Markets Restrain Bank Fraud; Central Banks Enable It

by Frank Shostak – Mises Daily:Bank

Originally, paper money was not regarded as money but merely as a representation of a commodity (namely, gold). Various paper certificates represented claims on gold stored with the banks. Holders of paper certificates could convert them into gold whenever they deemed necessary. Because people found it more convenient to use paper certificates to exchange for goods and services, these certificates came to be regarded as money.

Paper certificates that are accepted as the medium of exchange open the scope for fraudulent practices. Banks could now be tempted to boost their profits by lending certificates that were not covered by gold. In a free-market economy, a bank that overissues paper certificates will quickly find out that the exchange value of its certificates in terms of goods and services will fall. To protect their purchasing power, holders of the over-issued certificates naturally attempt to convert them back to gold. If all of them were to demand gold back at the same time, this would bankrupt the bank. In a free market then, the threat of bankruptcy would restrain banks from issuing paper certificates unbacked by gold. Mises wrote on this in Human Action,

People often refer to the dictum of an anonymous American quoted by Tooke: “Free trade in banking is free trade in swindling.” However, freedom in the issuance of banknotes would have narrowed down the use of banknotes considerably if it had not entirely suppressed it. It was this idea which Cernuschi advanced in the hearings of the French Banking Inquiry on October 24, 1865: “I believe that what is called freedom of banking would result in a total suppression of banknotes in France. I want to give everybody the right to issue banknotes so that nobody should take any banknotes any longer.”

This means that in a free-market economy, paper money cannot assume a “life of its own” and become independent of commodity money.

The government can, however, bypass the free-market discipline. It can issue a decree that makes it legal (or effectively legal) for the over-issued bank not to redeem paper certificates into gold. Once banks are not obliged to redeem paper certificates into gold, opportunities for large profits are created that set incentives to pursue an unrestrained expansion of the supply of paper certificates. The uncurbed expansion of paper certificates raises the likelihood of setting off a galloping rise in the prices of goods and services that can lead to the breakdown of the market economy.

Central Banks Protect Private Banks from the Market

To prevent such a breakdown, the supply of the paper money must be managed. The main purpose of managing the supply is to prevent various competing banks from over-issuing paper certificates and from bankrupting each other. This can be achieved by establishing a monopoly bank, i.e., a central bank-that manages the expansion of paper money.

To assert its authority, the central bank introduces its paper certificates, which replace the certificates of various banks. (The central bank’s money purchasing power is established on account of the fact that various paper certificates, which carry purchasing power, are exchanged for the central bank money at a fixed rate. In short, the central bank paper certificates are fully backed by banks’ certificates, which have a historical link to gold.)

The central bank paper money, which is declared as the legal tender, also serves as a reserve asset for banks. This enables the central bank to set a limit on the credit expansion by the banking system. Note that through ongoing monetary management, i.e., monetary pumping, the central bank makes sure that all the banks can engage jointly in the expansion of credit out of “thin air” via the practice of fractional reserve banking. The joint expansion in turn guarantees that checks presented for redemption by banks to each other are netted out, because the redemption of each will cancel the other redemption out. In short, by means of monetary injections, the central bank makes sure that the banking system is “liquid enough” so that banks will not bankrupt each other.

Central Banks Take Over Where Inflationist Private Banks Left Off

It would appear that the central bank can manage and stabilize the monetary system. The truth, however, is the exact opposite. To manage the system, the central bank must constantly create money “out of thin air” to prevent banks from bankrupting each other. This leads to persistent declines in money’s purchasing power, which destabilizes the entire monetary system.

Observe that while, in the free market, people will not accept a commodity as money if its purchasing power is subject to a persistent decline. In the present environment, however, central authorities make it impractical to use any currency other than dollars even if suffering from a steady decline in its purchasing power.

In this environment, the central bank can keep the present paper standard going as long as the pool of real wealth is still expanding. Once the pool begins to stagnate — or, worse, shrinks — then no monetary pumping will be able to prevent the plunge of the system. A better solution is of course to have a true free market and allow commodity money to assert its monetary role.

The Boom-Bust Connection

As opposed to the present monetary system in the framework of a commodity-money standard, money cannot disappear and set in motion the menace of the boom-bust cycles. In fractional reserve banking, when money is repaid and the bank doesn’t renew the loan, money evaporates (leading to a bust). Because the loan has originated out of nothing, it obviously couldn’t have had an owner. In a free market, in contrast, when true commodity money is repaid, it is passed back to the original lender; the money stock stays intact.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

Central Banks Perpetuate Boom-Bust Cycles

excerpt from High Alert: How the Internet Reformation is causing a financial hurricane – and how to profit from it:boom-bust cycles

Central Banks Protect Private Banks from the Market

To prevent such a breakdown, the supply of the paper money must be managed. The main purpose of managing the supply is to prevent various competing banks from overissuing paper certificates and from bankrupting each other. This can be achieved by establishing a monopoly bank, i.e., a central bank-that manages the expansion of paper money.

To assert its authority, the central bank introduces its paper certificates, which replace the certificates of various banks. (The central bank’s money purchasing power is established on account of the fact that various paper certificates, which carry purchasing power, are exchanged for the central bank money at a fixed rate. In short, the central bank paper certificates are fully backed by banks’ certificates, which have a historical link to gold.)

The central bank paper money, which is declared as the legal tender, also serves as a reserve asset for banks. This enables the central bank to set a limit on the credit expansion by the banking system. Note that through ongoing monetary management, i.e., monetary pumping, the central bank makes sure that all the banks can engage jointly in the expansion of credit out of “thin air” via the practice of fractional reserve banking. The joint expansion in turn guarantees that checks presented for redemption by banks to each other are netted out, because the redemption of each will cancel the other redemption out. In short, by means of monetary injections, the central bank makes sure that the banking system is “liquid enough” so that banks will not bankrupt each other.

Central Banks Take Over Where Inflationist Private Banks Left Off

It would appear that the central bank can manage and stabilize the monetary system. The truth, however, is the exact opposite. To manage the system, the central bank must constantly create money “out of thin air” to prevent banks from bankrupting each other. This leads to persistent declines in money’s purchasing power, which destabilizes the entire monetary system.

Observe that while, in the free market, people will not accept a commodity as money if its purchasing power is subject to a persistent decline. In the present environment, however, central authorities make it impractical to use any currency other than dollars even if suffering from a steady decline in its purchasing power.

In this environment, the central bank can keep the present paper standard going as long as the pool of real wealth is still expanding. Once the pool begins to stagnate — or, worse, shrinks — then no monetary pumping will be able to prevent the plunge of the system. A better solution is of course to have a true free market and allow commodity money to assert its monetary role.

The Boom-Bust Connection

As opposed to the present monetary system in the framework of a commodity-money standard, money cannot disappear and set in motion the menace of the boom-bust cycles. In fractional reserve banking, when money is repaid and the bank doesn’t renew the loan, money evaporates (leading to a bust). Because the loan has originated out of nothing, it obviously couldn’t have had an owner. In a free market, in contrast, when true commodity money is repaid, it is passed back to the original lender; the money stock stays intact.

Fiat Money Undermines Society

submitted by jwithrow.Fiat Money

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Fiat Money Undermines Society

October 14, 2014
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P is checking in at $1,878 today, gold is up to $1,234, oil is down to $85, bitcoin is up to $403, and the 10-year is now down to 2.20%.  All in a day’s work, I suppose.

Autumn is truly a beautiful season.  There is a gentle, crisp breeze in the air up here in the mountains of Virginia and a myriad of red, orange, and yellow leaves dot the landscape.  As we await Maddie’s entrance, wife Rachel and I will spend the day making homemade apple cider to celebrate such a fine season!

Last week I suggested that fiat money always seems to undermine the morality and stability of society throughout history.  Let’s examine this a little bit more today.

First, we must be clear about what fiat money is.  Fiat money is any currency that derives its value from government law and regulation.  The word ‘fiat’ is Latin for “let it be done”.  Essentially, fiat money is what the government says is money.  Once decreeing something as money, governments usually force people and businesses to use whatever it is through legal tender laws.  Fiat money has taken different forms throughout history.  Today we primarily use electronic credit-based national currencies (U.S. dollars, Euros, Yen, etc.) as our fiat money.  We still use fiat paper currency also but we are gradually transitioning away from this form of money.  Here in the United States we use “Federal Reserve Notes” as our paper currency.  Take a look at what the bills in your wallet say to confirm this.

Societies, to the extent that you can pinpoint a beginning and end to them, have not started out with fiat money.  Historically, society starts out with free-market money – usually gold, silver, or some other valuable commodity – and then unwittingly moves to fiat money as its government becomes more and more corrupt.

Rome was using a pure silver “denarius” at the beginning of the 1st century, A.D.  Roman emperors then learned how to ‘print’ money by melting down their silver coins, adding cheap base metal into the mix, then re-minting the denarius with a lower silver content.  This enabled them to mint more silver coins than they had melted down, but the denarius was no longer pure silver.

The denarius was 85% silver by the year 100.  By 218, the denarius was down to only 43% silver content.  And by year 244 the denarius contained only .05% silver.  This meant that each Roman denarius coin could purchase 99.95% less than what it could originally purchase!  In other words, everyday prices were 99.95% higher for Romans in year 244 than they were in year 1.

So why in the world did the Roman emperors debase their currency so much?  Why, for great wars, great public works, and to enrich themselves, of course!  You have read all about the Roman Empire in the history textbooks.  Maintaining an empire requires soldiers and soldiers require food, water, and payment.  Oh, and weapons.  This gets more and more expensive as the empire gets bigger and bigger.  I bet you have read about the coliseum too – it was very expensive to build and maintain.  Who was going to pay for it all?

The emperor certainly wasn’t about to curtail his lavish lifestyle to chip in.  Instead he turned to dishonest fiat money: he melted down silver coins and made more of them with a lesser silver content.  Then he paid the soldiers and workers and pretended like nothing was different about the money.  As the currency was debased, Roman society got poorer and the government became more corrupt.  Eventually the Roman Empire became impoverished and collapsed.

Looking farther east, Marco Polo documented the use of fiat money in China:

“You might say that [Kublai] has the secret of alchemy in perfection… the Khan causes every year to be made such a vast quantity of this money, which costs him nothing, that it must equal in amount all the treasure of the world.”

He continues:

“Population and trade had greatly increased, but the emissions of paper notes were suffered to largely outrun both… All the beneficial effects of a currency that is allowed to expand with a growth of population and trade were now turned into those evil effects that flow from a currency emitted in excess of such growth.  These effects were not slow to develop themselves… The best families in the empire were ruined, a new set of men came into the control of public affairs, and the country became the scene of internecine warfare and confusion.”

The same thing happened in France when John Law introduced fiat paper currency in 1716: the currency was inflated into oblivion and the society was impoverished.  And in Weimar Germany in the 1920’s – it got to the point where Germans were using paper marks to heat their furnaces!  Argentina has followed suit a couple times in the late 1900’s.  Zimbabwe was one of the wealthiest countries in Africa until its government ramped up the printing presses in 2008 and implemented price controls.  It wasn’t long before civilized society was wiped out in Zimbabwe and people could no longer get enough food and water for themselves.

Do you notice a trend?

Fast forward to present day: the U.S. dollar has lost 98% of its value since the Federal Reserve was implemented in 1913.  Much of this devaluation has occurred since all ties to gold were removed in 1971.  What has happened to our cost of living?

Technology has also boomed since 1971 such that the means of production and distribution are much more efficient today than ever before.  It seems to me this scenario should have reduced the cost of living for everyone.  But has it?  It wasn’t that long ago when an average American household consisted of only one wage earner.  This one income was enough to provide a high quality of life for the family while the spouse stayed home to raise the kids.  Most households now require two incomes just to get by.

The American standard of living is going in the wrong direction and this is largely due to fiat money.  Further, the fiat money is used primarily for the same things it has always been used for throughout history – war, public works, and the enrichment of the political class…

I will leave it there for today but I hope my point was made.

Until the morrow,

Signature

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Withrow
Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the Great Reset and regaining individual sovereignty please read “The Individual is Rising” which is available at http://www.theindividualisrising.com.  The book is also available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions.