What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.
A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn’t get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.
All that said - that doesn’t mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don’t have to call it a loan, and it doesn’t have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.
The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption.
If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where “the workers own the means of production” trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.
In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying ‘loans R bad’ makes it sound like you’re advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.
I think a lot of folks have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans work. The banks don’t get to just magically conjure up as much money as that want. It is backed by actual money/assets and federal regulations require a certain ratio between what the bank has loaned and the amount of money they have readily on hand.
I agree that it’s not a perfect system, and I definitely think “businesses” that offer those sketchy payday loan arrangements should be illegal, as they often price gouge the shit out of the interest rates (in fact, I believe many states have outlawed them). But I don’t know of a better solution that isn’t dependent on a utopian-esque idea.
Wow, I thought they’d raised it back up after COVID “ended.” How ridiculous, you’d think that would be one of the first tools they’d use to address inflation outside of just raising interest rates.
You are incorrect. Banks do create money from nothing. And I don’t know if it’s unlimited but I’m not sure why it needs to be unlimited to feel weird and/or unfair.
That is not true. This is typically how bank loans work: You make an account at a bank and deposit, say, $1000. Before 2020, the Fed would require the bank to retain something like 10% of that $1000 (just using 10% in this example, I haven’t looked up what the ratio was pre-2020). So they’d deposit $100 of your cash to keep on hand and could then loan out the other $900 to those seeking a loan.
However, the Fed set that reserve ratio to 0% in 2020, which is idiotic in the long-term and also likely a main contributor several banks collapsed in 2022/2023 as the Fed started raising interest rates (I’m no economic expert by any means, so I could be wrong on the main contributing factor).
I think you’re mixing up regular banks with the federal reserve, who definitely can just print money out of thin air.
What if the bank decides to keep all $1.000 and loan out $10.000? While money wasn’t printed, phantom money was most definitely conjured out of thin air. And with the magic I don’t see how a bank couldn’t have, say, bought Disney with the phantom dollars
Normal commercial banks cannot just print money, which is exactly what you’re implying with “phantom money.” The money has to come from somewhere and/or be backed by something. So no, a bank can’t just magically turn $1000 into $10,000 without something securing the additional money or the extra money coming from other funds. Only the Fed (or other countries’ central banks/governments) can print money on a whim.
I think the most generous interpretation of what they seem to be trying to explain is the “phantom plans” created from loaning loaned money.
A deposits 1k into bank
Bank loans B 1k
B loans C 500
There’s only 1k in circulation, 500 in B’s hands and 500 in C’s, but there is technically 1500 in total loans.
I could be off base that this is what they’re talking about, and I don’t necessarily think it’s all that relevant to the conversation, just spitballing.
You clearly didn’t read. After 20 seconds this page didn’t load, but doesn’t matter… It’s pretty obvious you don’t care about facts so I can’t imagine you understood or read it yourself
From the very source you linked–which isn’t even a good source to begin with since very little of the actual responses there use their cited sources correctly, often quoting shit out of context or misinterpreting the source material:
The “out of nothing” aspect of your question is more complex. In my personal view, and I guess that’s only an opinion, is that because banks are government regulated and insured institutions, forced to back each loan with reserves, and regulated to have capital for each of those loans, they cannot really be said to make this private money out of nothing.
But again, that’s just one user’s response. Not a credible source. So here:
Creating money
Banks also create money. They do this because they must hold on reserve, and not lend out, some portion of their deposits—either in cash or in securities that can be quickly converted to cash. The amount of those reserves depends both on the bank’s assessment of its depositors’ need for cash and on the requirements of bank regulators, typically the central bank—a government institution that is at the center of a country’s monetary and banking system. Banks keep those required reserves on deposit with central banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and the European Central Bank. Banks create money when they lend the rest of the money depositors give them. This money can be used to purchase goods and services and can find its way back into the banking system as a deposit in another bank, which then can lend a fraction of it. The process of relending can repeat itself a number of times in a phenomenon called the multiplier effect. The size of the multiplier—the amount of money created from an initial deposit—depends on the amount of money banks must keep on reserve.
Banks also lend and recycle excess money within the financial system and create, distribute, and trade securities.
Banks have several ways of making money besides pocketing the difference (or spread) between the interest they pay on deposits and borrowed money and the interest they collect from borrowers or securities they hold. They can earn money from
•income from securities they trade; and
•fees for customer services, such as checking accounts, financial and investment banking, loan servicing, and the origination, distribution, and sale of other financial products, such as insurance and mutual funds.
Banks earn on average between 1 and 2 percent of their assets (loans and securities). This is commonly referred to as a bank’s return on assets.
Which is a more detailed explanation of what I originally said. Yes, they create money. But it’s coming from somewhere and backed by something and not just magically imagined.
In the US, the Fed can just print money, and they have numerous times. But that’s because they’re legally allowed to. Banks don’t have the authority to straight up print new cash without something backing it up (e.g. reserves, assets, securities, transactions, etc.)
I don’t know that the loan concept is what’s broken as much as the idea of the bank itself. To me, the idea of credit unions makes a pretty good alternative to banks. At least every CU I’ve belonged to has been owned by the members, and the profits they made were used to subsidize interest rates for members needing a loan or, in some cases, a portion was paid out as a dividend at the end of the year to members.
Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.
You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I’ve seen no specific citations. Are there any you’d reccomend?
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
Making things affordable (or just priced within reason) if they are considered a necessity to live in society.
Yes, there are survival necessities ie. food, water, shelter. But in modern society, we can add Internet, phone, car (depending on where you live) or bus pass etc, and probably tuition for at least a bachelor’s degree.
If you want to buy a boat or some shit, then sure, you should have to take out a loan.
Love your optimism, but “making things affordable” is not a valid plan for managing resources. It provides a goal without a solution.
Are you suggesting price fixing? That has a lot of associated outcomes that typically cause worse situations than doing nothing.
You can introduce a guaranteed buyer at fixed price points which alleviate some of the negative consequences, but add others.
These are not simple problems. The reason these problems exist isn’t solely because “rich and powerful people are evil” as nice as that would be. These problems still exist because they’re complicated and ‘one size fits all’ solutions haven’t been found for them.
Again, love the lofty goal you’re setting, but you pretty blatantly don’t mention an alternative system. Easy to point out a problem, much harder to build a real solution.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
March of history. When material conditions are right you transition from feudalism to capitalism. When material conditions build up further, you get the transition to socialism and then communism.
I think a better goal may be to make plans affordable. Loans are a valuable tool, if they’re at a decent rate, so restructure them. Interest never compounds. Rates have to be reasonable. Payments always come out of principle, with interest tacked on and paid at the end of the loan’s life. It’s also a reeeeeeally hard task to say just “make things affordable”
Disclaimer: not advocating for current system.
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.
A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn’t get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.
All that said - that doesn’t mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don’t have to call it a loan, and it doesn’t have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.
The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption. If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where “the workers own the means of production” trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.
In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying ‘loans R bad’ makes it sound like you’re advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.
I think a lot of folks have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans work. The banks don’t get to just magically conjure up as much money as that want. It is backed by actual money/assets and federal regulations require a certain ratio between what the bank has loaned and the amount of money they have readily on hand.
I agree that it’s not a perfect system, and I definitely think “businesses” that offer those sketchy payday loan arrangements should be illegal, as they often price gouge the shit out of the interest rates (in fact, I believe many states have outlawed them). But I don’t know of a better solution that isn’t dependent on a utopian-esque idea.
Haha, dream on.
Wow, I thought they’d raised it back up after COVID “ended.” How ridiculous, you’d think that would be one of the first tools they’d use to address inflation outside of just raising interest rates.
You are incorrect. Banks do create money from nothing. And I don’t know if it’s unlimited but I’m not sure why it needs to be unlimited to feel weird and/or unfair.
That is not true. This is typically how bank loans work: You make an account at a bank and deposit, say, $1000. Before 2020, the Fed would require the bank to retain something like 10% of that $1000 (just using 10% in this example, I haven’t looked up what the ratio was pre-2020). So they’d deposit $100 of your cash to keep on hand and could then loan out the other $900 to those seeking a loan.
However, the Fed set that reserve ratio to 0% in 2020, which is idiotic in the long-term and also likely a main contributor several banks collapsed in 2022/2023 as the Fed started raising interest rates (I’m no economic expert by any means, so I could be wrong on the main contributing factor).
I think you’re mixing up regular banks with the federal reserve, who definitely can just print money out of thin air.
What if the bank decides to keep all $1.000 and loan out $10.000? While money wasn’t printed, phantom money was most definitely conjured out of thin air. And with the magic I don’t see how a bank couldn’t have, say, bought Disney with the phantom dollars
You’re misunderstanding the basics of banking like the other fellow I responded to. I provided a link by the IMF that explains the fundamentals in another reply. I’ll provide another one: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp
Normal commercial banks cannot just print money, which is exactly what you’re implying with “phantom money.” The money has to come from somewhere and/or be backed by something. So no, a bank can’t just magically turn $1000 into $10,000 without something securing the additional money or the extra money coming from other funds. Only the Fed (or other countries’ central banks/governments) can print money on a whim.
I think the most generous interpretation of what they seem to be trying to explain is the “phantom plans” created from loaning loaned money.
A deposits 1k into bank Bank loans B 1k B loans C 500
There’s only 1k in circulation, 500 in B’s hands and 500 in C’s, but there is technically 1500 in total loans.
I could be off base that this is what they’re talking about, and I don’t necessarily think it’s all that relevant to the conversation, just spitballing.
Can you read what you just wrote?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You clearly didn’t read. After 20 seconds this page didn’t load, but doesn’t matter… It’s pretty obvious you don’t care about facts so I can’t imagine you understood or read it yourself
No, I’m thinking of loans. Any bank. I’ve heard this from multiple reliable sources. Here’s a quick one: https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/26991/is-money-mostly-created-out-of-nothing-by-banks-making-loans
From the very source you linked–which isn’t even a good source to begin with since very little of the actual responses there use their cited sources correctly, often quoting shit out of context or misinterpreting the source material:
But again, that’s just one user’s response. Not a credible source. So here:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/basics.htm
Which is a more detailed explanation of what I originally said. Yes, they create money. But it’s coming from somewhere and backed by something and not just magically imagined.
In the US, the Fed can just print money, and they have numerous times. But that’s because they’re legally allowed to. Banks don’t have the authority to straight up print new cash without something backing it up (e.g. reserves, assets, securities, transactions, etc.)
You don’t understand anything. What bits of this I read didn’t support your point at all though
I don’t know that the loan concept is what’s broken as much as the idea of the bank itself. To me, the idea of credit unions makes a pretty good alternative to banks. At least every CU I’ve belonged to has been owned by the members, and the profits they made were used to subsidize interest rates for members needing a loan or, in some cases, a portion was paid out as a dividend at the end of the year to members.
Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.
You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I’ve seen no specific citations. Are there any you’d reccomend?
Making things affordable (or just priced within reason) if they are considered a necessity to live in society.
Yes, there are survival necessities ie. food, water, shelter. But in modern society, we can add Internet, phone, car (depending on where you live) or bus pass etc, and probably tuition for at least a bachelor’s degree.
If you want to buy a boat or some shit, then sure, you should have to take out a loan.
Love your optimism, but “making things affordable” is not a valid plan for managing resources. It provides a goal without a solution.
Are you suggesting price fixing? That has a lot of associated outcomes that typically cause worse situations than doing nothing.
You can introduce a guaranteed buyer at fixed price points which alleviate some of the negative consequences, but add others.
These are not simple problems. The reason these problems exist isn’t solely because “rich and powerful people are evil” as nice as that would be. These problems still exist because they’re complicated and ‘one size fits all’ solutions haven’t been found for them.
The obvious solution is to dismantle capitalism and destroy anyone that gets in the way.
Again, love the lofty goal you’re setting, but you pretty blatantly don’t mention an alternative system. Easy to point out a problem, much harder to build a real solution.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
March of history. When material conditions are right you transition from feudalism to capitalism. When material conditions build up further, you get the transition to socialism and then communism.
I think a better goal may be to make plans affordable. Loans are a valuable tool, if they’re at a decent rate, so restructure them. Interest never compounds. Rates have to be reasonable. Payments always come out of principle, with interest tacked on and paid at the end of the loan’s life. It’s also a reeeeeeally hard task to say just “make things affordable”