Whose Money?

Paying the cost of your own slavery

AN  UNSTABLE  MONEY  SUPPLY  ...  OR,  HOW  THE  BANKS  CREATE  AND  DESTROY  OUR  MONEY


"I am afraid the ordinary citizen would not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money.  The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of banks in increasing and decreasing deposits and bank purchases.   Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit."

 

Reginald McKenna Chancellor of Exchequer 1915-16 and Chairman of Midland Bank 1919-43 (2)

 

As most of us know, only the Bank of England is allowed to produce the UK’s stock of notes and coins; and this includes the notes of banks in Scotland, which have their own designs, but which must still be purchased from the Bank of England.  Any commercial bank caught printing its own notes or minting its own coins would be guilty of forgery. 

 

Our friendly high-street banks certainly don’t manufacture hard cash; but nor do they simply relocate money from one account to another.

 

In the course of their day-to-day transactions they also manage, quite legally, to multiply the amount of money in existence.

 

How do they achieve this?

 

In the words of J K Galbraith, by a process “so simple that the mind is repelled”.

 

Commercial banks “lend” money into existence.  In fact, it is normal practice for banks to “lend” out far more money  -  traditionally around ten times more  -  than they actually hold in deposits.

 

As you see, this bank “lending” is very different from ordinary lending.

 

It is the mechanism by which the banking system is able to prime the economy with extra money while staying within the law.

 

This is what happens.

 

When a bank agrees to “lend” you, say, £50,000, this money comes in the form of credit.  A bank clerk simply taps a computer keyboard and hey presto  -  the required sum springs into existence as figures in your bank account! 

 

Nobody else’s account is debited; no depositor is denied the use of his or her money until you have repaid your loan, nor are you drawing on the bank’s reserves:  yet you have just acquired an extra fifty thousand pounds’ worth of spending power, along with fifty thousand pounds’ worth of debt, which you owe to the bank that created it!

 

Since you borrowed this money to purchase specific goods or services, it rapidly ends up in other people’s bank accounts, adding £50,000 to the total deposits held within the banking system.

 

Let’s just take a closer look at what’s happening here.  

 

The bank hasn’t actually lent you £50,000 in legal tender (or cash, to you and me).  It has simply entered figures in your account which give you the right to claim £50,000 in cash. 

 

Of course, the bank hopes that you will not take advantage of this right, but will do most of your business by means of non-cash transactions, paying by, eg,  cheque or credit card, direct debit or standing order.   In this way, no physical money changes hands: you simply pass the right to claim a stated sum in cash to someone else; and if they, and subsequent payees, are also happy to do business via cashless transactions, the system works.   

 

But it is a nominal right to cash that is being circulated, rather than cash itself.

 

As long as people continue to trust the banking system and don’t withdraw excessive sums in cash, banks can continue to lend into existence far more money than they actually have; and as long as more credit money is being lent out than is returning to the banks in repayment of past loans, total deposits continue to grow ….  and so, therefore, does the amount  which the banks consider it safe to  “lend” out to future borrowers.

 

This is called “the multiplier effect”; and it is in this way that the high-street banks are able to create money without resorting to forgery under our present laws.

 

However, debts have to be repaid: and, as Reginald McKenna points out in the quotation above, the process of repayment destroys deposits.  In other words, money created as a debt is continuously being removed from circulation.  This means that new borrowers must constantly be stepping forward to boost the money supply with fresh credit, flowing into new deposits, if the wheels of the economy are to keep turning.

 

Is this really the most sensible way of providing the country with money?

MORE  CREDIT  MONEY  MEANS  MORE  DEBT  FOR  MORE  PEOPLE


The irrational practice of relying upon a steady stream of borrowers to keep an adequate supply of money in circulation has always caused serious damage, both to individuals and to the productive economy as a whole; but over the past fifty years or so, with the decreasing use of hard cash, our irrational financial system has put businesses and, in particular, the household budgets of ordinary people, under ever greater strain.

 

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with non-cash money as such.

 

Today we find it more convenient to use a credit or debit card for expensive items, and for the weekly grocery bill; and payment direct into a bank account by cheque or banker’s draft has largely taken over from  “cash in hand” to pay wages and salaries, and even state benefits.

 

Of course, the increased use of credit money has many advantages.  It would be silly to ban the use of cheques and cards, and return to the days when hard cash was used for most everyday transactions.

 

In the modern world, the exclusive use of notes and coins isn’t a practical option; but notes and coins do have one very significant advantage over bank-created “credit”:  they are issued by the state, and put into circulation, without generating an equivalent amount of debt.

 

Traditionally, we have been able to depend upon government for a substantial input of publicly-created, debt-free money in the form of notes and coins.

  

Even at the end of World War II notes and coins still constituted more than 40% of the total money stock: but this has now plummeted to a mere  3%.

 

It used to be the industrial and business sectors, borrowing to invest, which were principally forced to take on the expense of creating around half the country’s means of exchange in the form of credit.

But as the disuse of notes and coins has led to a smaller and smaller input of publicly-created, debt-free money, ordinary people on modest incomes are increasingly being forced to abandon financial prudence and bridge the gap by borrowing credit into existence at their own cost and risk: in particular, through the huge mortgages which are now required to purchase even a small flat.

However, as we have pointed out, the credit money conjured up in this way is not  -  as notes and coins still are  -  given freely to the nation without any need for repayment.  Under the present financial system, all the credit money needed by the economy (that is to say, almost all the money at present available for trade and exchange) must be created as an interest-bearing debt against specific individuals and businesses; and it is owed by them personally to the banking system. 

The shocking fact is that UK governments, abandoning their responsibility to provide the country with a means of exchange to match its growing  wealth,  now choose to rely on ordinary people like you and me taking out crippling loans in order to provide around 60% of the total money supply,  through the mortgages on our houses.

 

But why should the nation’s money exist only as a by-product of debts shouldered by private individuals and businesses?

 

There is no reason why publicly-created, debt-free money in the form of credit should not be produced as easily as publicly-created, debt-free notes and coins.

 

Create a free website at Webs.com