Posted by: Dirk | May 4, 2015

Iceland thinks about stripping banks of money creation power

As Positive Money reports, Iceland is considering “ending lending” – for banks:

Frosti Sigurjonsson, Member of the Parliament of Iceland and Chairman of the Committee for Economic Affairs and Trade, today published a report outlining the need for a fundamental reform of Iceland’s monetary system.

The report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, considers the extent to which Iceland’s history of economic instability has been driven by the ability of banks to ‘create money’ in the process of lending.

While there are a lot of uncertainties with this proposal, I think that it is a very good idea to think outside the box and consider all alternatives. The report, which can be downloaded via Positive Money, answers some very interesting questions in ways that are completely different from the standard macroeconomics textbooks (which might be a good thing!):

The gross demand for money is affected by various factors such as the size and growth rate of the real economy, and the financial sector. Demand for ISK is also affected by the fact that taxes can only be paid in ISK, thereby creating an underlying demand for ISK by taxpayers.

This is something I definitely agree with. This is also why I do not understand how the IMF can circulate a paper in which they predict hyperinflation should Greece return to a domestic currency. The state, via taxes, can set the demand, and this will have an influence on the exchange rate! Of course, it would not make sense for the Greek currency to be expensive, but if government would think that is the way forward they can tax Greek neo-drachmas away until only one is left – which surely would have more purchasing power than a euro.

Anyway, here is the real problem:

While banks have an incentive to create money, the costs of an overshooting money supply, in the form of inflation or bubbles, are borne by society in general. This separation of benefit and cost may explain why banks have not created an optimal amount of money for the economy

This has been discussed for centuries almost. Are we better of with credit bubbles and business cycles or are we better of without? Schumpeter’s creative destruction in his theory of economic development would be a good starting point, because money has real consequences!

Anyway, I recommend reading the report. A cursory reading has left me impressed, the analysis of the monetary system that we usually have is pretty good. I would disagree/have reservations on many issues, like this sentence: “This means that in order to create new money for a growing economy, households and businesses must go deeper in debt. ” Let us not forget that government can create money, too. They call this deficit spending, and we already have decades of experience. Not the Keynesian era, but the neo-liberal era, too! Government debt has exploded, pundits all over the world would tell you, and … government bond yields approach zero.

This is should give you something to think about.


Responses

  1. Reblogged this on sdbast.

  2. Go Iceland!

  3. So, Dirk.
    First, thanks for doing this article and joining the issues of ‘who creates the money’, and ‘how’.
    Thusly, we inch forward.

    But, at the same time, were I your Mom, I’d call you in from the playgrond and wash your mouth out with soap (or the digital equivalent)
    Why?
    For this.
    “”As Positive Money reports, Iceland is considering “ending lending” – for banks:””
    ????? Dirk????

    There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in any PM or Icelandic proposal that would end ‘lending’ by any banks.
    Where did you get that?
    Under all reforms proposed (Adair Turner, PM, Martin Wolf, AMI, Kettle Pond, Dennis Kucinich), the banks would continue to do ALL the lending.
    The same for the Icelandic proposal.

    The rest of this article was pretty good.
    Until you got to your
    “” I would disagree/have reservations on many issues, like this sentence:
    “This means that in order to create new money for a growing economy, households and businesses must go deeper in debt. ” “”

    Dirk, in a “debt-based” system of issuing ALL new monies, how else can we create the new money needed to get the economy moving without SOMEBODY, like households and businesses signing on for that new debt that creates that new money??

    Please explain. Let’s inch further forward.

    Thanks.

    • Positive Money wrote this in the article about Iceland’s reform proposal that I linked to: “According to the Sovereign Money proposal, the state owned Central Bank would become the only creator of money in the economy.” If that does not mean that banks can not create money, I would say that the language is confusing.

      p.s.: Please leave my mom out of this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: