FT Alphaville
"The point here is that while the central bank represents a complete monopoly when it comes to money that can be used to settle tax liabilities — every citizen’s ultimate liability to the state — it is only a market participant when it comes to the store-of-value market.
The ideal store-of-value takes something that would otherwise be a zero-yielding asset and turns it into an asset whose returns compensate for any additional money that falls into circulation — in response to output growth — that would otherwise come to dilute the purchasing power of the store-of-value when liquidated. By and large the private markets decide these rates when they decide how much they are prepared to pay for any store-of-value that offers a compensating income flow."
miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2013
martes, 26 de febrero de 2013
viernes, 22 de febrero de 2013
jueves, 21 de febrero de 2013
miércoles, 20 de febrero de 2013
martes, 19 de febrero de 2013
lunes, 18 de febrero de 2013
sábado, 16 de febrero de 2013
viernes, 15 de febrero de 2013
miércoles, 13 de febrero de 2013
Sobre el origen del dinero
The Economist y Cullen Roche
"Most of what we call money is actually short-term debt created by banks when they make loans. This means that banks are the stewards of our savings and manage the payments system. As a result, they have a privileged place in our society: governments never deliberately choose to liquidate the banking system. It always appears preferable, in the short term at least, to preserve the incumbent institutions and personnel through bail-outs. (Lending to “solvent but illiquid” firms at below-market rates is another kind of bail-out, even if it is not always called one by the authorities.)
I think it’s incredibly important to understand that first point. Almost all of what we call “money” today is created by banks out of thin air. The government has essentially outsourced money creation to an oligopoly of private entities. This might sound ludicrous, but it’s largely in keeping with the capitalist nature and democratic foundings of the American system. That is, the money supply is controlled not by the government, but by the private sector. And the entities that distribute this money must compete for our business. The alternative is having the government distribute all money in some fashion.
Of course, the problem with this design is that private banks are driven purely by the profit motive. So, this capitalist design can be both beneficial, but inherently unstable as banks have a tendency to reach out on the risk curve. It’s the old Hyman Minsky “stability creates instability” thing. So you have a serious conflict of interests here. The banks issue and dominate the social construct that is OUR money. And their involvement in the stability of that social construct is essential as they maintain the payments system. But the profit motive leads them to do silly things at times which leads to systemic instability."
Más de The Economist
"Most of what we call money is actually short-term debt created by banks when they make loans. This means that banks are the stewards of our savings and manage the payments system. As a result, they have a privileged place in our society: governments never deliberately choose to liquidate the banking system. It always appears preferable, in the short term at least, to preserve the incumbent institutions and personnel through bail-outs. (Lending to “solvent but illiquid” firms at below-market rates is another kind of bail-out, even if it is not always called one by the authorities.)
I think it’s incredibly important to understand that first point. Almost all of what we call “money” today is created by banks out of thin air. The government has essentially outsourced money creation to an oligopoly of private entities. This might sound ludicrous, but it’s largely in keeping with the capitalist nature and democratic foundings of the American system. That is, the money supply is controlled not by the government, but by the private sector. And the entities that distribute this money must compete for our business. The alternative is having the government distribute all money in some fashion.
Of course, the problem with this design is that private banks are driven purely by the profit motive. So, this capitalist design can be both beneficial, but inherently unstable as banks have a tendency to reach out on the risk curve. It’s the old Hyman Minsky “stability creates instability” thing. So you have a serious conflict of interests here. The banks issue and dominate the social construct that is OUR money. And their involvement in the stability of that social construct is essential as they maintain the payments system. But the profit motive leads them to do silly things at times which leads to systemic instability."
Más de The Economist
martes, 12 de febrero de 2013
lunes, 11 de febrero de 2013
When do profits count?
JW Mason
"You might naively think that whether a business makes profits is independent of who happens to own it. Profits appear as soon as a commodity is sold for more than the cost of its inputs. So the bolded sentence really only makes sense with the implied addition, profits for venture capitalists or for finance. But in the disgorge-the-cash era, that's taken as read.
Capitalism is still about M-C-C'-M', same as it ever as. But C-C' now includes not just the immediate process of production, but everything related to the firm as a distinct entity. Profits aren't really profits, under the current regime, as long as the claim on them is tied to a specific business or industry. And the only real capitalists are owners of financial assets."
"You might naively think that whether a business makes profits is independent of who happens to own it. Profits appear as soon as a commodity is sold for more than the cost of its inputs. So the bolded sentence really only makes sense with the implied addition, profits for venture capitalists or for finance. But in the disgorge-the-cash era, that's taken as read.
Capitalism is still about M-C-C'-M', same as it ever as. But C-C' now includes not just the immediate process of production, but everything related to the firm as a distinct entity. Profits aren't really profits, under the current regime, as long as the claim on them is tied to a specific business or industry. And the only real capitalists are owners of financial assets."
domingo, 10 de febrero de 2013
viernes, 8 de febrero de 2013
jueves, 7 de febrero de 2013
Overheating in credit markets: Origins, measurement, and policy responses
Discurso de Jeremy Stein. Comenta The Economist. Y Scott Sumner.
Màs de The Economist
Gavyn Davies
The Economist le responde a Scott Sumner. Y Sumner responde: What moentary policy can and cannot do
Nick Rowe comenta:
"Yes, if the central bank raises or lowers interest rates, this will affect financial markets. But I thought we had gone beyond thinking of monetary policy in terms of raising or lowering interest rates. Or buying or selling bonds in an open market operation. Or raising or lowering the money supply. Or raising or lowering the exchange rate. Those aren't monetary policies. .
.. A monetary policy is not just the central bank doing something right now. A monetary policy is some sort of rule that tells the central bank the different things it should be doing under all sorts of different circumstances in the past, present, and future."
Bill Woolsey
JW Mason
Nick Rowe: Monetary stimulus vs financial stability is a false trade-off
Mike Konckzal
The Economist
Màs de The Economist
Gavyn Davies
The Economist le responde a Scott Sumner. Y Sumner responde: What moentary policy can and cannot do
Nick Rowe comenta:
"Yes, if the central bank raises or lowers interest rates, this will affect financial markets. But I thought we had gone beyond thinking of monetary policy in terms of raising or lowering interest rates. Or buying or selling bonds in an open market operation. Or raising or lowering the money supply. Or raising or lowering the exchange rate. Those aren't monetary policies. .
.. A monetary policy is not just the central bank doing something right now. A monetary policy is some sort of rule that tells the central bank the different things it should be doing under all sorts of different circumstances in the past, present, and future."
Bill Woolsey
JW Mason
Nick Rowe: Monetary stimulus vs financial stability is a false trade-off
Mike Konckzal
The Economist
martes, 5 de febrero de 2013
lunes, 4 de febrero de 2013
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)