I favour full reserve banking, but I’m not under the illusion suffered by what I think are the more naïve and evangelical full reserve advocates, namely that full reserve will solve every other problem on planet Earth, including environmental problems, poverty, the alleged national debt problem, the alleged personal debt problem.
The
national debt.
Full reserve
has no bearing on the alleged national debt problem, because that debt is
easily reduced at any time. Don’t know how? Try this.
First, have
the central bank print money and buy back the debt (exactly what several
countries have been doing big time in recent years under the guise of QE).
Second, to
the extent that the latter QE type policy is too inflationary, raise taxes
(and/or cut public spending) by enough to give a deflationary effect that
cancels out the inflationary effect of QE, which frankly isn’t of astronomic
proportions. I.e. if the recent and massive amounts of QE have had a huge
stimulatory or inflationary effect, where is the evidence? The large numbers of
people currently trying to find work would doubtless also like to know.
National debts exist, amongst other reasons, because of a
desire by the private sector (pension funds in particular) to hold paper
assets. That desire won’t vanish just
because we convert from fractional to full reserve.Indeed,
there are currently concerns about a SHORTAGE of quality paper assets. Also of
some relevance, see David Beckworth’s five facts here.
Put another
way, it is the easiest thing in the world for a country that issues its own
currency to substantially reduce its national debt. But all that happens is
that former debt holders end up holding monetary base. And the latter is also
(at least nominally) a debt owed by government to those “holders”. Or put that
another way, if a country has a national debt that is of such a size that
creditors demand any significant rate of interest, such a country can simply
buy back enough of the debt until the interest on that debt nears zero, which
makes the debt little different in nature to monetary base.
Now that
amounts pretty much to saying that national debts are pointless and that the
only liability issued by the government / central bank machine should be MONEY,
or monetary base to be exact. And what do you know? That’s exactly what Milton
Friedman advocated in a paper entitled “A Monetary and Fiscal Framework for
Economic Stability”. He said:
“Under the
proposal, government expenditures would be financed entirely by either tax
revenues or the creation of money, that is, the issue of non-interest-bearing
securities. Government would not issue interest-bearing securities to the
public….”
Another authority
on these matters, Warren Mosler, said much the same. He said:
“I would
cease all issuance of Treasury securities. Instead any deficit spending would
accumulate as excess reserve balances at the Fed. No public purpose is served
by the issuance of Treasury securities….”
And if you
want some more detailed arguments (put by me) as to why national debts are
pointless, see here.
Personal
debts.
Re the idea
that fractional reserve increases the amount of personal debt, I largely demolished
that idea here. However, a further point needs making in that connection, as
follows.
Borrowing
and lending takes place for the very simple reason that the cash that households,
firms and other entities have at their disposal does not tie up with the cash
REQUIREMENTS of those entities. E.g. some people have surplus cash, while
others want cash for buying a house. Some people want cash to start up or
expand a business, but don’t have the cash to hand.
Now that mismatch
between cash available and cash required or wanted is not affected one iota by
a switch from fractional to full reserve. Thus a switch to full reserve will not
greatly change the total amount of borrowing and lending.
Interest
rates.
There is
however, one route via which full reserve reduces personal debts which is thus.
Assuming the
full reserve system implemented is something along the lines advocated by
Kotlikoff or Werner, it involves lenders taking a hit where relevant loans go
bad (instead of banks or taxpayers taking a hit). And lenders will want extra
interest for taking that risk: i.e. interest rates will rise.
The effect
of that on its own would be deflationary, thus government would need to create
and spend extra monetary base into the economy, which in turn would mean
debtors and creditors having a bigger stock of cash. And that in turn would
bring a reduced need for borrowing.
So on
balance, does full reserve bring instant nirvana for debtors? Hardly. They’d
borrow less, but they’d pay more interest on whatever they did borrow. And
those two effects might well cancel out. I.e. debtors might continue paying
exactly the same total amount of interest. And it’s the affordability of the
interest that is one of the main problems for debtors.
Environmental
matters.
The full
versus fractional reserve argument is entirely separate from the question as to
how to deal with environmental problems. To illustrate, we could perfectly well
carry on with the existing fractional reserve banking system and implement substantial
annual increases in the price of carbon based fuels starting tomorrow. Plus we
could spend twice as much on solar, wind and tidal power generation starting
next week. There is nothing about fractional reserve banking that stops us
implementing the latter sort of environmental measures.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a comment.