March 09, 2004,
8:47 a.m. Far too often, professional economists with the highest credentials make headlines with opinions, analysis, and ridicule that may satisfy their constituents, but unfortunately fly in the face of the causal and operational realities of today's monetary economics. Perhaps the latest example is J. Bradford Delong's (Harvard educated professor of economics at Berkeley) criticism of our analysis of the dynamics of the U.S. trade deficit. The basic economics textbook for the Chartered Financial Analysts program, "Economics, Private and Public Choice," by Gwartney and Stroup, describes the process: "Under a fractional reserve banking system, an increase in reserves will permit banks to extend additional loans and thereby create additional transaction (checking) deposits. Since transaction deposits are money, the extension of the additional loans expands the supply of money.' In addition, readers can find a clear definition of this relationship in Understanding Modern Money, by L. Randall Wray, associate professor of Economics at the University of Denver. Professor Wray explains: "A loan is nothing more than an agreement by a bank to make payments now on the basis of a promise of the borrower to pay later. Loans represent payments the bank made for business, households and governments in exchange for their promises to make payments to the bank as some future date. All of this occurs on the balance sheets of banks; the money that is created by a bank is nothing more than a credit to another bank's balance sheet." In fact, every text we have seen says almost the exact same thing. DELONG: "The bank, a financial intermediary, lends the money to the consumer." MOSLER & NUGENT: Apparently, Delong is claiming that Americans are dependent on foreigners for the funding of our purchases of foreign goods, a message the media in general conveys almost daily. But that is not what happened in the example of the German car company. In fact, the German car company has provided the car in exchange for the bank deposit. The idea that the process starts with the banking system holding deposits and then lending them out is a throwback to "loanable funds" theories that prevailed under fixed exchange rates, and are at best not applicable. Under a fixed exchange rate policy, like a gold standard, banks are at risk of depositors withdrawing their deposits and exercising their right to actual convertible currency. The quantity of real convertible currency issued by the government is limited to the size of the gold stock in the case of a gold standard or the reserve currency in the case of a fixed exchange rate. The availability of reserves therefore constrains bank lending, as insufficient reserves for withdrawal demands cause the bank to fail. With a floating exchange-rate policy bank lending is not constrained by reserve availability. The government of issue stands by to lend banks actual currency in the case of customer withdrawals, and the government is unconstrained by the need for reserves as the currency is not convertible into gold (or another currency) at the Fed. DELONG'S CONCLUSION: "If I were anyone who wrote for National Review on any other topic, I would be yelling and screaming at the editors to institute some quality control in their 'economics' writing. For stupidity has a way of leaking across pages, and their reputations are harmed as well when the stupidity quotient exceeds the level at which the alarm bells start to ring." | ||||||||
|
|
|
|||
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_nugent/mosler_nugent200403090847.asp
|
||||