The Swiss ‘Vollgeld’ referendum on June 10

9 June, 2018 at 16:47 | Posted in Economics | 6 Comments

Tomorrow Swiss voters will decide if the central bank is to take over total control of the country’s money supply.​ The Swiss sovereign money initiative calls for all credit issued by commercial banks to be backed with real money — ‘Vollgeld’ — created by the Swiss National Bank (SNB). But although we all justifiably fear the occurrences of new financial crises, there are strong reasons to doubt ‘sovereign money’ would save us from such crises:

vollgeldFor some the crisis calls for a much more radical cure: the elimination of fractional reserve banking altogether. The argument is that financial instability is inherent in the current system and is directly caused by the capacity of banks to create credit and thus money beyond the direct control of the central bank, and the effect of the lender-of-last-resort facility in protecting banks from the ensuing risks. Priority is placed on ensuring the provision of a safe money asset without the need for costly bank bail-outs. A sharp distinction is drawn between safe money assets (issued, or completely backed by, the state) and all other assets …

There are important differences among the various plans in terms of the transition to the new regime, how banks are then allowed to operate and the form of state involvement in the setting of the money supply level. What they all have in common is the fundamental point that banks will no longer be able to create money through credit and not face the associated risks; in order to achieve this, the focus of all the plans is on the supply of money and ensuring that imprudent banks fail without threatening the rest of the banking system or the public purse.

In the current monetary system almost all money is created by commercial banks via the creation of loans, thus the key question is whether money should continue to be a prerogative of the (mainly) private banking system. For these plans the simple answer is no. What these reforms propose is to remove the ability of banks to create money by separating money and credit, thereby creating a public money system distinct from the private, market allocation of savings and loans. In brief, a bank’s reserve ratio (i.e. public money over current accounts) must be 100%. Alternatively, current accounts are removed from banks and placed at a public institution or in a separate special bank. Central independent institutions (set up by a central bank or the government) would then directly control the quantity of money in circulation. In these systems banks have to borrow from creditors before being able to lend it out and would not enjoy special public sector support in the event of failure.

Clearly the crisis called for a policy response with respect to the structure of the financial system … But here we argue that, for all their good intentions, full-reserve banking plans have serious shortcomings which derive from their assumptions about money and about the financial sector. Even if it were feasible for the state to establish control of the money supply, there would be little scope for credit intermediation or maturity transformation. Were banks to find it profitable to continue to trade, they would come to resemble investment trusts and fund managers or even money shops. More importantly, the impact of these proposals on the financial system and on the overall economy might result either in a stagnant economy or in the growth of the unregulated provision of money in the private sector; full reserve banking might not in fact prevent a resurgence of financial instability.

Sheila Dow, Guðrún Johnsen and Alberto Montagnoli

Advertisements

6 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. But although we all justifiably fear the occurrences of new financial crises, there are strong reasons to doubt ‘sovereign money’ would save us from such crises:

    Yes, but what about honest accounting? Government privileges for the banks render their liabilities for fiat toward the non-bank private sector largely a sham since, for example, the non-bank private sector may not even USE their Nation’s fiat except for totally inadequate for modern commerce PHYSICAL fiat, aka “cash”.

    So do we, as a society believe in honest accounting or not? And if not why should we think we shall survive?

  2. The assertions about credit intermediation and maturity transformation in this post is based on an incomplete knowledge about the Swiss proposition and also about how the present system actually works. For a more informed view, see Dr. Joseph Hubers comments on a text from Bundesbank, on Positive Moneys website:
    http://positivemoney.org/2017/05/bundesbank/

  3. Fractional reserve banking is a past delusion. Today the banks may give lip service to it, but in fact they operate as the MMT theory claims, by issuing credit through the creation of deficit accounts, and the associated electronic money, which are no more than magnetic squiggles in a memory chip. There seems to be no limit and the question we should be asking ourselves is where does all this newly created money go? and what effect does this have on our social system?

    I have my ideas about these two matters, but I would like to see what others on this blog comments think.

    • Swiss voters rejected the proposal. In the referendum on Sunday, only 24 % of voters supported the Vollgeld initiative.

    • “where does all this newly created money go?”
      .
      It becomes new net financial assets for investors, and goes towards buying houses and stocks at wildly inflating prices. The new privately-created money also buys politicians and elections …
      .
      Modern Monetary Theory insists that the private sector alone cannot create net financial assets but a glance at derivative statistics shows financial capital grows much faster than government spending. MMT is wrong to assert that the government deficits are the only source of private net financial assets …

  4. That Sheffield University work by Dow & Co is poor bit of work. I pointed to numerous flaws in it last year here:

    http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/2017/09/sheffield-university-authors-strange.html


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.