RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Money Creation and Idolatry: How did we let this happen?

by Elizabeth Palmberg and Bob Goudzwaard 06-01-2009

In our recent blog, we described how money “creation” meets the needs of a gradually expanding economy – but also threatens to become an idol which distorts our use of the real world created by God.

Today, actual paper money is less and less used – most money exists as electronic impulses in bank accounts. Still, for centuries, money creation was mostly the monopoly of the state. (Private banks did issue notes, which were essentially company IOUs and which people used as if they were paper money – but they were usually seen as less trustworthy than government-printed bills, which are essentially IOUs backed by the full faith and credit of a government.)

But in the 20th century, a new kind of money creation become common: Private banks themselves were able to create enormous amounts of money. How did they do this? Simple – they just lent out far more money than they received from savers on deposit, from investors who bought shares, or than they possessed as their own capital (in cash, shares of stock, or treasury papers).

And this process creates real money. After all, the people taking out the loans are able to spend them (on a house, business, car, or whatever) – unless the house seller or Toyota dealer decides not to trust Citibank’s check. If that trust is lost, the system collapses. (Exhibit A: Iceland.)

Why should we care whether money is created by governments or by banks? Well, when money creation is mainly in the hands of private banks rather than the Federal Bank or the Treasury (which can create its own bills or papers), an important side effect of this system is that, if there is not any kind of control, way too much money may be poured into financial “casino capitalism.” Too many of those money-“creating” loans can go to people who use them to buy Wall Street inventions like derivatives – things that are tenuously, if at all, connected to or productive in the real world. As the article in this month’s Sojourners, A Paper God, describes, these abstruse financial speculations drive the real economy in ways that are bad for the environment and humans.

They also create financial bubbles which, when they pop (and the brilliant new Wall Street investments become “toxic assets”), take the whole economy down with them. In contrast, when money is created by governments, they insert the created money into the system at a different place – i.e., the federal budget, to form a base of the government’s spending on real things (salaries, roads, health care, etc.).

If the total annual money “created” is two, three, or even four times the growth of the real economy, then we need to understand that an illusion is working and a breakdown will follow, like the downfall of an idol.

In the past governments understood, far better than most present governments, that adding money to an economy is a public act and so needs to remain under public control. So the central banking system should always – indeed, it is its public calling to – put some limits on the growth of bank-“created” money.

Bob Goudzwaard, co-author of Hope in Troubled Times: A New Vision for Con­fronting Global Crises (Baker, 2007), is a former member of the Dutch Parliament and professor emeritus at the Free University of Amsterdam. Recently he chaired a two-year consultation between the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Council of Churches. Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.

Categories: Economics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • EarthQuaker
    I appreciate this elucidation of the money creation process. However, the real overshoot problem, it seems to me, has nothing to do with speculative investment orgies, but with the fact that all wealth is based on the physical world, and besides the ethical implications of not caring for God's Creation, there's the simple problem that we are at or near peak oil, peak coal, peak uranium, peak copper, peak fish, and peak water. That is not a "bubble." That is Ecogeddon. The trick will be to rapidly SHRINK, by orders of magnitude, the throughput of the global economy while simultaneously redistributing wealth (resources) so radically as to enable each person to reach their full potential while confining all economic activity to the carrying capacity of Earth. Should have started on that project after WWII, instead of the Cold War, maybe. Consider the "Crash Course" at http://www.chrismartenson.com It isn't as entertaining as "The Story of Stuff," (http://www.storyofstuff.com) but perhaps just as compelling.
  • I think what you're advocating for is decentralization. At least that's what your example seems to conclude. I'm not sure about your 80/20 statistic, but part of addressing that issue is that we need to address why it takes place. Central banking supplies money in a similar way, and actually ends up hurting the poor more through an "inflation tax," because the poor are normally the last to receive the benefits (trickle-down critics be damned, this is exactly what a central banking system ends up doing). You may disagree, but where freedom has reigned, more people have improved their living standards. India has embraced capitalism in recent decades, and now it is becoming a very competitive nation. Many in India have more than subsistence-level income because of their competitiveness. That's just one example.

    I implore you to seek out fiat money and central banking, and the whole idea of "money creation." When you learn the truth, your heart will wrench, and you will discover probably the source of many injustices in our society.
  • duhsciple
    My intuitive sense is that we should be cautious in our support of big banks, big business, big government, and big farms. Diversify, diversify, diversify.

    By way of exaggerated illustration, I'd rather have the world fed by 1,000 farms rather than 1 farm. The 1 farm can be successful for many years, providing food and profit to farmers and people. Yet it only takes one bad year and everyone is in trouble. People starve. Farmers go bankrupt. Meanwhile, if have 1,000 farms we spread the risk of crop failure and global collapse. Say 500 farms fail. The system still has 500 remaining, making food and profit.

    I hope that the free market advocates here will understand my discomfort favor bigger banks, bigger banks without limit. (The "1 farm danger" in free market form) If you can hear "progressives" like me on that, then I will be more open to the dangers of big government. (The "1 farm danger" in government run economy form.)

    As it stands now, 80% of the resources are being consumed by less than 20% of the people. That is unjust, idolatrous, wicked, evil, counter to the Gospel message, and anti-Kingdom-of-God. I'm praying for the "1,000 farm model" involving a collaboration among businesses, governments, religious institutions, and non-profits.

    Perhaps I'm not understanding the comment people here. But I'm seeing Palmberg and Goudzwaard as advocating the "1,000 farm" economic system more than the comment people.
  • The more I've been pondering this post, and the comments written in response to it, the more I keep realizing that creating money ex nihilo, by decree, is a blasphemous act. As humans we are to "create things," but that is with regard to creativity, not in the same way God created things. If God is the only entity worthy, capable, and permitted to create ex nihilo, then for us to do the same means we are taking on God's role in ordering the cosmos.

    Those who believe in a free market have no delusions that the free market would bring about utopia. They have a realistic view that life would not be perfect. It seems as though they respect their roles as humans, and they "make do" with the natural resources God has placed within our world. Some of those natural resources are scarce, and have historically become a medium of exchange (i.e. "money") acceptable by all in a given society, or around the world. In this respect, God created money because God created the resources necessary for humans to exchange goods and cooperate together. For mankind to create this idea that "money" is a man-created (or worse, government-created) entity, is to presume upon God's role of having already created such "money," believing that a better system can be created.

    I love this quote: "Government is the only agency that can take a useful commodity like paper, slap some ink on it, and make it totally worthless."
    ~Ludwig von Mises
  • As for the gold standard, it's something of a fetishism; there is nothing inherently valuable in gold.

    I can see your point, here. I would remind you, though, that gold is scarce, just like other "precious metals" and things like high-purity diamonds. They are valued because they are scarce, just like anything else. Supply and demand works equally as well with regards to money. When there is more "money," it is worth less. Should I point out that while crude oil was sky-high a year or so ago compared to the dollar, compared to gold it stayed the same?

    The barter system works in emergencies, but once things stabilize, a standard agreed-upon medium of exchange emerges. That medium of exchange can only stay stable if the resource itself is stable. That's why gold and silver have been the best example of a "standard" medium of exchange. It later became expedient to have "gold-backed" money.
  • carlcopas
    "Is it me, or is there an odd lack of counterpoint to the arguments we're making here in the comments?"

    Gee I wonder why, when there are entries that in all seriousness use terms like "War of Northern Aggression."

    If you have so much faith in notes issued by private banks, it would be helpful, perhaps, to do a little research on the causes of the Panic of 1837 . Pay particular attention to the way the so-called "wildcat" banks operated. It might also be informative to research why the political party that in the 1790s opposed Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a national bank decided by 1816 that it was a pretty good idea.

    Useful on the Fed is William Greider's "Secrets of the Temple."

    As for the gold standard, it's something of a fetishism; there is nothing inherently valuable in gold. The idea that if we tie our money supply to the gold supply, somehow all will be well is simplistic. If for some reason all computers worlwide shut down tomorrow, which would you rather have to barter for necessities: bars of gold or a warehouse full of cigarettes, toilet paper, beer, and canned goods?
  • DITE
    "But in the 20th century, a new kind of money creation become common: Private banks themselves were able to create enormous amounts of money. How did they do this? Simple – they just lent out far more money than they received from savers on deposit, from investors who bought shares, or than they possessed as their own capital "

    First, do you think the world was a better place before the 20th century? Second, what you mentioned is not money creation. It's lending. Money is only created when the Fed buys government securities or financial assets.

    Some investment is risky and dumb, but there is no way to have long run economic growth without investment expenditures.
  • Speculation serves a function on the market. Look up Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, or even browse the chapter on speculation in it. I doubt he would defend the actions and results of what you're describing, but making it "illegal" or partitioning zones would likely have some unintended consequences that neither you nor I would really want after all.

    Besides, the biggest reason speculation was "hot" the past few years was because interest rates were artificially low. Had the interest rate been what the market determined, only a very few risk-takers would have been able to afford it, and more often than not they are the ones who speculate for the more beneficial reasons of the market. Again, this all stems back to artificially low interest rates. Only one source for that: federal reserve bank.
  • dubyajayo
    This entire discussion presumes a definition and form of money, namely pieces of paper with particular designs and numbers printed on them. The free market would choose gold and silver, not the toy fiat money we use today.

    Could private banks create gold and silver coin out of thin air? Of course not. Someone must actually mine and refine the ore first, then it must be coined. And even then the mint must have a reputation for coins of reliable metal content for people to trust it and use it.

    The word "dollar" is derived from the name of a silver mine (e.g. "thaler") and designated a coin of one ounce of fine silver. With that, the idea of silver having a value expressed in dollars is bizarre. How much is a one-ounce silver coin worth in dollars?? The answer: One! A one-ounce silver coin *is* (or was) a dollar by definition!

    Consider the difference in value of one versus ten actual (silver) dollars compared to one versus ten "dollar" federal reserve notes. How much more difficult would it be to mine and refine enough ore to create ten coins versus one coin compared to changing the printing plate to show "10" versus "1" on a super special piece of paper?

    The hinderance that comes with the creation of money must be considered in this discussion. Are we to rely on the restraint of politicians? Of the quasi-government body, the Federal Reserve Bank?

    If legal tender were gold and silver, as the US Constitution requires by restricting the States to make only such coin tender in payment of debts, said implied legal tender power belonging to the States exclusively as no such power is given to Congress (the power to coin money is not the same as the power to define legal tender), Congress could create new coins as often as they had refined ore available and it would still be tempered by the fact that it is a precious metal that can not be replicated at will.

    Let us use gold and silver coin and just divide it into smaller pieces as needed. Then when economic activity increases thanks to some invention of some new technology, the value of money (real money) will actually increase rather than decrease, as with inflation.

    The very concept of fiat money and inflation as a tool of economic stimulus is that of a perpetual motion machine, and should be rejected for that fact alone. You can not get something for nothing, and you can not pick yourself up by your own boot straps. It only has the illusion of "working" temporarily, and only benefits those closest to the source of the new money: the self-privileged bankers.

    If it was true that inflation could have any real benefit, why not print up enough notes to make us all millionaires? The answer is simple: a million "dollars" would come to buy only a hamburger dinner for four and we'd take our families to McDonald's with a wheelbarrow full of colored paper adorned with Caesar's portrait.

    The destruction of this fiat ("by decree") currency is inevitable as those who believe men are sinners should know. Why on God's earth would you trust a government of man? How could they possibly know how much inflation was "just enough"?

    We should have competition in money creation just as we have competition in fast food restaurants and department stores. Free competition will prevent monopolies and will assure purity of content of *precious metal* coin.
  • mscynthia
    So did we ever find out who was planning
    to make money on the hedge funds that cashed in
    when the banks failed?

    I'm still waiting and wondering about the wisdom of betting against yourselves.
    Did these people not have money in a bank or a house somewhere?
    What were their true motivations?

    I am still waiting for families to move back
    into the homes in our neighborhoods
    that were bought by the speculators who
    lost their shirts because they got caught
    with the hot potato last.

    Last I heard the banks were still auctioning
    off homes to the speculators.
    The people who were paying my bills were
    families with children.
    I wasn't making more than I needed to get by but it was enough so that
    I could do things for others.
    I would l like to see family housing declared no speculation zones from now on. Family housing is a national treasure, it does not belong on the gambling table at the Cassio.
  • hoohah
    Who in the world can "create' real money? Printing money, then lending it to the government is what the Federal Reserve does. The money is not toed to any commodity, hence the term "money creation."

    If money is tied to a commodity it has real value. If it is not, it is a fiction, causing inflation (due to the "money" having no intrinsic value, and thus inflating the cost of the dollar against foreign currencies.)

    I can't understand how anyone would think that governments, who murdered around 270 million people last century - are more trustworthy "creating" money than people who actually produce something tangible and actually do create money.

    Take an extreme case as an example: Zimbabwe's annual inflation rate is now 516 quintillion per cent.

    I've seen photographs of public restrooms in Zimbabwe where signs are posted requesting that people not use Zimbabwe currency as toilet paper.

    Zimbabwe has 100 billion dollar notes - all because of its feckless leaders "creating money." Had their money been tied to a commodity - something with real value, this couldn't have happened.

    There was a time when global currency was exchanged at about the same rate. Then governments got into the "money creation" business.

    It's easy to point fingers at banks, wall street, etc. But corruption is corruption, and the private sector doesn't have a lock on corruption - it's not even in the same league with governments. I suggest that people take a look at GAO reports regarding GAO''s auditing U.S. Government agencies over the past 30 or so years. There are so many billions missing that it's astounding. I don't want any more foxes guarding the hen house...
  • An excellent introduction to the way the Fed works, its relationship to the government, and how it affects our daily lives is Thomas E. Woods' Meltdown published earlier this year.

    Also try this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210...
  • letjusticerolldown
    It is all too far beyond me. I do not really grasp the distinction between banks (the Fed) creating money vs the government; nor do I grasp how this relates to money disappearing from the economy.

    And I don't grasp how this boils down to me and my ethical choices. It feels as if there are vast segments of our economy that is fundamentally fraudulent--or open to fraud.

    Which leads me to my current simple equation for my life. I believe wisdom is the product of a simple morality lived out over time (in obedience and submission). I think we have strayed so far from some matters of simple economic morality that confusion will carry the day. On the one hand we have very sophisticated arguments in which expert opinion ranges all over the map (which to me does not look like, walk like, or talk like wisdom); and on the other hand a confusion that can't even muster a counterpoint. To me, they both look like confusion.

    I do not have a spirit of fear--but of power, love and a sound mind. I will attempt to act with responsible stewardship with what is in my hands today--praying for wisdom
  • brady
    Practically speaking, the "babysteps" approach is all there is. Sad but true. But of course I agree that we always need to speak truth to power.
  • ando
    I won't make a counterpoint, although I consider myself more of a populist than a libertarian. My point is that it seems ironic that the Left loves to criticize our economic system, yet it's the same system that made financial success stories out of the likes of the Clintons, Gores and Obamas. Barack Obama raised increadible amounts of money to get elected -- perhaps some of this could have been used for the poor?! -- yet the Left offers no critique of the fact that he rejected public financing of the election to raise how much money? How many mouths could some of that money have fed in Africa?
  • jkc1945
    You guys are all pretty far above my ability to keep up, but I can still be pretty sure of one thing: when the U.S. Treasury offers bonds ('debt') for sale on the open market, and the Fed has to buy all or most of it in order for us to have a "successful" auction, something is drastically wrong. i understand the Fed is not 'governmental,' but it will do until something else come along. And it appears to me as if (1) we issue bonds, and (2) we sell them to ourselves. Is this even close to what is going on, in the real world?
  • Is it me, or is there an odd lack of counterpoint to the arguments we're making here in the comments?
  • terry_freeman
    The "babysteps" approach doesn't move fast enough to keep up with the seven-league strides of our opponents. Many voters know this. We libertarians are never going to be loved by the mainstream media and politicians, who are mostly bought and paid for; but we've got to speak truth to power nonetheless. There will come a day when enough people cry out against the status quo that it will tumble down, just as the former USSR eventually fell.
  • "War of Northern Aggression."

    You make it very clear where you stand (I'm with you, though)!
  • terry_freeman
    "Private banks did issue notes, which were essentially company IOUs and which people used as if they were paper money – but they were usually seen as less trustworthy than government-printed bills, which are essentially IOUs backed by the full faith and credit of a government."

    In which version of history was that true? When private banks issued notes, they were backed by gold or silver, and were more trusted than government-backed paper. That's what the phrase "not worth a Continental" refers to. Later, during the War of Northern Aggression, California and Oregon preferred privately-minted gold coins to government-issued greenbacks; California passed a "specific performance" law to give respect to that preference, to prevent the substitution of worthless greenbacks for real gold.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008