|
|
|
|
|
|
by derstander
1048 days ago
|
|
|
I guess I still don’t understand your original point in the context of your reply. Say the banks are creating new money through these loans. And then enough of the original depositors plus some of the people that have been lent money want their money out that the bank can’t give it to all of them. From a layperson’s perspective (like mine) this seems like the bank has loaned out their deposits — it seems like a distinction without a difference to me. What am I missing? |
|
|
When you deposit money into a bank a few things happen:
- The money is no longer yours, it's the banks, you have no ownership of it anymore
- The bank creates an IOU (a deposit) in your account to say that you may request money equalling this value at any time. You can spend this IOU in various places, it is widely accepted as money. This "bank money" is confusingly referred to as dollars (or whatever your currency is), just like actual cash is.
- Completely separated from handling deposits, another arm of the bank creates loans, which also creates IOU's (deposits) in their respective account.
- Someone given a loan may request to withdraw cash (or a transfer), which may force the bank to reach into it's reserves, which is partly made up of customer cash deposits. These reserves are owned by the bank, not depositors. Banks are not holding onto depositors money in a strict sense, it's the banks money until an IOU is called in.
I think the last bit might be where the question about the "distinction without a difference" might be coming from? when the borrower requests cash, they are not "withdrawing" their loan, they are cashing in their deposit of "bank money". Because the percentage of reserves is always vastly smaller than all deposits they hold, bank runs are always destructive on the system. The whole system is a massive plate spinning act that works fine if the plates keep spinning.