Clothes Rack, Menards

reserves? What reservations? "

In the long list of concepts which the name is extremely misleading, that of "bank reserves" would have a prominent place. When one uses the word "reservation" for an individual, household, business or even an animal, it means that we have set aside to cope in the future to potential hard times. The mechanism is absolutely different for banks.

Banks have a legal obligation in the euro area to maintain the equivalent of 2% of their deposits and savings in reserve at the European Central Bank. For example, a bank that would be 1 billion euros of deposits should maintain 20 million euro in central bank reserves. All that the bank has on deposit at the central bank or in its coffers in addition to these 20 million represents its excess reserves. To maximize their profit, most of the time, the vast majority of banks minimize their reserves surplus. Suppose our imaginary bank has 1 billion and 21 million deposit reserves. 20 million would represent the minimum legal reserves and $ 1 million surplus. Suppose that depositors decide to withdraw $ 5 million. The bank had deposits of 995 million and 16 million reserve. The reserve ratio increase to 1.6% or below the legal minimum. The bank, if it does not find immediate funds to be deposited at the central bank is illegal.

We can see the inconsistency of the term "reserves." The bank keeps money aside that she can not touch any loss or withdrawal under threat of massive illegal. It's like if you were asked to keep aside 100 euros you could never touch. Can we call them "reservations"? What good are money that can be used for?

In reality, these "reserves" are not meant to be reserves. They are simply a tool of monetary policy. More reserves are low, more banks can create money. Plus they are stronger, the central bank control increased the money supply in circulation. Reserve requirement rate depends in theory the bank multiplier. In theory, if the minimum reserve is 10%, 1 euro issued by central bank may turn into an amount between EUR 0 and EUR 10. If it is 2%, between EUR 0 and EUR 50. If it is 0%, 0 euro and euro infinity.

Some countries like the United Kingdom and Canada have simply abolished the legal requirement of reserves. United States, if the legal minimums still exist officially, they have effectively disappeared. By law, banks must keep in reserve 10% of their deposits (current account) and 0% of time deposits (savings). Yet in recent decades, the funds deposited on current account have evaporated and been transferred to "false" savings accounts. Current accounts represent only a fraction of the money supply. The relative share of the savings accounts has increased greatly cons. In fact, Americans deposited on current account savings account disguised as allowing banks to circumvent the regulation. We can therefore say that the minimum statutory reserves have been also abolished in the United States by the passivity of the legislators on this issue.

Faced with this type of circumvention, the central bank has decided to impose a legal minimum reserve of 2% for both savings accounts and current accounts. Thus, there is no incentive to disguise the current account savings accounts. But what about those meager reserves? 160 small billion to cover 8000 billion deposits on current account and savings account. 160 billion! This represents some 500 euros per capita euro area. 500 euros per capita, while that banks have in turn hire and what with our savings!

When the real "reserves, excess reserves, with which banks lend and face the withdrawals, they are only a few billion euros or just over 3 euros per capita. To explain things clearly, if all the inhabitants of the euro area would remove 3 euros at the same time, without intervention by the Central Bank, much of the banks would find themselves automatically under the legal minimum reserve. 3 euros per capita, the flexibility of banks. Our language has not I think of a single term to describe this situation: "the foutage of mouth."

How does our banks with so little money? Today, most communication is by check, bank transfer or credit card. In fact, requests for cash withdrawal are quite limited. The amounts of each incoming and outgoing bank cancels most often so that very little money usually comes out of the banks. If a bank falls below the minimum statutory reserves, it will find the funds normally available on what is called the interbank market. Banks with excess reserves to lend to those who lack the reserve. But if gradually, people derive more and more tickets, and reserves tend dangerously towards the legal minimum. The Central Bank intervenes and lends to banks or buying securities. Basically, without the continuous assistance of the ECB, the system can not stand.

Knowing that the loan system usually works well and the Central Bank is there to come to the rescue at the slightest problem, they grow their lending to the limit. Airbag 0. How surprised by the violence of the shock wave from a falling investment bank Lehman Brothers as midsize. Without a market for interbank lending, banks may find themselves in a few hours in great difficulty because they have provided virtually no safety margin in cash. After the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, a general distrust has set in, nobody knows the other's exposure to that bank. Basically everyone feared that the other will go bankrupt and banks have stopped lending to each other. We must realize that in light of banks' excess reserves, transfer of reserves of a few million euro can put in the red banks weighing several dozen billion euros of deposits. The Central Bank should intervene in a few hours to save the whole banking system by lending them money or buying securities (usually government bonds). Central banks are kind of Nanny State banks to flying to the rescue of our teenagers are our fiery as when banks can not meet their commitments.

How to live under the illusion of a free market, where the daily intervention of an instance government is necessary for the survival of our economic system. Impose minimum reserves larger would not solve the problem. Indeed, they are not "reserves" as we have already shown. Impose compulsory excess reserves would also be meaningless. For reservations are "reserves" should be able to touch it when you need it.

No, the only solution is to separate banking functions. The applicant on account does not want to take risk. He wants to file Money and power have when it sees fit without relying on the investment policies of banks. They are 100% reserves are necessary as we stand on this site for such filing. The applicant on account needs a "digital cash". The "digital cash" has the same properties as a ticket or room, but in digital format. Basically this means that all money is in reserve accounts of the European Central Bank. The transition has been explained at length in the note 'Advocacy for a monetary revolution. " It was explained precisely the great American economist Irving Fisher in "100% Money" and Nobel Laureate Maurice Allais French economy in the "capital tax and monetary reform."

The applicant hopes on savings account interest. This efficiency means taking risks. This risk-taking, he should wear it and it will be realized by choosing the bank where it will deposit its money. By depositing money in a savings account, the customer is an "investment" with the risks involved. Free the bank to fix also the amount of reserves they want. This are the minimum reserve of 0% must be imposed on savings account. We can never prevent the company that takes a risk to go bankrupt but you can not accept that our economic system depends on the survival of a particular bank. By imposing 100% reserve is to protect both the applicant and the whole economy of the major risks of financial meltdown.

Can we continue in a hybrid system where a triple play disempowerment:

- Banks can take Risk phenomenal with its depositors' money by keeping airbags very low, given that the Central Bank will always be there to lend him money if necessary.

- leaving the state banks to lend 98% of depositors' money on current account delegates the control of money to private institutions.

- The applicant has knowledge that the state guarantee will put his money anywhere without seriously considering if the investments of the bank is serious or not, looking just how much return it offers.

The proposed system would involve a threefold responsibility:

- Banks are empowered because they have to bear the costs of their bad investments or taking excessive risk. The "current account management" would be 100% secure because the money would stay warm in the reserves. The "management savings account" it would be risky and mismanagement lead to bankruptcies.

- The state would have to defend at all costs money to its citizens and prevent banks from circumventing the law by disguising current account savings accounts (by preventing transfers by check or credit card since such filing for example). The state would take the same time full control of currency and would be responsible for "total" control of its value.

- The applicant assured knowing that no state would protect the savings banks in bankruptcy would have to choose carefully or the bank invests its money. Instead, he would know that its current account deposit would be covered by wilderness and thus available at any time regardless of the situation.

120 Inch Plastic Tablecovers

How irresponsible policy of the European Central Bank increased to an austerity policy.

During the few years preceding the crisis, the ECB has been accused of applying a rigorous, rigid for the sole purpose of maintaining a stable price level without worrying about the imperatives social benefits of strong economic growth. The debate has raged between two legions: those who argued that price rigidity was the best policy Monetary economically possible and those who defended the view that a more lenient credit policy with lower interest rates, this price inflation slightly higher, would have positive economic effects. Proponents of this second opinion has continued to rehash the American example, the central bank kept rates lower than those of the ECB, which had higher growth. According to them, with rates somewhat lower and a little more inflation, the European machine would cease to be clamped and could finally prevail in globalization.

The so-called rigidity of the European Central Bank has taken root in the media discourse in three ways:

- Inflation has remained low since the establishment of the ECB, which would imply any "logical" a very strong political discipline within the central bank

- A speech rigor constantly rehashed by the ECB executives, especially Mr Trichet seemed not to have that price stability

- The Articles ECB does give the European central bank that the price stability objective

- Finally, the relative rigidity of interest rates, many less reactive to the "cycles" economic Fed.

First, it should be noted that the rates by the ECB as decried by the business press and many authors have been in the years preceding the crisis at historically low levels between 2 and 4%. For the European central bank, interest rates are the primary means of monetary control since it was through them that it regulates the demand for loanable funds from the central bank from private banks.

Then, beyond the index Official prices, look what has really been the policy of the ECB during the last 5 years. The ECB has a direct control on bank reserves and notes in circulation. The rest goes on within the banks through the "multiplier bank (credits are deposits).

Growth - Banknotes and coins in circulation

2003: 22.1%

2004: 16.8%

2005: 12.3%

2006: 10.1%

2007: 8,

1% 2008: 13.5%

Growth in 6 years: 116%

growth of bank reserves:

2003: 5.32%

2004: 7.74%

2005: 12.46%

2006: 12.17%

2007: 11.26

% 2008: 4.71%

growth in 6 years: 66%

We already see that we are very far from the strict policy as we described. The ECB has had a policy totally lax. It has increased the monetary base (reserve tickets + + pieces) in an absolutely huge.

look at the effects on the currency truly outstanding during the last 6 years we have carried out the current crisis.

Growth of broad money supply M3

2003: 4.6%

2004: 5.8%

2005: 11.3%

2006: 13.8%

2007: 12.3%

2008: 6.9%

growth over 6 years: 68% (note the promiscuity with reserve growth)

lax policy the ECB has been a result of extremely rapid growth means payment. It must be remembered that these years have seen a growth of 2 to 3% per year. Thus the quantity theory of money says that if you target an inflation rate of 2% would require a growth in money supply by about 5% (Inflation: 2% + 3% growth = M3 growth: 5% ). Now they are growing more important in M3 we saw in 2005, 2006 and 2007. La banque centrale au lieu de ralentir ce mouvement en restreignant la monnaie de base a continué à émettre des montants très important de monnaie de base.

The question that arises is: why all this new money injected did not cause an inflation of consumer prices. Depending on the quantity theory of money, a fall in the rate of movement of means of payment could explain this. Yet it had no particular reason to fall so heavily to compensate for inflation should be around 10% in 2006, for example. A second possibility is that this money could have been used and circulated largely for other purposes as the purchase of consumer goods.

This second hypothesis is largely confirmed by the huge asset bubble that we lived during the same period. Prices have soared in the real estate sectors, stocks, commodities and the number of transactions has simply exploded in the same markets. Now the asset market follows exactly the same quantitative law that the market for consumer goods. The more money available and it is moving faster, prices will rise.

The newly issued money has probably moved in a sort of parallel financial system where it was used largely to speculate on the asset market. If there had not been this great monetary expansion initiated by the ECB, it was almost impossible to see oil prices multiplied by seven, those shares doubled in recent years and property prices become absolutely unaffordable for many of Europe. The credit has cast afloat in the financial markets spurred even the ECB to disconnect the prices of assets of any economic reality. For almost a year, is the explosion of this same spirit that we exploded in the face and hurt so many economies.

The ECB was in a very difficult position. Growth the years 2003-2007, although we now appear to be quite respectable, was seen as an economic failure in France, Germany, Italy and many other countries in the Eurozone. Higher rates to calm the speculative bubble would have been, despite the central bank independence, politically untenable. Inside the mind of our policies, there would have been "inflation is low, so why constrain further growth." Yet there was inflation, very high inflation in asset prices, perhaps inflation worst kind when it is uncontrolled.

History certainly forget this media frenzy, this strange moment in economic history when facing a central bank pursuing a policy strongly expansionary economic and political figures have continued to ask him to be even more irrational.

Snoring Sleep On Side Close Mouth

100% Money Irving Fisher: A short presentation

2 years after writing "The Debt Deflation Theory" where he explained how the deleveraging process could lead the U.S. into the worst deflation and economic depression in its history, Irving Fisher published " 100% Money "in 1935. Currency reform political project of great magnitude, a monument to economic theory, the work convincing extension, this book from one of the greatest economists of the modern era has remained for some mysterious reason almost unknown to the vast majority of specialists. The importance of this book have greatly influenced the thinking of Nobel laureates and Maurice Allais Miton Friedman is nevertheless crucial. Fisher explains very simply how to clean the incredible monetary house of cards based on a pyramid of debt to end immutable destructive cycles of boom and depression.

The news of this book is striking. Faced with a crisis of unprecedented private debt, we find no solutions other than to spray the market with liquidity and heavily in debt our countries, merely postpone the inevitable deleveraging process. Gold in our monetary system as in the U.S. of the 30s the corollary of debt is deflation. The plan of Irving Fisher "100% money" or wilderness plan presents what may be the solution to this impasse. The following is the first French translation of my knowledge a short presentation Plan 100% Money in the introduction to this book.

This text is also available in the original: http://irving-fisher.blogspot.com/

A short presentation of the plan

United States and in some other countries, most of our bills are paid by check and not with money from hand to hand.

When a person signs a check, they pay with what she calls "the money I had in the bank" as indicated by its bank balance the heel of his checkbook. The sum of all balances on all the heels of the nation, that is to say all checking account deposits, or what we usually think of being "money" based bank can be used to pay by check is the primary means of payment in the United States. I propose to call it "money in checking account" to distinguish species or "money in their pockets." The money in the pockets is the most classic of these two types. It is visible and tangible as money in checking account is not. His claim to be money and exchange as if it were real money comes from the fact that he "represents" real money and can be converted to the demand for real money in "cash" a check.

However, the main difference between money on checking account and money in the pockets is that it is a money bearer, accepted by all hands, while silver on checking account requires special permission from the recipient to be transferred.

In 1926, a representative year before the Great Depression, money in checking account held by the inhabitants of the United States totaled $ 22 billion by one estimate, while outside banks and the Treasury states United, the actual money, money and physical bearer in people's pockets and into the coffers of merchants accounted for less than $ 4 billion. Overall, the means of exchange of the country in the hands of the public were $ 26 billion, $ 4 billion flowing from hand to hand and moving 22 billion check.

Many people think that money is really checking account and money is actually in the bank. This is of course far from true.

What can be so much money on this mysterious checking account that we call a misleading way our "money in the bank? is simply the promise of banks to provide money to their depositor when he is asked. To cover the 22 billion money on checking account in 1926, banks held only 3 billion of real money in their trunk. The remaining 19 billion represented assets other than money; assets such as debt and as government bonds or corporate.

In ordinary times, such as in 1926, these 3 billion was sufficient to allow banks to provide applicants blowing all the money they ask. But if all applicants had asked for money ringing at the same time, even if they could collect a certain amount of hard cash by selling other assets, banks could not have enough money to meet these requests for the simple Because there was not enough money ringing around the country to collect the 22 billion. And if all applicants had requested the gold at the same time, there would not have enough gold in the world.

Between 1926 and 1929, the amount of payment has slightly increased from approximately 26 to 27 billion, 23 silver and 4 on checking account money into the pockets.

By cons, between 1929 and 1933, the amount of money on account check fell to $ 15 billion which, with the 5 billion this real money in the coffers and pockets, representing a total of 20 billion payment means instead of 27 in 1929. The increase from 26 to 27, was inflation. The fall was from 27 to 20 of deflation.

episodes of Boom and depression since 1926 are largely identified by these three figures, 26,27 and20 for the three years 1926, 1929 et1933.

These variations in quantity of money were somehow worsened by the similar evolution of its velocity. In 1932 and 1933, for example, not only money circulating was small but its movement was slow and can even speak of widespread hoarding.

Assuming that the amount of money in circulation for 1929 and 1933 were respectively 27 and 20 billion and that each dollar has changed hands, respectively 30 and 20 times a year, the total circulation to be 1929, 27x30 = over $ 800 billion and for 1933, 20x20 = $ 400 billion.

The main changes concern the quantity of money in checking account deposits. The three figures for the checking account money as we are told 22,23, 15, for the money in the pockets of 4.4, 5. One of the essential facts of this depression was the collapse of the amount of money in checking account which rose from 23 to 15 billion, that is to say the disappearance of $ 8 billion in what is the main on payment of our nation, we all need to do business.

This decline 8 billion in the total amount of money in checking account of the nation opposes the increase of 1 billion (ie from 4 to 5) money in the pockets. The public withdraws billion hard cash for banks and banks to provide this additional billion had to destroy 8 billion credit.

Few people realized the loss or destruction of 8 billion cash and check this fact was rarely mentioned. That would have made the headlines if 8 miles every 23 miles of track had been destroyed. However, such a disaster would had little importance compared to the destruction of 8 billion 23 billion of our principal means of payment. This destruction of 8 billion dollars of what the public saw as their money was the great disaster that has driven the two main tragedies of the Great Depression, unemployment and bankruptcies.

People were forced to see 23 billion 8 billion of our principal means of payment sacrificed when that money would not disappear if the system 100% or wilderness was in place. And if that were the case, as we shall see Chapter VII, there would be no great depression.

This destruction of money in checking account was not something natural and inevitable, this was due to a faulty system.

Under our current system, banks create and destroy money in checking account in providing or requesting repayment of loans. When a bank gives me $ 1000 credit and added $ 1,000 in my checking account, the $ 1000 "I have money to the bank "are new. They have been newly created from scratch when the loan was granted and simply added to the heel of my checkbook and account books of the bank by a mere stroke of a pen.

As we have previously indicated, except on those writings, this "money" has no physical existence. When later, I will reimburse the bank the $ 1000, I withdraw from my checking account and an amount equivalent means of payment will be destroyed by a single stroke of pen the heel of my checkbook and books bank account. Thus, they disappear simultaneously.

Therefore, our national payment instruments are to thank you for lending transactions of the bank, and our thousands of bank deposits to checking account are in fact comparable to irresponsible issuers private money.

The problem is the fact that the bank does not lend money but simply a promise to provide money demand, money that it does not. The Banks can build from their meager reserves into cash like an inverted pyramid of "credits" that is to say money in checking account, the volume can be increased or reduced.

It is obvious that such a system, the fragile foundations and imposing summit, is dangerous. It is dangerous for applicants for banks and foremost for the millions of innocent people that form. In particular, when the quantity of money decreases, the public is deprived of a portion of its payment methods by which critical goods can be exchanged.

There is in practice little difference between allowing banks to issue money in checking account used as payment means that enable them to issue paper money as they did during episode of "Wild Cat Bank Notes." Both practices are basically as bad.

Bank deposits are the modern equivalent of bank notes. However, deposits can be created and destroyed in an invisible while the banknotes to be printed and burned. If 8 billion worth of bank notes were burned between 1929 and 1933, this event could hardly go unnoticed.

As the system checking account, money or checking account, based primarily on loans, originally confined to a few countries has now extended to the whole world all its own can not having believed. Consequently, future booms and depressions may be even worse than those of the past unless the system is changed.

The dangers and shortcomings of the current system will be discussed at length in subsequent chapters. Only a few lines suffice to outline the proposed remedy.

The proposal

Empowering the government, through a "Monetary Commission" specially created for the opportunity to transform into cash sufficient assets of each commercial bank that its reserves reached 100% of checking account deposits held. In other words, empower the government, through the Monetary Board to issue the money and buy it with bonds, debt securities or other assets held by banks or lending money to banks with assets as collateral. [1] So all the money check would be covered by real money, money in their pockets.

This new currency (Currency of the Commission or United States Notes) allow all checking accounts to have full coverage into cash in bank reserves. This issue does not increase or decrease the amount I would be total means of payment in the country. A bank that previously kept 100 million U.S. dollars on deposit checking account was legally hold reserves at least 10 million U.S. dollars of hard cash (supplemented by 90 million U.S. dollars of non-monetary assets). She would send these $ 90,000,000 non-cash assets to the commission money in exchange for 90 million U.S. dollars in hard cash, bringing to 100 million U.S. dollars into cash reserves, or 100% of deposits on checking account.

Once this was real money against non-monetary assets is complete, banks should maintain permanently reserves into cash representing 100% of their deposits to checking account. In other words, deposits in checking account deposits would actually consisting of hard cash held by the bank.

Thus, this new currency would be tied reserves of banks by the legal requirement to hold reserves of 100%.

The department managing the bank checking accounts would become a mere warehouse for the money belonging to depositors in bearer form and have an identity separate business as a bank deposit. There would then be no practical distinction between deposits on checking account and reserves. "The money I have in the bank" as described by the heel of my checkbook, would really make money and be really to the bank (or almost at hand). The deposits of the bank could increase to $ 125 000 000 sounded only if the money it has also increased to reach 125 million U.S. dollars, that is to say, seeing its depositors deposit of 25 million U.S. dollars sounding more money by removing as much money from their pockets or their cash and putting it in the bank. If the amount of deposits decreased, this would mean that depositors have withdrawn some money stored, removing it from the bank to put in their pockets or in their crates. In any case, there would be no change in the total outstanding.

As this evolution towards a system of wilderness withdraw assets paid to banks and replace them with the hard cash unpaid, banks offset this loss by charging the service provided to depositors, or through other ways (as detailed in Chapter IX).

Benefits

The resulting benefits of this reform to the public include the following:

1 There would be virtually no banking panic and rush to commercial banks .

For the simple reason that all of the depositors' money would be permanently at the bank and available to their liking. In practice, less money would be withdrawn now. We all remember that applicant frightened jailer who cried at his bank " If you do not have my money, I want it. If you have it, I do not want. "

2 There would be far fewer bank failures.

For the simple reason that the major commercial bank creditors and better placed to drive him into bankruptcy are its depositors, and its depositors would be fully satisfied whatever happens.

3 The government's debt would be substantially reduced.

For good reason, the Monetary Commission, which represents the government, would hand over a large portion of government bonds in progress.

4 Our monetary system would be simplified.

For the simple reason that there would be no essential distinction between money in the pockets and money on checking account. All our means of payment in full be real money.

5 The banking would be simplified.

Today, there is confusion regarding the ownership of the money. when money is deposited in a checking account, the applicant still think that money is hers while legally is that of the bank. The applicant does not hold any money in the bank , it is simply a creditor of the bank as a private company. A bulk of the "mystery" surrounding the banking business would disappear as soon as banks are no longer allowed to lend money from their customers while at the same time these applicants use this money as their money by paying by check. "Mr. Dooley " Will the Rogers of his day, brought to light the absurdity of this double use of money when he described a banker as "a man who cares for your money by lending his friends'

In the future, there would be a clear distinction between deposits on checking account and deposits on savings account. The money in a checking account is for the applicant like any safe deposit and would be paid by any interest. The money in a savings account would have a status similar to that of today. This deposit belongs unequivocally to the bank. In exchange for this money, bank would qualify for a refund with interest but no possibility of n'octroierait payment by check. The applicant would have just bought a savings investment like a bond interest and this investment will require not reserves integrals into cash, nor any investment in bonds or in action.

minimum statutory reserves for savings accounts are not necessarily need to be changed with the arrival of the new system for deposits on account check (even if a building of these reserves is desirable).

6 The large inflations and deflation would disappear.

For the simple reason that banks would be deprived of their present power to create of money on checking account and delete it. Indeed, lending would not increase the total amount of payment and demand repayment of loans do not destroy. The volume money on checking account does would be allocated based on the growth or decline in lending. Money on checking account an integral part of the real currency of the nation and the fact whether he is loaned to someone would not affect its volume.

Even if all depositors were to withdraw all their money at the same or had to repay their loans all at the same time or should all fail in same time, the volume of money of the nation would not be affected. Money would be fair redistributed. This total would be controlled only by its issuer, the currency board (which could also be given powers regarding hoarding and velocity, if desired).

7 episodes of boom and depression would be greatly mitigated.

For good reason they are greatly due to inflations and deflations.

8 The control of industry by banks virtually cease.

For the simple reason that it is only in times of depression that industries can generally fall into the hands of bankers.

Benefits Of these 8, the first two would apply mainly to the United States, the country of bank runs and bank failures. The other 6 would apply to all countries having a filing system on checking account. Benefits 6 and 7 are by far the most important, ie the end of inflation or deflation of our means of payment and thereby mitigating the episodes of booms and depressions in general and the late episodes large booms and large depressions in particular.

Objections

course, a new concept or idea that seems new, like a system Reserves integrals should provoke howls of criticism.

issues that will most likely be the minds of those who have doubts about the system of wilderness are

1 The transition to the system 100% The acquisition of assets by the newly created money, it would increase not immediately the amount of payment outstanding within the country and did not increase it very strongly?

Not a single dollar. It would simply money in the pockets and money on checking account fully convertible by changing the existing deposits consist of imaginary currency deposits consist of pure silver.

After the transition (and after the prescribed degree of reflation was reached [2] ), the Monetary Board may increase the amount of money by buying bonds and could make it decrease in selling bonds that are restricted in each case the obligation to maintain price or value of the dollar to the prescribed level with a precision reasonable.

It is interesting to note that maintaining 100% reserve and maintaining a price level are distinct problems. So everyone can conceivable exist without the other.

2 Would there be valuable assets "cover" the new money?

The day following the adoption of the system of wilderness areas, the new money issued transferable by check would be covered by exactly the same assets, mostly government bonds, covering money in checking account the day before, but these bonds are now in the possession of the Monetary Commission.

The idea that all money must be covered or deposit securities as collateral against rampant inflation is traditional. Under the current system (we'll call it, in contrast, system 10%), once the applicant is concerned that his deposit can be furnished in cash in the pockets, the bank can (theoretically) sell Titles cons money to reimburse its customers panicked. Very good. Under the system 100%, currency would be covered by exactly the same title and it would also easy to sell these securities. But in addition, there would be the government credit USA. In conclusion, there would be more panicked depositors, fearing not to convert their deposit into cash.

3 The gold standard was abandoned?

Neither more nor less than it is today! Gold could have exactly the same position as enjoys today, the price fixed by the government and its use primarily confined to international regulations.

In addition, a return to the kind of gold standard we had before 1933 could, if one wishes be done as easily as a 100% that is today. In reality, under the system 100% it is likely that our old stallion gold, if restored, operate as it was originally intended.

4 How will they get the banks money to lend?

Just like they usually do today, namely: (1) paying their own money (their capital), (2) paying the money they receive from their client and placed on savings accounts (which can not be used to pay by check), (3) paying money paid on overdue loans.

In the long term, there would probably be a lot more money to lend, because there would created more savings and thus available to lend. But here such an expansion of loans, a natural expansion caused by an expansion of savings, would not necessarily any increase in currency in circulation. [3]

The only new bank credit rationing would be a healthy limitation . No money could be lent if there is no money available to lend. Thus, banks could do more lend on creating money from nothing to create inflation and a boom.

In addition to the three sources of loanable funds cited above (the bank's capital, Savings and Rebate) it will be possible for the commission to create monetary money and forward it to the banks by buying bonds. However, issuing new currency would be limited by the fundamental obligation to prevent price increases above a certain prescribed level, measured by a price index suitable.

5 The bankers would be penalized?

Instead,

(a) They share the overall benefits which would take the nation a stronger monetary system and prosperity restored. In particular, they would receive more deposits on savings accounts.

(b) They would be compensated (by charging their service or otherwise) for any loss of profit due to the establishment of wilderness areas.

(c) They are virtually free of the risk of future bank runs and bankruptcies.

The bankers will not soon forget what they suffered during the race to liquidity for years 1931-1933, each for himself and the latter are poor. Such a stampede would be impossible under the system 100% as liquidity is 100% guaranteed at all times by each bank separately, regardless of what the other banks.

6 This plan would be there in a nationalization of the currency and banking ?

of money, yes. Of banking, no.

In Conclusion

The proposal of a full reserve system is anything but radical. What is claimed, in principle, is a return from the extravagant and wasteful system of today of lending the same money 8-10 times in the old deposit system in safe goldsmiths Before they put themselves inappropriately to lend the money they had handed over to be put in trunk. It is this abuse of trust, having been accepted as standard practice, we gradually led to the modern system of bank deposit. From the political point of view it is an abuse. This is no longer a breach of trust, but they are the original functions of loans and deposits that are abused.

England has conducted a reform and a partial return to the system of wilderness goldsmiths when, almost a century ago, the Bank Act was passed requiring wilderness for all notes of the Bank of England issued beyond a certain limit (and also for tickets to all other issuing banks which existed at that time).

Professor Frank D. Graham of Princeton, in a statement in favor of the plan of wilderness, President Adams said he "denounced the issue of banknotes by private banks as a fraud against the public. He was supported on this developed by all the conservative forces of his time. "

In conclusion, why continue to delegate almost to the banks in exchange for nothing is the prerogative of government? This power is defined as follows by the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8): "The Congress shall have Power [...] to coin money and regulate the value thereof." One can almost say, or even say with certainty that all banks for deposit into checking account and hit the currency these banks, together, regulate, control or influence the value thereof.

Defenders of current monetary system can not honestly say that under the yoke of a mass of small centers private currency issue, the system worked well. If it had worked, we would not have seen the disappearance of $ 8 billion over 23 of our checking accounts.

If bankers want to continue to market the essential function of the banking industry, lending, they can perform better than the government, they must be prepared to abandon the currency issue function they can perform as well as government. If they can conceive it and for once say "yes" instead of "no" to what may seem to them a new proposal, there will probably be more significant opposition to this project.

---

[1] In practice, this could be largely "credits" on the accounts of the Commission, as very little money would be tangible asked banks, even less so now that the Commission stands ready to provide the money demand.

[2] See Chapter VI.

[3] See Chapter V

Obese Woman Neck Size

The impossible debt reduction or debt deflation abyss

We have a fantastic opportunity, it can be an example to open our economic future. No need to issue economic theories or silly to analyze carefully our history books, our eyes have only to pay attention to a single place: Japan. The last two decades of sluggish growth and slight deflation of the rising sun have been viewed with caution and surprise by our politicians without thinking that this could happen to us soon.

Japan yet still suffers the consequences of the explosion of a massive speculative bubble in real estate and the stock market that has left private agents, banks, businesses and households over-indebted. The Nikkei rose tenfold in a few years to reach 40 000 points in early. The Nikkei today tends around 8000 points and was never approached such heights again. The explosion of the housing bubble was just as intense. In the early 90's, land in Tokyo was valued at a price higher than that of all the United States. Today, prices are still well below what they could be at the pinnacle of excitement.

The result was terrible. Major banks and businesses and a very large number of households found themselves overburdened with assets worth more not much. The objective was clear to all private economic: to reduce debt. That's what they have done for 20 years. The consequence of this debt was not long in coming: terrible economic slowdown and deflation. The state has to stop the movement of heavily indebted to boost activity and end deflation. The result today is a debt that exceeds 170% of GDP and which will, according to some estimates, exceed 200% in some years.

It is understood, the deleveraging process has not actually occurred. The debt was somehow transferred from private to public. Two reasons, one simple, the other slightly more complex, explained:

- A deleveraging process necessarily implies a fall in private consumption and the private investment. To avoid too heavy a fall of national income, the state must spend more than it earns.

- A deleveraging process involves an overall decrease in the money supply. A decrease in the money means less money in their bank accounts. And when there is less money in bank accounts, we tend to spend less. The other effect that arises is deflation, that is to say a price drop. Deflation is terrible for several reasons:

- For companies expenses are often inflexible salary, rent ... If sale prices are falling, the situation can quickly become even more difficult to manage

- The amount of debt and financing costs to repay it does not change. Thus, as revenues fell with falling prices, the accumulated debt becomes relatively more important and more difficult to repay. As Irving Fisher had noticed there are more than 60 years "paradoxically, the more agents are deleveraging, more debt burden on their shoulders is important"

It is therefore the role of government in times of debt and economic crisis to spend more than they win and do everything to prevent deflation. Now, what are the only ways for the state to limit the economic slowdown and to fight against deflation? As we shall see, the only real tool for the state's public debt, its remaining weapons is rapidly ineffective.

To understand this fact, we must try to understand a little how the monetary systems of industrialized countries.

Today money is created by central banks. This coin set is not allocated to the expenses of the state but paid to private banks or used to repurchase those same securities private banks. This money is then lent by banks to other banks, businesses, households or states. Then through the money multiplier, 1000 € central bank may become even € 10 000 € 20 000 bank deposit. The money multiplier depends on the willingness of banks to lend and borrow economic agents. If banks stop lending, the multiplier can be transformed into monetary divider bank deposits and some just disappear and 20,000 euros of deposits may again start the 1000 €.

Thus, first, the state has no other choice, now that debt if it wants to spend more than it receives from the tax since it can not use money created by the central bank to finance its expenditures.

Second, we show that the only real weapon of governments to fight against deflation in times of private debt is government debt. Two weapons held by central banks are often put forward to fight against inflation: lower interest rates and money creation. If the central bank moved money newly created lower rates, banks are more encouraged to borrow from the central bank. This rate cut will affect the rates offered to businesses or households who will have more interest This will speed up borrowing the money multiplier.

But if the cause of our current problems is, as we have found a state debt of agents, how to adjust it by pushing economic actors into debt again? Through this, we can only postpone the disaster a little further.

Since 1987, every economic downturn, the United States respond by lowering rates and sprinkling money markets. The result was a debt overall (government debt, financial institutions, businesses and households) of over 350% against 150% of GDP in 1975, a financial sector that has literally collapsed on itself this year and a government that must go into debt up to 12% of GDP this year to address this situation. We can estimate that the violence of the crisis shows that private agents have now reached their debt limit.

Our central banks are happily returned to the same pattern. This is not a solution when private agents reducing their debt. How to make banks lend to enable the money created to move and operate the money multiplier if private agents do not go into debt? You understood, the only solution is the government debt that it can go into debt to gargantuan levels and fund maturing debt by issuing new debt.

It was understood: the state debt is not a choice but a necessity to avoid a total blast. It is for this reason that the Japanese government has debt levels are so important and for this reason that our states will do well. An alternative exists and that is a monetary revolution as the proposed Maurice Allais and Irving Fisher. Yet in the present state of our monetary institutions, we have no other choice.

Identifying the fundamental problem seems to escape many analysts. It very simple. In most economics textbooks is that the seemingly innocuous phrase "credits are deposits . This phrase implies, however, two extremely serious facts "without new credit, no new deposit" and "mortgage repayments undo deposits. Repayment of private debt is impossible for the reason that it would eliminate the necessary tool for any market economy: the currency.

Japan tried to stimulate investment and credit to households cuts key rate to 0% and a policy of increasing the monetary base. But these attempts have had limited effect. Japan had a considerable advantage that we will not in future years. The world has experienced tremendous growth during the past 20 years, with Japan being one of the only industrialized country to experience such a crisis. She was thus able to cope with weak domestic demand to focus on exports, which contributed greatly to the health of the Japanese economy during the past 15 years. Secondly, it was one of the only countries to finance such deficits and could easily find funds with low interest rates. In our current context, the vast majority of OECD countries seeking to finance public deficits very heavy in the coming years. The states are likely to have far greater difficulty in finding low rates.

Our situation is perilous, whatever is said. We live in a monetary system that has actually never been carefully considered. When Bretton Woods collapsed in 1971, we switched overnight to a floating exchange rate regime. The system has stood up and showed good signs of stability. Yet it has never really thought about it. This system is considered as immutable is really a pure accident of history. We're just used to it.

For what reason this system, the result of historical contingency should be infallible and could not possibly lead us to an abyss? The great pyramid of monetized debt has seriously weakened. States are busy plastering the heavily into debt but who knows if his fall was not inevitable?