Skip to main content

Trying to Explain the Creation of Money

Magic Coin Tricks Revealed: Coin Production from Two Cards | Magic ...

I was attempting to explain the creation of money by the Federal Reserve to this young person -- at least he projects youth, one can never know on the internets -- and I was having trouble, He had the idea that the only way the Federal Reserve could inject money into the economy was by borrowing it from somewhere.

I think he thought of 'money' in overly physicalist terms, like a stack of bills and/or coins. 

I'll try the explanation again here. 

The Federal Reserve injects money into the economy by, in essence, creating it as a matter of law. 

Most money has no physical form at all. It is the set of the numbers we assign to bank accounts. 

The Bureau of Engraving creates paper money, but that is only a small portion of the total supply of dollars (I've heard around 8%). But that is the tail not the dog. The dog in this situation consists of the idea of money, and numbers that are re-assigned at the tap of keys or the swipe of a plastic card from one account to another, in a closed system, and only rarely taking on physical form.

The Fed is entitled to create this money by buying Treasury bills and bonds from the open market (NOT from the US Treasury). If the Fed buys $1 billion worth of bills then -- as if by magic! -- the relevant bank accounts will show the previous owners of those bills having an aggregate of $1 billion more than they had had the day before. 

Yes, I know, it can be a hard lesson to grasp. We still think of the pursuit of money as "materialism," after all: it might better be called idealism, since it is the pursuit of something that exists chiefly as an idea. An idea that can command those material goods and services. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak