by mmasters » Mon 26 Feb 2007, 19:06:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'H')mmm, can we reconcile our differences of our opinion?
Can we agree that the central bank is the ultimate creator of money, without which the FRBs would be unable to expand the money supply further via the multiplier effect?
Can we also agree that FRBs do create money (admittedly not high-powered money, but bank credit which functions as money), but only in response to actions by the central bank?
These are pretty fundamental points, surely we can agree on them?
The jist of what you're saying is correct, though a few noteworthy points.
It's the commercial banks that expand the money, not the Federal Reserve Banks (though I think you might have mean't that).
Also the commercial banks don't exactly create money in response to the central bank, rather the commercial banks create credit
triggered off the action of someone taking out a loan. The central bank controls the "availability" of new money and the people decide whether to
accept it.
It's kind of like that movie the Wishmaster, you have to make a wish before the Wishmaster can screw you.
Furthermore, the fed can pump all kinds of newly created money into the system but if the people simply say "no" to taking on anymore loans this WILL cause a contraction in the money supply. And since the economy is dependant on the money supply this will result in a recession or potentially a depression.
This could be a guess as to why Greenspan has said there may be a recession this year. Predicting whether people will continue to take on more and more debt is not an exact science.