The banking system and the way money really works started being researched quite recently (late 2000s). They are some specialists, but a lot of economists (and especially those you can find on TV or read in the generalist press, but not only) are still stuck on the pre-2000 vision where the money banks lend is from deposits.
Seems similar enough to me. That's how.
Practically all prices are determined on the fly. Libor wasn’t the interbank rate, it was one commercial offering, albeit a powerful one. The Fed Funds rate always was and now SOFR are transactionally derived, which is fundamentally different from Libor, which was never anything more than a survey.
This is mere bankster handwaving in lieu of calculating physically intrinsic value for a sufficient number of commodities.
This is a silly comparison. Stars don’t model their fusion output. Particles interact on the fly. There is also no model relating entropy to overnight collateralised borrowing rates.
> calculating physically intrinsic value for a sufficient number of commodities
Interbank funds aren’t a finite commodity.
The sum total positive energy contained in the universe can be calculated and predicted.
>Interbank funds aren’t a finite commodity.
This statement is obviously false and can run into brick walls in practice.
The comparison isn't silly in the slightest. Currencies must be coupled to a finite resource to function; Lest agent A buy all of agent B's gold using practically nothing but chutzpah.
That you think the comparison is "silly" shows limited/magical thinking on the subject.
No, it isn’t, though misunderstanding it isn’t even fundamental to the flaw in your thinking. A couple of banks can create and destroy an infinite amount of money among them with no real effect. JPMorgan credits UBS a trillion trillion trillion dollars at the latter’s JPMorgan account at the same time UBS credits JPMorgan at its UBS account, and then they both undo it a moment later. No real effect. Hell, JPMorgan could create the money with no counterbalance so they could look at it how pretty it is for an indefinite amount of time. Same deal. Regulators won’t be happy, but that’s because of the potential effects of UBS trying to buy the Fed’s balance sheet.
It’s when the interbank market interacts with broader markets that anything real happens.
What need do banks have for that capability where the capability shouldn't clearly be criminalised?
Banks don't legally have that capability.
The point wasn't that banks do this. It's that it would have the same-real world effect (again, outside regulatory action and law enforcement) as me writing you a trillion-dollar IOU.
...How can you not see this?
By this measure, the paper clips I have on my table have zero value to me. I cannot extract energy from them. Same for my phone and computer.
The traditional answer when people go down this path is “what ever the producer and consumer agree the price is based on a currency denominated in joules that can be extracted from an atom”.
By doing so you’ve eliminated all forms of value adding capabilities from your economic system. The paper clip is no more valuable than its unprocessed atomic components, which is clearly not how real value is derived (or your currency is completely divorced from value).
That's a bad criteria if you don't know exactly what you are talking about.
If you know anything about it, you probably are aware it's accounting related rather than technology related.
Precisely. The accounting scandal has as much to do with the underlying technology as the Libor scandal does with our understanding of the mechanics of banking. Nobody informed walked away from the Libor scandal rethinking the fundamentals of banking in the same way chickens didn’t get bioengineered in response to chicken Libor.