User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 12

  1. #1
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Short Essay on the Monetary Monopoly

    [NOTE: My goal for this essay was to keep it short and easy to understand, while linking it to current events. Although I sacrificed some accuracy and precision in places, I think it works okay.]

    THE MONETARY MONOPOLY

    Although legislation exists in most of the developed world to prevent the formation of monopolies and cartels, one product where monopoly is not only tolerated but strictly enforced is the supply of money. In the United States, the Federal Reserve has sole responsibility for maintaining and modifying the stock of U.S. Dollars, while legislation suppresses the emergence of competition. However, at the beginning of the Civil War, the Federal Reserve was yet to be established and the money stock of the United States was provided by private banks. The story of how the United States’ monetary order changed from a competitive market to a government monopoly is too long to reproduce here in full, but its consequences should not be misunderstood. Despite often claiming the issuance of money a prerogative of government, proper management of the money supply has long eluded public officials. Whether the Federal Reserve creates too much money or too little, the general public usually has few options but to accept what they are given, and the effects have been injurious to the welfare of American citizens.

    Since modern monetary monopolies create money through the banking system, such consequences are felt most acutely there. Although banking systems normally coordinate the spending plans of savers and borrowers, when the money supply is under the arbitrary control of a monopoly this function is regularly perverted.

    Although we call money placed in a bank account a “deposit,” it is actually a kind of loan to the bank. The term “deposit” is a hangover from a time when banks operated like warehouses and money was stored until claimed by a depositor. When someone “deposits” into an account today, they are relinquishing ownership of the currency in exchange for bank IOUs, so a bank account is not a record of how much money a customer has “in the bank,” but a record of the bank’s debt to a customer. Since bank customers do not frequently withdraw all of their deposits, a bank can operate successfully while holding only a fraction of total deposits on hand. For example, if customers only withdraw 5 percent of their deposits on average, then a bank can operate comfortably while holding only 10 percent on hand, while lending the remaining 90% for investments. Although depositors run the risk that they may be unable to withdraw if too many people try to cash in their IOUs all at once, banks compensate depositors by eliminating storage fees and paying interest on accounts.

    The total amount of a bank’s investment spending is constrained by the spending rate of its depositors. When depositors’ withdrawals decline, banks can operate with a smaller fraction of deposits on hand for withdrawal. Thus, if depositors save by reducing withdrawals for consumption spending, then credit becomes cheaper, and total spending on investments increases to produce the goods and services that savers will demand tomorrow. If depositors reduce withdrawals on their account for investment spending (for example, purchasing stocks and bonds) then spending will merely be shifted from som investments to others.

    By coordinating the spending of savers and borrowers, banks help direct investment spending toward productive ends. Any disruption of this process will have a propensity to distort prices, generate malinvestment, and create fluctuations in economic growth.

    The market for private money in the United States began to disappear during the Civil War; it had long been plagued by “unit banking” laws, established in most states since the early 19th Century, that prohibited banks from opening branches. For private banknotes to be accepted in trade, recipients must be confident in the soundness of the issuing bank. An insolvent or illiquid bank may not be able to honour its debts upon demand, and so a note from a suspect bank may not be accepted on the same terms as another with the same face value. The farther a banknote travels away from its issuer, the more risk is had from accepting it; lack of local knowledge concerning the issuer and the costs of transporting banknotes for redemption result in a poor exchange rate. In consequence, the early United States saw a proliferation of local monies and specialist currency exchangers who made it their business to know about faraway banks. Without the ability to open branches where banknotes could be redeemed far from home, it was extremely difficult for any bank to see its currency circulating across all of the United States.

    Against this backdrop, the American Civil War began, and the U.S. Treasury had to start seeking ways to fund it. Up until 1863, banks were chartered by states, but afterward banks could apply for a Federal charter. The new national banks would not issue their own banknotes, but national banknotes created by the Treasury, and so the the problem of banknotes being rejected or accepted at poor exchange rates far from their issuer was eliminated. Much the same could have been achieved by abolishing restrictions on branch banking; Canada, during this same period, had no restrictions on branch banking and its private banknotes enjoyed national circulation. However, the Federal Government had an ulterior motive: national banks were to secure their banknotes with Treasury bonds, and thus artificially increase demand for government debt to help finance the Civil War.

    Many in the Federal Government expected state banks to seek Federal charters or be driven out of business. However, despite legislative privileges of the national banks, state banks continued to enjoy strong demand for their banknotes and financial services.

    Through the early 1860s, the Federal Government’s favoured method of financing the Civil War became dangerously inflationary; without a contraction in the supply of national banknotes, prices would soon begin rising out of control. However, the Federal Government was loath to reduce its own monetary expansion, and instead sought to eliminate alternative monies. In 1864, the National Bank Act was passed; it levied a 10 percent tax on all state banknotes, driving them from circulation by "effectively taxing state banknotes out of existence." Through legislative acts like this, state banks were forced to seek Federal charters or go out of business.

    From 1866 onward, the competitive market for money all but disappeared entirely. Many changes to the monetary system occurred, but the established monetary monopoly persisted.

    In 1913, a special institution was established to oversee the financial sector and money supply, The Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve today has extensive powers over banking and money. As well as managing the supply of physical currency, the Federal Reserve can manipulate the quantity of available credit in the banking system. Banks are prohibited from issuing private banknotes and cannot determine how much money they have on hand to satisfy withdrawal demands. To coordinate the spending of savers and borrowers, banks depend on the Federal Reserve to provide them with the necessary funds. Rather than each bank having its own monetary policy with customers picking winners and losers, the Federal Reserve determines a single monetary policy for the entire United States.

    Money is one half of every transaction, so the Federal Reserve is an exceptionally powerful institution. When the Federal Reserve errs in its monetary policy, the entire economy is likely to suffer the consequences.

    In early 2008 the Federal Reserve erred in its monetary policy. Following a bursting bubble in real estate, the rate of spending in the economy began to decline, and the Federal Reserve did not change its monetary policy. The banking system was unable to respond the reduced rate of spending by increasing the availability of credit, and the total nominal expenditure of the United States’ economy fell for the first time in decades. In consequence, the rate of spending that established prices had been predicated upon did not materialise, and the fate of millions jobs became precarious. The panic that ensued culminated in a financial crisis, and severe losses spread throughout the banking system. What should have been a minor recession induced by a bursting bubble turned into the Great Recession, because the Federal Reserve did not adjust its monetary policy to changing economic conditions.

    Speaking before the Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C. in 2002, Ben Bernanke, current Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, “Sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy and should be strongly resisted. Fortunately, for the foreseeable future, the chances of a serious deflation in the United States appear remote indeed, in large part because of our economy's underlying strengths but also because of the determination of the Federal Reserve and other U.S. policymakers to act preemptively against deflationary pressures.” However, it was not until late 2008 that the Federal Reserve finally changed monetary policy from its previous trajectory, at which point the price level had already began declining and a unprecedented expansion of the monetary base was necessary.

    By early 2009, layoffs had reduced millions to unemployment, but there are few serious repercussions for the Federal Reserve. The monetary monopoly is almost untouchable: American citizens have little choice but to patronise the monopoly supplier of U.S. Dollars. The Federal Reserve is an institution born of hubris and immune to discipline. Its role in the economy is nothing less than a Soviet-style central planner of the money supply, and it has been about as successful. Legislation exists in most of the developed world to prevent the formation of monopolies and cartels, and one product where monopoly should be no less tolerated is in the supply of money.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  2. #2
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoise

    The currency of the USA is the reserve currency of the whole world.

    And those who own, control and print the reserve currency of the whole world have overwhelming economic power.

    For instance, the USA cut the jugular of the British Empire at Suez simply by threatening to crash the British pound.

    And the USA was able to destroy our national film industry here simply by threatening to destroy it economically.

    There was no need to point a gun at the head of the British Empire or the Australian film industry, any more than it was necessary to fire a shot at the USSR.

    The economic power of the reserve currency is exercised with the discreet charm of the bourgeoise.

  3. #3
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Victor,

    The reserve currency of the world is the U.S. Dollar, but the reserves are the products and services that can be bought with U.S. Dollars. In other words, people accept the U.S. Dollar in echange for goods and services only so long as it maintains its purchasing power. It is the relative stability of the U.S. Dollar that makes it attractive as a reserve currency; if the Federal Government abuses the popularity of the U.S. Dollar too much, then the risk of holding it increases and it ceases to function as a reserve currency. The situation is analogous to a private issuer of money overexpanding his money supply -- the depositors soon discover they can't withdraw on demand (or at least cannot withdraw the full amount) and begin offloading the currency for an alternative. And the Federal Reserve does have competition (albeit from other central banks) on the international stage, so its role as provider of the world's reserve currency is not inviolable.

    By what mechanism do you propose that the U.S. achieved these ends you mention? I must confess that I am rather confused.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #4
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Victor,

    The reserve currency of the world is the U.S. Dollar, but the reserves are the products and services that can be bought with U.S. Dollars. In other words, people accept the U.S. Dollar in echange for goods and services only so long as it maintains its purchasing power. It is the relative stability of the U.S. Dollar that makes it attractive as a reserve currency; if the Federal Government abuses the popularity of the U.S. Dollar too much, then the risk of holding it increases and it ceases to function as a reserve currency. The situation is analogous to a private issuer of money overexpanding his money supply -- the depositors soon discover they can't withdraw on demand (or at least cannot withdraw the full amount) and begin offloading the currency for an alternative. And the Federal Reserve does have competition (albeit from other central banks) on the international stage, so its role as provider of the world's reserve currency is not inviolable.

    By what mechanism do you propose that the U.S. achieved these ends you mention? I must confess that I am rather confused.
    The aim of Mercantilism is to own, control and print the reserve currency.

    China has recently embarked on Mercantilism and has been so successful that the Governor of the Reserve Bank of China has recently called on the US dollar to be replaced by the Chinese yuan as the reserve currency of the world.

    There is good reason to think that the US would go to war with China rather than losing the world's reserve currency.

    And the reason is that the US has already gone to war to preserve the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world.

    For when Saddam said he would no longer sell oil in the reserve currency of the world (the US dollar), the US went to war.

    The point I am making is that the reserve currency of the world is about power not economics.

    And it is an invisible power exercised with all the discreet charm of the bourgeoise.

  5. #5
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    Props for putting this out.


    I am a bit confused though. You talk about the monopoly of supply of $ by the Fed. What do you propose as the alternative?


    Just trying to understand your argument.

  6. #6
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Victor,

    I can understand why the U.S. Government would seek to protect its status as creator of the world's reserve money; I also understand why it might prefer to enforce this situation by coercion and threats rather than by supplying a quality product.* However, it is not because the U.S. Dollar is the world's reserve currency that the U.S. Government has this power, but the other way around. It is the wealth of the U.S. economy and the U.S. Government's military might that maintains the U.S. Dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

    In any case, I am still left puzzled as to how and why the U.S. Government would do what you claimed, and I am not the in the habit of defending governments from anything. It seems like a hand wavy explanation to me.

    *It has certainly helped finance recent deficit spending.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #7
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by avolkiteshvara View Post
    I am a bit confused though. You talk about the monopoly of supply of $ by the Fed. What do you propose as the alternative?
    When there are no legal barriers to producing money, anyone can do it. Of course, that doesn't mean anyone can find someone who wants it.

    There are historical precedents: see Britain's private coinage episode in the late 17th and early 18th Centuries, and check out Scotland's experience with free banking in about the same period. Even the relatively impaired pre-Civil War U.S. monetary system had to be suppressed by legislation (as mentioned in the essay). In all these cases (and some others I forget), privately issued money was usually preferred by the general public to the official stuff. And the whole thing would be much easier today with electronic payment methods.

    I'll write a follow up essay expanding upon some of this and answering objections.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  8. #8
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    It is the wealth of the U.S. economy and the U.S. Government's military might that maintains the U.S. Dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.
    Yes, you are right. The US economy has been the largest economy on the world for more than one hundred years.

    However I would even go so far as to say that, great as it is, it is not the US military that is the source of your power but your economy.

    The Japanese made this mistake, thinking they had to defeat your military when they had your economy to defeat. And it was quite beyond them.

    And I might say we are happy that dollar in your pocket is our reserve currency - the alternative is far worse.

    And I think it is important to repeat that the reserve currency is the aim of any mercantile State. And you have achieved this goal. And the Chinese envy you. And in the meantime we all keep trading in US dollars. In God We Trust.

  9. #9
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Well, I think it's kind of misleading to speak about money in semi-physical terms, as you do. Since the 70s, when the ties between the value of money and gold reserves were cut off, it's become almost completely immaterial. In many ways, very large firms can also create money by issuing bonds that are basically almost non-redeemable, and whose spread from the official interest rate manipulates the next bid by the Central Bank by means of rise in the cost-opportunity of the saver/investor.
    The availablity of other curriencies can have a similar effect, even though in this case there is an additional constraint of higher transaction costs (I won't add lack of liquidity, since bonds issued by most states have a sufficiently thick market) and/or tricky legislation (for example, foreigners encounter many practical difficulties when buying Brazilian Bonds (now they offer really high rates), unless they come from another "latino" country, since there's some social difficulties in estabilishing contact with the local banking authorities).
    Obviously, the fact that State-issued bonds are considered as having zero counteparty risks gives them much more leverage in manipulating the aforementioned rate.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  10. #10
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Well, I think it's kind of misleading to speak about money in semi-physical terms, as you do. Since the 70s, when the ties between the value of money and gold reserves were cut off, it's become almost completely immaterial. In many ways, very large firms can also create money by issuing bonds that are basically almost non-redeemable, and whose spread from the official interest rate manipulates the next bid by the Central Bank by means of rise in the cost-opportunity of the saver/investor.
    The availablity of other curriencies can have a similar effect, even though in this case there is an additional constraint of higher transaction costs (I won't add lack of liquidity, since bonds issued by most states have a sufficiently thick market) and/or tricky legislation (for example, foreigners encounter many practical difficulties when buying Brazilian Bonds (now they offer really high rates), unless they come from another "latino" country, since there's some social difficulties in estabilishing contact with the local banking authorities).
    Obviously, the fact that State-issued bonds are considered as having zero counteparty risks gives them much more leverage in manipulating the aforementioned rate.
    C'mon, you live in a country that wears blinkers. On one eye is blinkered by business and the other eye is blinkered by business. Gosh, the business of America is business.

    You can't even see that the business you are in is the Mercantile business. And the business of Mercantilism is not business but power. Under Mercantilism the purpose of business is power.

    And conveniently it is not in the interests of business for you to know that the goal is power.

    And it is not convenient because the aim of liberal democracy is the limitation of power. So business slips under the radar of liberal democracy by saying, over and over again, at the highest levels, including the mouth of the President that, "The business America is business".

    And of course the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe.

    And the antidote to this lie is not Economics but Political Economy.

    And Political Economy will teach you that the business of any Mercantile State is not business but power.

    And the Mercantile State wishes to increase its power until it controls the reserve currency of the whole world. But liberal democracy is based on the limitation of power.

    But liberal democracy has yet to find a way to limit the power of the Mercantile State.

Similar Threads

  1. Short Essay on Milton S. Hershey
    By reason in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-16-2009, 04:50 PM
  2. Dont trip on the Rootball
    By RootBall in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 09:35 PM
  3. My thoughts on the I phone
    By Opivy1980 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 06:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO