Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Fractional reserve banking directly inflates the economy via loans. If I deposit $1000 into my bank account, the bank will lend it to someone else instead of just holding it for me. That loan is new money created out of literally nowhere. It only becomes real money when the borrower actually extracts value from this world and earns real dollars in the process. The loan's repayment makes it real. Until that happens, the money doesn't actually exist, it's completely made up.

So borrower goes out and buys the stuff they need to make it happen. That money eventually ends up right back in the bank as a deposit. Once at the bank, it is once again loaned, spent, deposited, loaned, spent, deposited... Quickly inflating $1000 into a whole economic system worth huge figures like $100,000, not one cent of it real until all of the aforementioned economic activity actually succeeds in generating some real value. Always at risk of the whole stack unwinding due to business failures leading to defaults on loans which could cause even more defaults and liquidations and foreclosures and losses and all sorts of problems.

Multiplying that by an entire country's polulation results in truly mind-boggling amounts of money generation and therefore inflation. The actual money supply doesn't actually matter since it's a small fraction of the amount of money that's actually circulating.

The funniest part is cryptocurrency exchanges have turned into banks. They offer bitcoin lending services, savings accounts. Finite bitcoin supply? It doesn't matter. Value can always be inflated away through loans.

I’m not really following this. Let’s say I secretly tag my dollars with a red mark. Deposit $1000 cash, and then my account shows a $1000 balance. My red $1000 is probably going to wind up being withdrawn in an ATM by someone else, or used in a mortgage, or something else, but my red tagged $1000 bills don’t suddenly become a multiplied amount of money!

That is what the average person thinks what happens but in reality the bank does not even care about your deposit. What actually happens is that the bank just creates a new money from thin air by just adding another zero their account and then transferring some of that new money to the person who wants a loan.

The US fed does this too, they add a zero at the end of the existing account and create more money. Its all in a database no cash is being printed.

So you’re telling me that banks routinely scam the ACH system? Pretty sure this is 100% FUD.

Why do you think its FUD, what do you mean scam the ACH system?

You deposit $1000. The bank does the following accounting:

  accounts["thehappypm"] += 1000
  accounts["reserves"] += 1000

Then I go to the bank and request a $900 loan. It knows it has $1000 lying around doing nothing useful so it just gives a fraction of it to me as a loan. The bank does the following:

  accounts["reserves"] -= 900
  accounts["matheusmoreira"] += 900

So now we have three accounts:

  accounts["thehappypm"] == 1000
  accounts["matheusmoreira"] == 900
  accounts["reserves"] == 100

So the bank received a $1000 deposit, kept a $100 reserve and loaned out $900.

That $900 is completely made up money. They just credited my account with that amount out of nowhere. I'm supposed to go out there and earn money to pay it back. If I do, all is well. If I default? The bank has its books showing they owe you $1000 but they only have $100 in reserve. The illusion is shattered the second you attempt to withdraw that money.

In the real world, it's not just you and me. It's banks leveraging their massive reserves on risky loans and investments that fail, thousands of customers noticing and attempting to withdraw everything they have all at the same time, getting nothing, leading them to default on their debts and so on and so on until the government literally manufactures even more money to bail out the banks by "injecting liquidity" into them and restoring their reserves, putting an end to the bank run at the cost of even more inflation.

So I decide to spend that $900 on a computer for software development in order to work remotely. I go to the store and buy one.

  accounts["matheusmoreira"] -= 900
  accounts["store"] += 900
  accounts["reserves"] += 900

  accounts["thehappypm"] == 1000
  accounts["matheusmoreira"] == 0
  accounts["store"] == 900
  accounts["reserves"] == 1000

The bank just received a $900 deposit, so its original reserves are restored. This means another loan is possible! This cycle repeats itself many times as money circulates until millions have been created out of thin air. Notice that the only way those accounts balance is if I pay back my $900 loan. If I lose my job before that happens? They won't balance and the bank will have to pick and choose who can withdraw and how much.

Not too long ago, Binance had restrictions on bitcoin withdrawals. Unverified accounts could only withdraw a small amount per day, verified accounts could withdraw a larger but still limited sum. Hmm...

I still don’t see the problem. At no point is cash conservation broken. They may say that my account has $900 in it when that cash doesn’t exist, it’s been used for some other end, but that’s not weird or unusual, or even interesting. I know that the bank has plenty of other peoples’ $900 that if I wanted that cash I could take it.

> I still don’t see the problem.

The problem is banks operate in a state of perpetual insolvency. Their ability to pay off their debts to customers depends on the state of the larger economy. Too many defaults and the whole thing comes crashing down.

> At no point is cash conservation broken.

It never existed to begin with. All that's required for the illusion to disappear is for enough people to attempt to withdraw funds at the same time.

> I know that the bank has plenty of other peoples’ $900 that if I wanted that cash I could take it.

The bank has money until it doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run

> Many of the recessions in the United States were caused by banking panics

> The Great Depression contained several banking crises consisting of runs on multiple banks

> The global financial crisis that began in 2007 was centered around market-liquidity failures that were comparable to a bank run

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008

> The International Monetary Fund estimated that large U.S. and European banks lost more than $1 trillion on toxic assets and from bad loans

> Lack of investor confidence in bank solvency and declines in credit availability led to plummeting stock and commodity prices

> The crisis rapidly spread into a global economic shock, resulting in several bank failures

> The de-leveraging of financial institutions, as assets were sold to pay back obligations that could not be refinanced in frozen credit markets, further accelerated the solvency crisis

> governments and central banks provided then-unprecedented trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulus, including expansive fiscal policy and monetary policy to offset the decline in consumption and lending capacity, avoid a further collapse, encourage lending, restore faith in the integral commercial paper markets, avoid the risk of a deflationary spiral, and provide banks with enough funds to allow customers to make withdrawals

People complain about Tether but the whole banking system is just Tether on steroids.

> People complain about Tether but the whole banking system is just Tether on steroids.

With regulation, and audits, and insurance, and government guarantees that if something goes really wrong you will be made whole (as long as you don't deposit more than 7 years the median US income).

I also wouldn't deposit my money in an 1890's US bank.

You’re just repeating the same thing over and over. I still don’t think at any point the bank is multiplying money in any kind of real or concerning way.

You should really read up on this. He explains it fairly well, and yes, money are multiplied with fractional reserve banking. Since the bank only needs to keep a fraction of the money they owe to account holders, they can loan the rest out. But the point is that this loaned money ends up on some other customers bank account, possibly with the same bank, and can thus be loaned out again. So in a 20% reserve requirement situation, _the same money_ can be used to finance the building of five houses, not just one which it would be if the reserve requirement was 100%.

Banks duplicate your money endlessly. After money that existed only in your possession is deposited at a bank, it will exist in many places simultaneously: in your account, in other people's accounts, as loans to third parties. If you don't see how that inflates the money supply, then I'm not sure what else I can say.

This is what fuels exponential growth of nations. Banks keep conjuring up money out of thin air and loaning out to people so they can work and extract value out of this planet at unsustainable exponential rates. Humanity is addicted to it. The second these loans become unavailable for any reason, everything comes crashing down. The economy literally grinds to a halt.

Worst of all is these banks essentially dictate the direction future society will take. They choose who receives loans and who's left out in the cold. People like Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock and manager of 10 trillion dollars. They decide things and then say "will you lead, or will you be led?"

Perhaps you're getting hung up over physical bank notes. If most people and companies hold most of their money as numbers in bank accounts and do most of their buying and selling by moving numbers between bank accounts, why is it only cash that matters?

The money is the numbers the banks report to you. Multiplying those numbers is inflating the money supply. Yes they might be required to hold some other assets than simply numbers in their databases to start the whole process, but they can still multiply money to some degree.

> It knows it has $1000 lying around doing nothing useful so it just gives a fraction of it to me as a loan. The bank does the following:

The bank does not have to do this everytime, Most of times it just creates a loan account and adds a number in the database and creates money out of thin air.

Fractional reserve banking doesn't exist [0].

The Bank of England explained this in 2014. Surely the myth should have died by now.

[0]: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

> Fractional-reserve banking is the system of banking operating in almost all countries worldwide

> under which banks that take deposits from the public are required to hold a proportion of their deposit liabilities in liquid assets as a reserve, and are at liberty to lend the remainder to borrowers

I quote the Bank of England, and you quote Wikipedia in response.

Why not read the BoE report, and respond to that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com