When a government creates money by spending it adds money to the economy first, but that money later mostly returns to government through the normal process of taxation as successive financial transactions take place and increased economic activity reduces the need for social spending. The “creation of money” by private banks in the process of lending leads only to the removal of money from the economy. We see in a graph of three sector balances that when the private sector is borrowing, government finances grow and deficits fall. Therefore money must be being removed from the economy as the equity of the private sector falls.
However on the face of it, creation of money by private banks through lending acts to add money to the economy, and it is only when those loans are repaid that money is removed from the economy. The question is: how is it Government revenues quickly improve, so much so that there can be a budget surplus, and a corresponding private deficit when the private sector are on what some may describe as a credit binge?”
A credit binge may occur in the context of an investment bubble in housing or the share market. Investment & growth accelerates for a time increasing government revenues and decreasing mandatory expenditures. But, if the government isn’t providing sufficient net income growth via deficit spending, the boom is unsustainable.
So how does it all work?
Let’s look at what typically happens, in double entry bookkeeping terms, when a bank issues a loan for 300k. Initially, it creates a asset liability pair of 300k in its own accounts. (300k,300k) (assets liability) The customer receives the 300k but also has a liability of 300k to repay the bank. The bank acquires an asset of 300k in the form of a loan but still retains 300k in liabilities in terms of its own issued IOUs.
So the bank still have (300k,300k), the borrower has (300k,300k).
This all nets to zero and, as can be seen there is no new equity created from the bank lending, but the borrower does have 300k of available liquidity. As the reason for borrowing is the creation of spending power: maybe building a house, or investing in a business, or whatever, the position soon becomes:
The bank: (300k, 300k) The borrower: (0, 300k)
It is not possible to say exactly what will happen in any every case but, typically, the 300k is disipated into the economy. Much of that 300k eventually goes back to the government as various taxes are applied as it changes hands multiple times. 20% VAT. Income tax at 30% plus etc. That’s not to say that the lending per se has caused the money to return to the government but as the reason for borrowing is nearly always for spending, that’s the end result. That is why government finances ‘improve’, in neoliberal terms. As liquidity rises during a boom, incomes and spending also rise, and thus government revenue rises; additionally, demand for government assistance tends to wane, so naturally there is a narrowing of any deficit, and possibly an ‘achievement’ of a surplus,
at a rate far faster than can be accounted for by the repayment of the loan itself. That is really neither here nor there in comparison.
The end result of a boom is of course the inevitable bust. The boom-bust trap is a tempting one for governments of a right wing neoliberal disposition. That’s nearly all governments! Even the supposedly left of centre ones. Seemingly, during the boom time, they are reducing the government deficit and simultaneously simulating the economy. I’m cautiously optimistic that the recent recovery in the USA may be genuine but that remains to be proven.
So are the asset liabilities also sold on from bank to bank, like some monopoly game, excuse the poor metaphor, I quite like monopoly but I’m just trying to gage whether the cycle continually flows around and banks buy debt or should I say banks are the shifters that nations rely on but sometimes overcook the buying and selling by multiplying and short selling to many times on the same liabilities rather than just credit more loans?
I’m not sure what you are asking, but to explain the first paragraph a bit better:
Suppose the government decide to spend an extra amount of money training and recruiting more teachers, doctors, nurses child carers etc. Say it was a £1 billion for example.
Much of that £1 billion dollars will be spent on wages and salaries. We all know from our own experience that deductions in the form of tax and National Insurance typically make up 33% or so of pay packets. More, if the employers contribution is counted. So straightaway government get back about some £300 million or so of that £1 billion. The remainder, £700 million will be spent again buying whatever it is people spend their money on. Much of that will attract 20% VAT. Some of that will end up in the pay packets of the private sector which again are shrunk 33% by government deductions.
Some of it will get used for Corporation taxes and the multiple other taxes which are part of our economic system. After its been spent and re-spent just two or three times there isn’t much left. It’s nearly all been taxed away by Government!
Yeah, over the course the government does collect through taxes for what the credit or loan was given for but my perspective! tends to think it’s a game only open to a certain few, although if I wanted to enter the game because I decided my hourly rate didn’t cover the cost of living, I could try and ask a bank for some credit to buy a piece of land and build 10 homes on that piece of land if the bank covered my credit, say £300,00 for the land and say £120,000 for each house building and labour costs, so the bank gives me £1.5 million, I then sale all 10 homes for £300,000 a home, accruing £3 million,I pay the bank back there loan and some interest, say 10% leaving me with a profit of £1.35 million, so I’m in the game and yeah if I spend the profit the government will claw it back through taxes in the end but who have I really helped other than myself? because I’ve got such a big pay-off out of it, I’m not constraint to the guidlines that some of the people I used to help build the homes, I can afford more food, a better car, more cloths and live in a bigger more luxurious home so the system isn’t based on any fairness and if a government spends 1bn on training new doctors, nurses, child carers ect they will, the government claw back the 1bn but the differentials of how that 1bn was distributed wont be fair because some would have gained more than others.