Consider the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Abstractly, investors believed that homes had significant value until, one day, society realized the value didn't exist in reality but only "on paper." We know that investment bankers were hiding the problem until the proverbial lid blew.
You might consider that our current financial paradigm has never been tried before in human history. For thousands of years, currency was based upon various measures of value which attempted to be as objective as possible. Semi-rare materials (e.g. gold and silver) and difficult-to-replicate coinage were some examples. The US dollar was decoupled from the gold standard under the Nixon administration. The end result is, one dollar now holds value relative to the amount of dollars in existence. To increase the relative amount of precious metals into the world is relatively difficult (actual physical labor is required), but to increase the total amount of dollars in existence is as simple as updating a database entry.
If financial controls work exceedingly well, the current economic system is viable. We know, however, that they don't.
We know no such thing. The only objective fact is that there have been fewer financial crises since the dollar went off the gold standard than before.
Financial controls don't work perfectly, but having money tied to a commodity is fraught with its own difficulties. It's actually quite handy to have fine-grained control over the money supply that is not coupled to external physical circumstances because then at least we have the option of controlling it to produce better outcomes even if we don't always succeed.
Following that logic, every country can simply print fiat money until everyone is rich.
This idea of commodity money is far detached from how it actually works. Thread has several good links if you want to learn how it actually works.
What is the reason behind so many people believing this? Do they teach it like this at school? (This resurfaces everytime money is discussed here)
Do you really think it's that easy? That *nobody else involved in the system ever was like "wait, what if someone tries to defraud us?"? That there aren't various levels of checks and methods to prevent such easy, easy things?
That, say, the FDIC in the US is just telling banks "sure, we'll insure your bank accounts, don't bother sending us verification, we trust you!"
Whenever you hear someone complain about onerous reporting requirements or other such business regulations, remember that those things get put in place to catch shit like this.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6514493 "The impact of Western Director Dochow's approval to record the capital infusion in the quarter ending March 31, was that IndyMac was able to maintain its 'well-capitalized' status," ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2011/11/23/financial-fingerpointing-tur... ' Even if regulators are involved in wrongdoing, they have some immunity. Internal disciplinary measures are rarely taken against regulators who perform badly in their jobs, say government officials. '
Ask anyone in accounting in a large enough corporation how many millions of dollars go unaccounted each quarter.
Ask the Inspector General of the Defense Department how many trillions of dollars are fudged (answer: $2.6 trillion as of 2016).
[citation needed]
"Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."
So on the asset is a loan made by the bank.
Money is an IOU from the bank. So that's what all banks do. But they'll need assets on the right side of their balance sheet.