Skip to main content

Where does money come from?

Listening to one of the RSA's excellent 15 minute 'Four Thought' talks on Radio 4 the other day I was struck how naive I was about how money was created. And I think I'm not alone. When I say how money is created, I don't mean companies earning it, I mean extra money added to the supply. My naive reaction would have been 'The Bank of England does it - quantitative easing, that sort of thing.' But actually the BoE is a small player in this.

The reason I missed the point is that I hadn't really thought about what ordinary high street banks do with money. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't like a young friend of ours many years ago who thought that the bank had a series of shoe boxes (or equivalent), and when she paid money in, they put it in her shoe box in the safe. I knew the money you pay in just enters the system and can go anywhere. But I hadn't thought about another aspect of dealing with banks.

Let's imagine you go to your bank and get a loan. You can do it online in about 2 minutes - it's frighteningly easy. At the end of the process, the bank waves that magic wand and the amount you borrow - £1,000, say - is in your account. Nothing has actually moved anywhere. All they have done is increased the number on the computer file that says 'Brian's balance' (my electronic shoe box). And here's the totally amazing thing. They just created that money. They didn't need anything to back up that number. They just changed the value and hey presto there was more money in the system. Simples.

And scary. That is, on the whole, how money is made without any need for any reserves to back it up. Which it's hard not to see as a contributory factor in the financial mess we got into. You can hear the original talk here and I recommend it.

Comments

  1. "All they have done is increased the number on the computer file .."

    And don't I wish that I could hack that database field with what I would consider a more useful figure!

    I must admit that this doesn't sound right. Say I'm a bank, and I lend you £1,000,000 at 0%. Haven't I just magically made you a millionaire? Whilst I can see it's digitally just 1s and 0s, it seems to me that if someone wanted it in Gold say that there'd be a bit of a problem if those 1s and 0s weren't backed-up with something (like Gold)?

    So, say the interest rate is 100% per day; and you pay back £2000 the next day; does this mean that the bank has made £1000 for nothing? That doesn't seem right

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that's the whole point, Peet. And, no it isn't backed up by gold.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian

    Accountant here.....what a lot of piffle, mirrors and left wing propaganda!

    It is true that banks "create" money by making loans, however they can only lend money if they have sufficient assets with which they can support the loan; they can't just continue to lend in the absence of new deposits.

    What does all that mean for the banking system as a whole? And why is it now so difficult to borrow money?

    In 2008 banks were hit by toxic loans from US mortgages (based on poor lending and probable incompetence by some banks) which meant that they had to reduce the value of their assets against which they could lend and in the process had to rebuild their reserves. Some banks did this by requiring additional equity from their shareholders, and some by going to the government for assistance. It is taking time to rebuild these reserves. Mean while the real economy is stuttering because of the declining money supply.

    Into this mix must also be fed the new stricter Basel lll Global Regulations for financial institutions which have effectively tripled the reserves that banks must now hold against losses; these regulations are being introduced between now and 2019 and it is argued by some that the global economy will take until then at least to recover from the strains imposed by the recession.

    You always knew I could be boring if required……

    Ian

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope