I believe the government actually made a profit on the bailouts (the TARP program), probably because they bought while prices were low. Not that there isn’t a lot to criticize about how things went down.
I wouldn’t put too rose-colored-glasses on the pre-central bank era either, we still had financial panics and bank failures and the fact that the world is more globalized/interconnected now is probably true regardless of if we have a central bank or not.
> The real answer is to do away with the fractional reserve lending
I saw an interesting thought experiment related to this a while back.
Say country A is careful about making loans, and B is less careful. Country B takes out 300% more loans, and runs into a huge bad debt problem, and has to write down 20% of the total of all lending. Say people lose 20% of their bank accounts (maybe because the currency depreciates after a bailout).
Which country was more responsible? Country A right?
But if you look at the results, after the write down, country B has 240% as much stuff (housing, infrastructure, etc). And the people there also have 240% as much savings in the bank, since that’s mostly bank credit backed by debt.
The author made the argument that country A resembled Russia and county B resembled China.
Examples like this make me feel that the most responsible way to handle debt (at least at the public policy level) is not really very clear, since even doing things that seem responsible can have huge costs in the end.
For example his video at [1] is a pretty time efficient introduction to country-level debt dynamics (and it's endorsed by some high level people like the Khan Academy guy), and he also has a free book [2] that goes into detail for bunch of historical cases.
That is simply not true. It's a fiction (of sorts) told by people who feel fucked by the financial system.
I work hard and get paid $100 for what I did. I then deposit $100.
The bank loans $90 to person X.
Person X gives the money to person Y for some good or service.
Person Y deposits $90 and now there is $190 in the bank.
The bank loans $81 to person X+1.
Person X+1 gives the money to person Y+1 for some good or service.
Person Y+1 deposits $81 and now there is $271 in the bank.
The bank loans $72.90 to person X+1.
...
The last person deposits and there is now $900 in the bank when only $100 worth of actual work has been done. $900 has been printed out of nothing and the original $100 has been devalued.
I get 0.05% interest off my hard work while the bank gets 5-25% interest off of $900 in imaginary money (future earnings, whatever).
If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested.
Are you claiming that when person x gives $90 to person y for some good or service, no work was done?
It seems to me that there were 3 transactions totalling 271$ in goods or services rendered, and $271 put into the bank.
> If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested.
Yes, because you aren't subject to the various banking regulations. Oftentimes privileges come with responsibilities.
> I get 0.05% interest off my hard work while the bank
Well of course, leaving your money in a savings account is kinda dumb. You too should invest it in a more active way if you want to make a profit.
What you're describing is related to the "velocity of money" and "propensity to save" which are odd concepts but also one of the most direct ways behavior effects the economy.
>> If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested.
The bank didn't print one damn thing in your example. They loaned out money that people gave them as deposits.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...
> This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.
> Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits.
> In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.
To completely eliminate fractional reserve lending would be economic suicide. Without fractional reserves, lending gets incredibly expensive. Interest rates would have to be sky high to quickly recuperate money distributed from a loan to be able to fund further loans.
Should we raise the minimum reserve? Maybe. But the 2008 crash was caused just as much by people taking out mortgages they couldn't possibly afford. We really need to teach financial literacy and planning in our high schools to prevent people from being taken advantage of from banks that just want to sell as many loans as possible under the assumption that if a borrower defaults, they'll still come out ahead after foreclosure since real estate is assumed to nearly always appreciate.
In 2008, the banks failed. They put a gun to the heads of everyone in America and said "bail us out or you lose everything". So the bankers kept all their profits and everyone else lost big.
That is just one of many central bank failures. The only difference from the many small bank system that came before is that instead of a bank here or there failing and everyone else moving on, all banks fail at the same time. Don't count on that FDIC money either. It is setup as if only one or two banks will partially fail at any given time. In massive failures, there's not enough money to secure what they promise to secure (thus the gun to your head).
The real answer is to do away with the fractional reserve lending where a bank gets $100 and then proceeds to loan out $900. That would require banks to have much smaller profit margins and maybe even become not-for-profit entities, but we certainly can't entertain that idea..