TalkCarswell.com

Time to democratise banking?

How should the centre right respond to the ongoing financial crisis? If it is the case that the day of reckoning has merely been postponed, rather than averted, perhaps the conventional wisdom is wrong?         

Free marketeers were put on the back foot by the easily made, yet difficult-to-refute explanation that the credit crunch was market failure. It took longer to point to the more subtle truth; markets didn’t cause the credit crunch. Rather they called time on the folly of central banks, which set interest rates too low for too long.

Then we saw private businesses (which we are supposed to support) being given £ billion bailouts (which we are supposed to abhor). Banks have been nationalised. Our opponents talk of a new economic model, with a switch away from free markets towards corporatism.

To resist this, perhaps free market liberals need a convincing critique of what has gone wrong - one that allows an entirely different, market-based public policy response. 

The Cobden Centre claims to have one. 

According to the Cobdenites, the answer to the banking crisis is not more bailouts for bankers. Nor is it about giving more power to the kind of officials whose management of interest rates got us into this mess in the first place. Instead, they propose honest money and democratized banking.

Today, when you deposit £100 in the bank, you no longer own that money. That allows the bank to lend £97 of your £100 (they still have to hang on to 3%), meaning in effect that £197 of money now exists where there was initially only £100. The person or bank lent the £97 can then in turn lend it on. And so on – the credit cascading through the financial system. 

This is the basis of modern banking, and it is known as fractional reserve banking. 

But it meant that at the time of the banking crisis, for every £1 of “real money”, there was X33 that amount of credit. Or put another way, there were 33 people in Britain who thought that the £1 of actual money in the banking system was theirs.  You can see why queues form outside banks when customers suspect trouble….   

Without fractional reserve banking we are told, there would not be credit. And without credit, the entire capitalist system would not work.

Except it is not true, say the Cobden Centre. If one were to amend the 1844 Bank Charter Act and insist that people depositing money had legal ownership of that money, banks would only lend money on if the depositor agreed. There would, in effect, be demand accounts (with no interest) and savings accounts (with interest, normally without instant access).

Banks would still be able to lend credit. But not unless they were pretty confident that they could meet their obligations. Unaccountable bankers could not generate candy floss credit with your money unchecked. All credit would be backed by savings, and 2 + 2 would equal 4. The catastrophically ruinous debt pyramid that seems to spring up each generation or so, wouldn’t keep rising again and again. 

Perhaps a nation of debtors and consumers would become savers and producers once again?

Giving people legal ownership of the money in their own bank accounts is hardly extreme or anti-capitalist. In fact, it’s rooted in a pretty conservative idea of property rights. Yet it would have a profound effect controlling monetary policy.  

It would also end the conspiracy against the taxpayer that sees government borrow too much, but then use inflation to erode away its debt on the back of our savings. 

By allowing money to devalue each year, the state ensures that it is the prime beneficiary of rising economic productivity – poorer families being literally priced out of the market for goods and services they might otherwise have been able to afford. 

If you think that the Cobden Centre’s ideas sound kooky, remember that the idea that the state would nationalise the banks would have sounded off-the- wall a couple of years ago. Perhaps when all other solutions have been exhausted, we could do worse than try to democratise banking?

Read more about the Codben Centre's proposal here

Posted on 9 February 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

errr - isn't this a bit like mutual building societies before they all (or nearly all) got demutualised?

Posted on 9 February 2010 12:56 by Jack

http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/open_letter.htm

I always find that a sound explanation myself Douglas.

Posted on 9 February 2010 13:01 by Thomas Byrne

I for one would like to see a private members bill proposing the abolition of fractional reserve banking, if only to see a Parliamentary debate on it. It's an idea that's been proposed by the libertarian free-market Austrian school which could do with more publicity over here.

Unfortunately abolishing FRB is also upheld by social creditors and other monetary cranks who favour giving the government the ability to devalue the currency by printing more money - perhaps best to distance yourself from said people (especially as their bizarre theories have been adopted by the far right).

Posted on 9 February 2010 13:23 by Richard

"If one were to amend the 1844 Bank Charter Act and insist that people depositing money had legal ownership of that money"
That would be pretty awesome.

Posted on 9 February 2010 13:32 by Shed Plant

Suspect Jack is profoundly right.
Why is NuLab trying to hamper Credit Unions rather than encourage them?
Where is Grameen-type micro-banking in all this?

Posted on 9 February 2010 13:52 by BrianSJ

The transparency in banking, i.e. telling people that their "deposits" are, in effect, "gone" and at risk, has been part of the Libertarian Party policy for quite some time, as is "free banking", which has nothing about charges but about the freedom for banks to issue their own currencies (as opposed to more FRB'd Sterling) which would make the State very queezy about performing QE lest there be flight.

We also believe that there should not be State funded "deposit" insurance for that tempts moral hazard (e.g. stuffing it in Icelandic banks offering irrational 8% returns) by making people ignore risk*.

Just on a point of pedantry, almost, the economy might not have £197 instead of £100 once £97 is on-lent. If you withdrew your £100 the bank would have to NOT on-lend the next £100 it gained in deposit (or interbank transfer). Thus, on paper there might be £197, but £100 of it is more akin to Aesop's "misers gold".



*Of course one can take out deposit insurance and pay for it, but I wonder what will happen to one's earnings...

Posted on 9 February 2010 15:43 by Tim Carpenter (Libertarian Party)

To paraphrase - the root of all evil is credit creation, unsound money and irresponsible central banks and their political masters. Agreed. Well hoo-bloody-ray. You've got it.

Oh and by the way I was posting at the time, of what I consider a minor banking problem, that the cause of this issue was not market failure at all but markets (by markets I mean and you and me) succeeding in passing an accurate judgement on the failed statist policies of various international governments. But none, not one of your colleagues, was anywhere in or on the media saying this loud and clear. Certainly not the Dave and George show.

Your lot has been a pathetic opposition, especially on economic matters, since 1997. For me the deathknell was when Portillo stood up and endorsed the minimum wage. What a prat! It's been all downhil from there. You completely failed to hold up the freedom and markets principles with the result that you now find yourselves having to un-make your earlier flawed policies and supporting arguments which were based on the hysteria of being caught in the headlights of that charismatic and amoral old fraud, T Blair.

So what are you going to do now? You'd better hurry up because the main reason that your polling lead is slipping is just because you are not making these freedom and markets ideas clearly and robustly. For God's sake man, there is enough literature and think tankery out their to help you explain it truthfully, simply and well. Just Damn' well get on with it.

PS If you do this properly it'll explain why 'public spending' is a universal bad, not a universal good, and how tax cuts are never 'unfunded' but instead it is the State spending that is unfunded.

Posted on 9 February 2010 16:14 by Lola

I suspect what would happen is that banks would make it a condition of free banking that you sign away rights of ownership under this reform. They might offer the alternative of taking a significant fee for handling your money. That is not a criticism of doing this - people would better understand the legal situation of their money being at risk & have the option.

Posted on 9 February 2010 17:59 by Neil Craig

How would you do this in practice, though, gradually increase the reserve requirements towards 100%?

That's a whole lot of deleveraging that'll go reverberating around the UK economy.

Not knocking the principles of sound money and stable banking (far from it, sounds like an excellent idea) but it's a big ask given the hole we're currently in.

Posted on 9 February 2010 19:22 by constructive interference

A great summary Douglas. The purpose of the Cobden Centre is to open the debate and our team promotes a range of views for delivering honest money. The shape of the debate is explained here:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/01/banking-the-shape-of-the-debate/

For background reading, The Cobden Centre's Primer can be found here:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/literature/primer/

A wider range of relevant literature is here, including works by a number of Nobel Laureates:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/literature/

A key text is Irving Fisher's "100% Money", which I summarize here:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/01/100-money-irving-fisher/

For works by City professionals, try:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/author/gordon/
http://www.cobdencentre.org/author/james/
http://www.cobdencentre.org/author/ewenstewart/
http://www.cobdencentre.org/author/jamie/

Steve Baker
Corporate Affairs Director
The Cobden Centre

Posted on 9 February 2010 19:51 by Steve Baker

This is all fundamentally sound, but it will require a massive cultural change that the people of the coutnry would need to be aware of.

Basically, there would have to be a massive correction in house prices, as there would be far fewer mortgages granted. I personally don't think this is a bad thing, as the belief that ever-rising house prices would cushion people from the consequences of incurring massive personal debt.

As house prices stabilised and even started rising again before we were even out of recession, it shows people's obsession with house prices has not yet abated.

The massive disconnection between the reality of wages and the unreality of house prices is one of the most damaging social issues that will need to be faced in the next few years. It is essentially a conspiracy of the baby-boomers against the next generations.

This policy could help reverse that, but as it will make millions of people immediately feel much poorer, no government will initiate it.

http://independentengland.blogspot.com

Posted on 9 February 2010 20:43 by dave

In response to what Lola said, in my opinion the minimum wage policy that New Labour introduced was one of the few good things they did. My one complaint about it was that the minimum was not high enough and hasn't kept up with rising prices in recent years. It is all very well for some to deride the minimum wage, but I bet those people have never had to live on it!!

Posted on 10 February 2010 10:24 by Peter F

Make A Comment

Comment moderation is on. Any comment will have to be approved before being published.

All fields are required, the email address will not be made public. HTML code is not allowed.