FabSwingers.com mobile

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Cash

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Laws that make it illegal for you to print your own £5 or £10 notes have been in place since 1844. But those laws were never updated to account for the fact that almost all money now is electronic (in the form of bank deposits). Because of this oversight, banks worldwide now have the power to create money, effectively out of nothing.

Before 1844, only the government was legally allowed to create metal coins. But trying to keep metal coins safe or carrying them around was inconvenient, so people would typically deposit their coins with the local jeweller or goldsmith who would have a safe. Eventually these goldsmiths started to focus more on holding money and valuables for customers rather than on actually making jewelry. They became the first bankers.

A customer putting coins into the new ‘bank’ would receive a piece of paper stating the value of coins deposited, like the one on the left. If the customer wanted to spend his money, he could take the piece of paper to the bank, get the coins back, and then spend them in the local shops.

However, the shopkeeper who received the coins would usually take them straight back to the bank for safety. To save a trip to the bank, shopkeepers would simply accept the paper receipts as payment instead. As long as people trusted the bank that issued the receipts, businesses and individuals would be happy to accept the receipts, safe in the knowledge that they would be able to get the coins out of the bank whenever they needed to.

Over time, the paper receipts became accepted as being as good as metal money. People effectively forgot that they were just a substitute for money and saw them as being equivalent to the coins.

The goldsmiths soon noticed that the bulk of the coins placed in their vaults were never taken out. Only a small percentage of deposits were ever asked for at any particular time. This opened up a profit opportunity – if the bank had £1,000 of coins in the vault, but customers only withdrew a maximum of £100 on any one day, then the other £900 in the vault was effectively idle. The goldsmith could lend out that extra £900 to borrowers, and make a profit by charging interest on it.

However, the borrowers again chose to use the paper receipts as money rather than the metal coins. This meant that the bank could issue paper receipts to other borrowers without needing many – or even any – coins in the vault. Even with only £1,000 in the vault the bank could lend paper money of £2,000, £4,000 or as much as it dared too. (Of course, the banks still faced some restrictions – if too many people came to get their money back at the same time then it would be obvious that the bank didn’t have enough money to repay everyone.)

The banks had acquired the power to create a perfect substitute for the metal money created by the government. In effect, they had acquired the power to create money.

The hunt for profit drove bankers to issue and lend too much paper money. This increases the amount of money in the economy, pushing up prices and de-stabilising the economy. (One crisis was particularly embarrassing for the Bank of England – in 1839 it had to borrow £2 million of gold from France to rescue failing banks).

In 1844, the Conservative government of the day, led by Sir Robert Peel, recognised that the problem was that they had allowed the power to create money to slip into the hands of banks. They passed a law to take back control over the creation of bank notes. This law, the Bank Charter Act, prohibited the private sector from (literally) printing money, transferring this power to the Bank of England.

However, the 1844 Bank Charter Act only stopped the creation of paper bank notes – it didn’t refer to other substitutes for money, such as bank deposits. With growth in the use of cheques these deposits could be transferred to make payments, and therefore used as money. When a cheque is used to make a payment, the actual cash is not withdrawn from the bank. Instead, the paying bank talks to the receiving bank to settle any differences between them once all customers’ payments in both directions have been cancelled out against each other. This means that payments can be made even if the bank has only a fraction of the money that depositors believe they have in their accounts.

The 1844 act made no mention of bank deposits. Because of this oversight, banks could still create ‘bank deposits’ by making loans – and so they could still create money simply by opening accounts for people or companies and adding numbers to them. However, despite the rise of cheques cash was still used for a large proportion of transactions, and so banks were limited in the amount of money they could create in case they ran out of physical cash.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Congratulations you've discovered the basic theory behind fractional reserve banking.

Have a gold star.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

so what are you saying ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Tbf, if anyone started making their own currency and other people used it then the government couldn't do anything about it anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod

over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

If you're going to copy huge chunks of text from the Internet it's probably best to delete the bits that make it obvious.

Like "A customer putting coins into the new ‘bank’ would receive a piece of paper stating the value of coins deposited, like the one on the left."

What 'one on the left' would that be then?

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Laws that make it illegal for you to print your own £5 or £10 notes have been in place since 1844. But those laws were never updated to account for the fact that almost all money now is electronic (in the form of bank deposits). Because of this oversight, banks worldwide now have the power to create money, effectively out of nothing.

Before 1844, only the government was legally allowed to create metal coins. But trying to keep metal coins safe or carrying them around was inconvenient, so people would typically deposit their coins with the local jeweller or goldsmith who would have a safe. Eventually these goldsmiths started to focus more on holding money and valuables for customers rather than on actually making jewelry. They became the first bankers.

A customer putting coins into the new ‘bank’ would receive a piece of paper stating the value of coins deposited, like the one on the left. If the customer wanted to spend his money, he could take the piece of paper to the bank, get the coins back, and then spend them in the local shops.

However, the shopkeeper who received the coins would usually take them straight back to the bank for safety. To save a trip to the bank, shopkeepers would simply accept the paper receipts as payment instead. As long as people trusted the bank that issued the receipts, businesses and individuals would be happy to accept the receipts, safe in the knowledge that they would be able to get the coins out of the bank whenever they needed to.

Over time, the paper receipts became accepted as being as good as metal money. People effectively forgot that they were just a substitute for money and saw them as being equivalent to the coins.

The goldsmiths soon noticed that the bulk of the coins placed in their vaults were never taken out. Only a small percentage of deposits were ever asked for at any particular time. This opened up a profit opportunity – if the bank had £1,000 of coins in the vault, but customers only withdrew a maximum of £100 on any one day, then the other £900 in the vault was effectively idle. The goldsmith could lend out that extra £900 to borrowers, and make a profit by charging interest on it.

However, the borrowers again chose to use the paper receipts as money rather than the metal coins. This meant that the bank could issue paper receipts to other borrowers without needing many – or even any – coins in the vault. Even with only £1,000 in the vault the bank could lend paper money of £2,000, £4,000 or as much as it dared too. (Of course, the banks still faced some restrictions – if too many people came to get their money back at the same time then it would be obvious that the bank didn’t have enough money to repay everyone.)

The banks had acquired the power to create a perfect substitute for the metal money created by the government. In effect, they had acquired the power to create money.

The hunt for profit drove bankers to issue and lend too much paper money. This increases the amount of money in the economy, pushing up prices and de-stabilising the economy. (One crisis was particularly embarrassing for the Bank of England – in 1839 it had to borrow £2 million of gold from France to rescue failing banks).

In 1844, the Conservative government of the day, led by Sir Robert Peel, recognised that the problem was that they had allowed the power to create money to slip into the hands of banks. They passed a law to take back control over the creation of bank notes. This law, the Bank Charter Act, prohibited the private sector from (literally) printing money, transferring this power to the Bank of England.

However, the 1844 Bank Charter Act only stopped the creation of paper bank notes – it didn’t refer to other substitutes for money, such as bank deposits. With growth in the use of cheques these deposits could be transferred to make payments, and therefore used as money. When a cheque is used to make a payment, the actual cash is not withdrawn from the bank. Instead, the paying bank talks to the receiving bank to settle any differences between them once all customers’ payments in both directions have been cancelled out against each other. This means that payments can be made even if the bank has only a fraction of the money that depositors believe they have in their accounts.

The 1844 act made no mention of bank deposits. Because of this oversight, banks could still create ‘bank deposits’ by making loans – and so they could still create money simply by opening accounts for people or companies and adding numbers to them. However, despite the rise of cheques cash was still used for a large proportion of transactions, and so banks were limited in the amount of money they could create in case they ran out of physical cash."

Well that's my lesson learnt for today!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *angerousEyesMan
over a year ago

weston

Does this site not ban spammers?!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham

If you enjoyed that, go read about Isaac Newton's appointment as Master of the Mint. Fascinating stuff and you get to learn about coin clipping, counterfeiting and the introduction of the Gold Standard.

There's a very good, if fictionalised, version of this in Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I take deposits if they are warm

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Zzzzz

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There was an American bloke who started his own currency. It caused quite a stir. The government were non to happy and, if I remember, took him to court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

cool story

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

*sniggers*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria

Banking 101 ... check.

Banking 102 next ... How banks create money out of thin air using your signature (eg. mortgage).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exybum_30Woman
over a year ago

.

[Removed by poster at 23/07/15 13:32:51]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exybum_30Woman
over a year ago

.


"If you're going to copy huge chunks of text from the Internet it's probably best to delete the bits that make it obvious.

Like "A customer putting coins into the new ‘bank’ would receive a piece of paper stating the value of coins deposited, like the one on the left."

What 'one on the left' would that be then? :-

A"

Hahaha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Very good. Now how do I get loads more of it in my pocket?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Tbf, if anyone started making their own currency and other people used it then the government couldn't do anything about it anyway."

But they were virulent on their attacks on the bitcoin enterprise. If "the man" doesn't want the competition or the hassle of people asking questions about entrenched methods, such as modern monetary systems, then they will ensure anything (except what they find acceptable), fails.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Tbf, if anyone started making their own currency and other people used it then the government couldn't do anything about it anyway.

But they were virulent on their attacks on the bitcoin enterprise. If "the man" doesn't want the competition or the hassle of people asking questions about entrenched methods, such as modern monetary systems, then they will ensure anything (except what they find acceptable), fails."

.

Hsbc do there own bitcoin!

It has the banks very worried, I mean people creating their own currency... FFS shoot that man

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"so what are you saying ? "

that the art of copy and paste is alive and well..

sometimes its like the readers digest in here..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *essiCouple
over a year ago

suffolk

I feel a Thursday rant coming on ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So this is what prompted the 2008 crash.

Banks had over lent (mainly sliced and diced as credit derivatives) ,

So when the weak loaners (eg fanny Mae) began to see payments dry up from bad loans, they began to default on their own obligations, this triggered credit default clauses- penalty payments basically. , which then set the chain in motion as other banks found themselves with exposure to same kind of CDs.

So began the credit crunch + coz the banks had lent what they didn't actually possess, there was no money available for anyone after the market swung from offering loans, to calling in loans.

Smaller businesses Couldn't get credit for their own operations, coz banks were over extended. Eg if S+P, or Moody's think a bank can't pay, it's credit rating goes down, meaning it has to pay more to borrow. So losing profitability.

If I lend at 8%, but borrow at 6%, that's ok - I can make money.

But if I'm borrowing at 10%, and lending at 8%, I'm fucked,

Though at the moment - those numbers are closer to zero point 8/ zero point 6,

So then, As well as poor Americans not being able to pay their mortgage + bringing down fanny Mae- you'd have fanny Mae not being able to pay the credit package it bought from lehmans.

Then lehmans wouldn't be able to pay back what it borrowed from Bank of America - so down would come lehmans.

Then Bank of America couldn't pay ABN Ambro , and so forth.

So began the recession- still with us today. Rather than refloat the economy by eg - govt spending, we have the govt giving billions in QE to the banks, so the tax payer gives money to the banks so the banks can pay their debts and recapitalize(and start it all again) . Too big to fail. Barclays bought by the Arabs . Rbs bought by govt.

Primarily brought about by over lending.

But the big picture is- how did it happen and why will it be allowed to happen again?

Who deregulated the city? Why?

Who got rid of the glass-seagull act? Was it Clinton? To keep retail assets separate from investment bank lending.

Idea then bounced around to ring fence assets, so no bank could use retail assets as investment packages (basically your house used as capital for credit packages) .

last 3 govts did nothing to implement this banking restriction - wonder why?

Today's long read, sorry!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ifferent69Man
over a year ago

BRIGHTON, UK

Still does,nt explain why " frecking" bank branches and the London Stock ex...

Closes for the weekend ??

" i thought, business never sleeps"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top