Richard A. Werner-ek artikulu interesgarri bat idatzi berri du bankugintzaz1,
Hiru hipotesi aztertu ditu Werner-ek:
Finantza bitartekaritza: “According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out.”
Erreserba frakzionala: “According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction.”
Kreditu sormena: “A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking).”
Lehen aldiz ikerketa enpirikoki ere gauzatu da.
Izan ere, “An empirical test is conducted, whereby money is borrowed from a cooperating bank, while its internal records are being monitored, to establish whether in the process of making the loan available to the borrower, the bank transfers these funds from other accounts within or outside the bank, or whether they are newly created.”
Emaitza argi dago:
“This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, “out of thin air”.”
“The theory argues that each individual bank is not a financial intermediary that passes on deposits, or reserves from the central bank in its lending, but instead creates the entire loan amount out of nothing.”
Ikus dezagun ikerketaren puntu nagusiak:
1) Kreditu sormena eta kredituko kantitate teoria:
The links of credit creation to macroeconomic and financial variables were later formalised in the Quantity Theory of Credit (Werner, 1992, Werner, 1997, Werner, 2005 and Werner, 2012), which argues that credit for (a) productive use in the form of investments for the production of goods and services is sustainable and non-inflationary, as well as less likely to become a non-performing loan, (b) unproductive use in the form of consumption results in consumer price inflation and (c) unproductive use in the form of asset transactions results in asset inflation and, if large enough, banking crises. (…)
“… the credit creation theory has experienced a revival, having been championed again in the aftermath of the Japanese banking crisis in the early 1990s ( Werner, 1992 and Werner, 1997) and in the run-up to and aftermath of the European and US financial crises since 2007 (see Bank of England, 2014a, Bank of England, 2014b, Werner, 2003b, Werner, 2005 and Werner, 2012).”
2) Literatura azterketaren ondorioa:
“…the conclusion by Sir Josiah Stamp (1927), a director at the Bank of England, still seems to hold today, namely that there is “a fair state of muddlement … on the apparently simple question: ‘Can the banks create credit, and if so, how, and how much?’” Despite a century or so of theorising on the matter, there has been little progress in establishing facts unambiguously.”
“…The only way the facts can be established is to leave the world of deductive theoretical models and consider empirical reality as the arbiter of truth, in line with the inductive methodology. In other words, it is to empirical evidence we must turn to settle the issue.”
3) Froga enpirikoa:
The simplest possible test design is to examine a bank’s internal accounting during the process of granting a bank loan.
“Should it be found that the bank is able to credit the borrower’s account with the loan principal without having withdrawn money from any other internal or external account, or without transferring the money from any other source internally or externally, this would constitute prima facie evidence that the bank was able to create the loan principal out of nothing.”
4) Froga enpirikoak kredituko sormen teoria babesten du:
“… report on the first empirical study testing the three main hypotheses. They have been successfully tested in a real world setting of borrowing from a bank and examining the actual internal bank accounting in an uncontrolled real world environment.
It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower’s bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower’s account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory.
Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years’ history of banking – that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin air.
We now know, based on empirical evidence, why banks are different, indeed unique and different from both non-bank financial institutions and corporations: it is because they can individually create money out of nothing.
a) Teoria ekonomikorako ondorioa
The empirical evidence shows that of the three theories of banking, it is the one that today has the least influence and that is being belittled in the literature that is supported by the empirical evidence.
b) Gobernu politikarako ondorioak
… the finding that banks individually create credit and money when they do what is called ‘lending money’, (…) … this fact is important not only for monetary policy, but also for fiscal policy, and needs to be reflected in economic theories. Policies concerning the avoidance of banking crises, or dealing with the aftermath of crises require a different shape once the reality of the credit creation theory is recognised.
They call for a whole new paradigm in monetary economics, macroeconomics, finance and banking (for details, see for instance Werner, 1997, Werner, 2005, Werner, 2012, Werner, 2003a, Werner, 2013a and Werner, 2013b) that is based on the reality of banks as creators of the money supply. It has potentially important implications for other disciplines, such as accounting, economic and business history, economic geography, politics, sociology and law.
c) Banku erregulaziorako ondorioak
The implications are far-reaching for bank regulation and the design of official policies. (…) Since in fact banks are able to create money out of nothing, imposing higher capital requirements on banks will not necessarily enable the prevention of boom–bust cycles and banking crises, since even with higher capital requirements, banks could still continue to expand the money supply, thereby fuelling asset prices, whereby some of this newly created money can be used to increase bank capital.
Based on the recognition of this, some economists have argued for more direct intervention by the central bank in the credit market, for instance via quantitative credit guidance (Werner, 2002, Werner, 2003b and Werner, 2005).
d) Erreforma monetarioa
The reality of banks as creators of the money supply does raise the question of the ideal type of monetary system. Much research is needed on this account. Among the many different monetary system designs tried over the past 5000 years, very few have met the requirement for a fair, effective, accountable, stable, sustainable and democratic creation and allocation of money.
The view of the author, based on more than-three years of research on this topic, is that it is the safest bet to ensure that the awesome power to create money is returned directly to those to whom it belongs: ordinary people, not technocrats. This can be ensured by the introduction of a network of small, not-for-profit local banks across the nation. Most countries do not currently possess such a system.
However, it is at the heart of the successful German economic twenty performance in the past 200 years. It is the very Raiffeisen, Volksbank or Sparkasse banks – the smaller the better – that were helpful in the implementation of this empirical study that should serve as the role model for future policies concerning our monetary system. In addition, one can complement such local public bank money with money issued by local authorities that is accepted to pay local taxes, namely a local public money that has not come about by creating debt, but that is created for services rendered to local authorities or the community. Both forms of local money creation together would create a decentralised and more accountable monetary system that should perform better (based on the empirical evidence from Germany) than the unholy alliance of central banks and big banks, which have done much to create unsustainable asset bubbles and banking crises (Werner, 2013a and Werner, 2013b).
(Antzeko ideiak aurkeztu zituen R. Wray-k: ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/07/10/dirua-banku-zentrala-altxor-publikoa-eta-merkataritza-bankuak-dtm-ren-arabera-4/. Euskal Herriari dagokionez, ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/07/20/aurrezki-kutxez-inaki-ren-e-posta/.)
1Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070.
2Ikus 1. oharra.