits” from savers and then “make loans” to borrowers, ignoring their potential to create purchasing power ex nihilo. - Second, that banks primarily lend money to firms/entrepreneurs to fund investment projects, allocating funds between alternative uses, largely ignoring the other potential functions and impacts of bank lending. - Third, that the “demand for money” (i.e., for transactions money”) is a crucial issue, and can usefully be captured in the function f(i,y)ignoring the endogenous creation of short term financial assets as a result of credit creation, and ignoring the complexity of the varying features and degrees of “moneyness”. • Advanced macroeconomics textbooks are also largely silent on the role of banks as creators of money, and on the potential importance of the aggregate balance sheet level of resulting debt. • Similarly, the canonical statement of New Keynesian price stability theory, Michael Woodford’s “Interest and Prices” is almost entirely silent on the details of the financial and in particular the banking system. [Woodford 2003] Woodford’s title is of course, a homage to Wicksell. And Woodford’s exclusive focus on our ability to maintain price stability through management of the short-term interest rate (or expectations thereof), mirrors Wicksell’s focus in the final chapters of his “Interest and Prices”. But Wicksell’s analysis of the details of bank money creation is left unexplored: and with it, the potential for insights into the consequences of financial intermediation for issues other than price stability.

* chi è: viewtopic.php?f=78&p=43786#p43786

[sandropascucci]

"":

Top 10 documents showing that the description of the monetary system found in most textbooks is wrong Most textbooks present a description of our monetary system based on the “money multiplier model” in which the money supply is said to be “exogenous” and that deposits enable loans. The experts however, have long known that loans enable deposits and that money is “endogenous”. 1. Michael McLeay et al. (Monetary Analysis Directorate of the Bank of England). Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin “This article explains how,rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.” “While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality.” “This description of the relationship between monetary policy and money differs from the description in many introductory textbooks, where central banks determine the quantity of broad money via a ‘money multiplier’ by actively varying the quantity of reserves.” “And in contrast to descriptions found in some textbooks, the Bank of England does not directly control the quantity of either base or broad money.” “banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits” 2. Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin “Textbooks assume that money is exogenous”… “In the United Kingdom, money isendogenous” 3. Lord Adair Turner, former head of the UK’s Financial Services Authority Conference on: “Towards a Sustainable Financial System” “Banks do not, as too many textbooks still suggest,take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo [out of nothing] – extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower’s money account” 4. Professor Charles Goodhart CBE, FBA, ex Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England National Institute Economic Review “The old pedagogical analytical approach that centred around the money multiplier was misleading, atheoretical and has recently been shown to be without predictive value. It should be discarded immediately. “ 5. Michael Kumhoff, Research Department, International Monetary Fund IMF Working Paper “the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected” “Bank reserves”… “do not play any meaningful role in the determination of wider monetary aggregates. The reason is that the ‘deposit multiplier’ of the undergraduate economics textbook, where monetary aggregates are created at the initiative of the central bank, through an initial injection of high-powered money into the banking system that gets multiplied through bank lending, turns the actual operation of the monetary transmission mechanism on its head.” “Reserves therefore impose no constraint. The deposit multiplier is simply, in the words of Kydland and Prescott (1990), a myth. And because of this, private banks are almost fully in control of the money creation process.” 6. Michael Feroli JP Morgan, Economic Research, Global Data Watch “In spite of being almost totally divorced from reality, the money multiplier is still taught in undergraduate economics textbooks, with much resulting confusion.” 7. Glenn Stevens, governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Address to the Inaugural Faculty of Economics and Business Alumni Dinner, The University of Sydney “…discussion of the ‘money multiplier’, as an introduction to the theory of fractional reserve banking. I suppose students have to learn that, and it is easy to teach, but most practitioners find it to be a pretty unsatisfactory description of how the monetary and credit system actually works.” 8. Paul Sheard, Head of Global Economics and Research, Standard and Poor’s Standard and Poor’s, Ratings Direct, Economic Research “This goes against the grain of the usual way of describing bank lending, which suggests that banks “collect” depositsand then “lend them out.” That is not the way it happens at all.” 9. Seth Carpenter & Selva Demiralp, Fedrel Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. “We argue that the institutional structure in the United States andempirical evidence based on data since 1990 both strongly suggest that the transmission mechanism does not work through the standard money multiplier model from reserves to money and bank loans.” 10. Piti Disyatat, Monetary and Economic Department, Bank for International Settlements BIS Working Papers “loans drive deposits rather than the other way around.”

da: http://www.fractionalreserves.com