The official page AFAICT is here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
The effective ratio is actually under 10% these days.
Edit: Fixed an inconsequential typo.
The official page AFAICT is here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
The effective ratio is actually under 10% these days.
Edit: Fixed an inconsequential typo.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-m...
> There's really no limit on how much [money] banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit.
> What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow.
...
> Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Demand deposits should be covered via reserves. Loans by banks should be duration-matched to financial instruments offered to the public. Presto, no bank runs and the interest rate is driven by a market expression of societies time preferences.
Economic stimulus is done via government spending, rather than jamming money into an already bloated financial sector. I would favor a universal citizens dividend for this, to minimize corruption.
[1] http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/02v08n1/0205benn/0205benn... tl;dr "They attribute the diminished force of the requirements largely to the spread of "sweep" arrangements—a banking innovation that allows depository institutions to shift funds out of customer accounts subject to reserve requirements."
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
There is no exit. The Fed cannot raise rates.
Or, ask yourself: why is there any reserve ratio at all?
Loans are then (strictly) duration matched with financial instruments offered to the public. Collateralization provides the banks with assets to offset the inevitable bad loans, but "investors" can't demand their money back earlier, and the banks had damn well better be on point when it comes to making and managing the loans, or they are out of business. There would be a secondary market for these instruments, of course.
It's pretty straight forward when you just think in terms of contracts. Its a testament to how fucked up (or, perhaps, effective) our education system is that smart people like yourself can't see these problems straight away.
So loans are funded by the public?
> It's pretty straight forward when you just think in terms of contracts. Its a testament to how fucked up (or, perhaps, effective) our education system is that smart people like yourself can't see these problems straight away.
Why are folks like you so afraid of discussing issues that might challenge your worldview? I would argue that only by being able to articulate answers to these questions (some of which you claim have such obvious answers) can we obtain a better understanding. Maybe your schooling encouraged a blinders mentality, but I humbly suggest you be open yourself to provide answers and not insults.
Of course, with the banks as intermediaries.
Why are folks like you so afraid of discussing issues that might challenge your worldview? I would argue that only by being able to articulate answers to these questions (some of which you claim have such obvious answers) can we obtain a better understanding. Maybe your schooling encouraged a blinders mentality, but I humbly suggest you be open yourself to provide answers and not insults.
The last part was a bit offsides, sorry about that, but it was directed mainly at the econ education community, not at you. I'm happy to discuss anything, as I hope this thread indicates. I've come to my understanding through a long and winding path, including half an econ degree at Berkeley, some marxism, a trip through anarcho-capitalism and forcing myself to concentrate long enough to get through (most of) Steve Keen's work.
I'm advocating a 100% reserve ratio on demand deposits only, duration matching of non-demand deposits and a citizens dividend for economic stimulus. Ain't no school gonna teach you that. :)
With regard to your other reply I have some questions:
> I'm advocating a 100% reserve ratio on demand deposits only, duration matching of non-demand deposits and a citizens dividend for economic stimulus. Ain't no school gonna teach you that. :)
These would be demand deposits paying zero interest (not that they're paying much more than that today :) ?
"duration matching" sounds like those deposits are participants in the loan (e.g. share the risk)?
"citizens dividend for economic stimulus" not sure about this one?
Yes. In fact, you would probably have to pay for the services around them, as with a safe-deposit box, so in some sense they would have negative interest. That's the price of being able to demand the money at any point. Banks would compete on the lowest price for this (and likely pass the cost through to point-of-sale surcharges.)
The core point is that the banks cannot commit fraud: they cannot tell all of us that we can have our money at any point and then not be able to deliver.
> "duration matching" sounds like those deposits are participants in the loan (e.g. share the risk)?
The idea is that banks can make profits on loans, but not by introducing double-counting of money at a given time-point, which is what they do now. (This is why bank runs are possible.) The participants still share default risk, which is hopefully covered by collateralization. If a bank fails to deliver on a given payment, they go into default like a normal business, and they have to strictly demonstrate that they can meet all time-dollar commitments without double-counting any money. Profits are earned via excess interest and I would imagine that well run banks would maintain a positive reserve on top of their commitment curve.
> "citizens dividend for economic stimulus" not sure about this one?
The government issues debt-free money or takes cash-flow from public entities like utilities and distributes it directly to the citizens. This serves as a way to broadly distribute monetary expansion, rather than putting money into the financial system or to favored constituents, with the attendant early-reciever and corruption problems.
It's not a system without flaws and it would be gut-wrenching to move to it. However it does have the advantage that it will never be implemented, so I will never be proven wrong. Perfect! ;)
I wonder if anybody unit tested this design for flaws.
If the above was the problem, then the below wouldn't matter:
> There is no exit. The Fed cannot raise rates.
Because the Fed wouldn't be considering raising rates. If the US economy is growing too slowly, the Fed generally seeks to lower rates, not raise them.
Other companies besides "banks" (savings and loans, credit unions, etc.) can. Other other companies and private individuals only can't in the sense that there are rules governing this to prevent abuse, and if you jump through all the hoops required to do that, you have become a bank, savings and loan, credit union, or some other entity allowed to do it. Banks, etc., are just the name given to entities that have met the requirements to engage in particular activities.
Companies and individuals are most certainly able to create "money" on their own. You can issue all the debt you want, as long as you find a willing counterparty and sign your own name to it. It's balance sheet expansion.
For example, you go to purchase a new car, and sign a note telling the dealer that you will pay the price of the car, plus interest, over five years. You've created an asset out of nothing, for which the bank is more than willing to pay the dealer cash for. People and companies create such assets every day. There is no magic to issuing your own liabilities, which is what the Fed does when it prints money.