Jimmy Stewart Banking versus James Steuart Banking

In his excellent book The New Lombard Street, Perry Mehrling writes of "a world that never was ... Jimmy Stewart banking of blessed memory" (p. 117). This is an obvious  reference to one of Jimmy Stewart's most famous roles: George Bailey in the holiday classic movie It's a Wonderful Life. In the movie, Bailey is a small banker forced into near-bankruptcy by the inadvertent misplacement of the bank's holdings, holdings that are the deposits of its customers. When those customers catch wind that the bank's holdings are gone, there comes the prototypical "run on the bank,"which precipitates Bailey's attempted suicide. For the rest of the story, watch the movie. For now, what's important is the model of banking this presents. Merhling summarizes it:  "In traditional banking, so nostalgic memory reminds us, banks took deposits from households in their community and made loans to other households in their community. It was a simple business...." And this is the model that many still consider to be what banking is all about, with any deviation being a sign of imminent destruction.

But that is not at all what banking is all about. In fact, Jimmy Stewart banking has been a rarity in history, if in fact it ever really was practiced. This is because bankers have instead practiced fractional-reserve banking, which means that deposits of whatever is considered to be real money are held, not to be lent out, but to serve as a base upon which a circulating medium may be erected. That is to say, money substitutes are put into circulation as if they were real money; the banks manufacture and maintain these money substitutes, either by means of notes, checks, or whatever other medium technology can provide; and society is freed from the restrictions of a scarce money supply. In former days, when specie -- gold and silver -- were the only true forms of money (copper serving for small change only), such an "elastic" money supply was a godsend. But it could just easily be turned into a curse, as we shall see.

I said that Jimmy Stewart banking was a rarity. The best example history provides is the Bank of Amsterdam from the 17th and 18th centuries. It received deposits of specie and held them in its vaults. It did this for a fee. Depositors could conduct transactions on the books with each other, freeing them from the need to safeguard and exchange actual specie holdings. By law, the bank could not allow overdrafts. So this was a strict "warehousing" function that the bank provided, which allowed it to serve as a clearinghouse of monetary transactions for all its depositors. And its depositors were all the great ones of Europe.

There was a problem here, though. What no one knew, was that the bank was surreptitiously lending both to the city of Amsterdam and to the East India Company. In 1794, its demise became a foregone conclusion when it came to light that the bank had been making millions of guilders of loans to these entities. So even here, Jimmy Stewart banking was more a pretense than a reality.

Surreptitious lending of deposits was bad enough. The real problem with this system was the power it gave to any who might gain control -- corner the market -- on whatever served as base money. In the days of bimetallism, when both gold and silver served as base money, such overtures to manipulation were difficult to realize. The combined market for gold and silver was too large. But such manipulation did become feasible when the switch was made to the gold standard. Gold was a very scarce medium, and during the days of the gold standard, holdings of it were centralized, leading to the serious opportunity for manipulation by a coterie of banking families -- J.P. Morgan being the most conspicuous example.

Hence, the days of the gold standard were the heyday of fractional-reserve banking. The only "true" money was gold, and the bankers controlled that market, and thus the availability of true money. Banks generated money substitutes as multiples of their gold holdings; but when markets dictated gold outflows out of the country, the money supply contracted by the same multiple, leading to harrowing busts that make contemporary crises seem walks in the park.

But in the midst of -- or rather, at the start of -- the fractional-reserve era, another form of banking existed, at least in the mind of one man. And as a matter of fact, this form of banking has held sway ever since the collapse of the gold standard in the 1930s. This is not Jimmy Stewart banking, but James Steuart banking.

James Steuart was a Scottish baronet who lived in the 18th century, had once supported Bonnie Prince Charlie's bid for the throne of England, and consequently was forced to live in exile for 18 years. While in exile, he wrote a work the importance of which has yet to receive the recognition it deserves: An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (1767). In that work, he espouses a view of banking derived from practice but without the prejudice towards specie that blinded his contemporaries. Steuart realized that the function of banking did not lie in extending base money into money substitutes; rather, the function of banking was to convert property into money. He used the metaphor of "melting down" property, a reference to the melting down of plate and other forms of precious metal so that it could be converted into coin. For Steuart, property was "melted down" into money -- "symbolical" money, as he put it -- when it was put up as security for a loan. This security represented the true money base, because at the end of the day, should the borrower default on the loan, the loan's real worth was simply the value of the security that had been pledged.

Now then, this symbolical money no longer represented base money, it represented the property put up as security. Therefore, it was this property that served as money base, not specie. Steuart foretold the emancipation from gold and silver that the world would only come to accept after the onerous experiences of a Great Depression and two world wars. And that emancipation was not only from a superstititious view of money, but also from a class of men who, using this money, gained control of the nations.

The money systems of today are based on Steuart's principle, not Stewart's. Nor do we practice fractional-reserve banking in any material sense of the term, although in formal terms our system is a fractional-reserve one. After all, our system of central banks is called the Federal Reserve System. But for all practical purposes, reserve requirements do not determine the money supply, nor do they precipitate bank failures the way they did in the 19th century. Rather, it is the willingness of property-owners to put up marketable assets as security for loans that determines the money supply. And it is the quality of those assets on the balance sheet that determine the solvency, and thus survivability, of a bank.

How to Make the Euro Project Work

The euro seems to be on its last legs, and the vision which inspired its genesis seems to have vanished from the politicians sponsoring it. The recent spat with England and Prime Minister Cameron has only served to highlight the vacuum in vision. Previously, whenever England was scapegoated, English politicians skulked like whipped curs, and Euro-politicians adopted that practiced condescending, look-askance stance toward the wayward one. This time around, the feeling among English politicians and electorate was more relief than abashedness, and the pose of superiority by the likes of Premier Sarkozy could hardly be attempted, let alone maintained. The media did its best to foster the impression, and the attempt failed.

So what now? What of the grand vision of a single currency binding fiscally responsible, growth-oriented economies into a viable, synergistic whole? What we now have is a ramshackle construction inviting the incurrence of debt and inhibiting its repayment, a growth-crippling currency combined with a debt overhang that makes the US dollar seem a safe haven.

But was this ever the end which was envisioned? Was the euro ever simply to have facilitated fiscal responsibility and economic growth? Was there perhaps another goal envisioned by its founders, a goal which perhaps now has been lost sight of by those who were to carry the torch?

In point of fact, the euro is simply one building block in an entire agenda. What is needed to save the euro is to understand that agenda. The euro needs to be set off against other, equally desired, institutions in order to take firm root.

There is a simple calculus that all politicians from Northern to Southern Europe have to make: the euro comes with a price, and that price is for the nothern nations to assume the fiscal burden of the southern nations. That burden consists of, on the one hand, debt, and, on the other, the continued flow of transfer payments. These transfer payments are the key to the entire project. Welfare payments, subsidies, pensions, they all need to be included in a blanket agreement without which a common currency cannot survive.

Of course, the southern countries would be only too happy to establish such an arrangement, and so the northern countries need to make specific that this takeover involves not only liabilities but assets -- specifically, control of the political machinery by which the decisions are made over such transfer payments. The southern countries have to relinquish political control of their citizenries.

In turn, this cannot be done only for the southern countries. Such an arrangement will require the transfer of political responsibility over welfare-state decision-making to the level of the European Union, for the northern as well as the southern countries. Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, will likewise have to yield democratic control to Brussels and Strasbourg.

Can such a system be called democratic? Strictly speaking, yes, because it will still be a one-man, one-vote system. But as it stands here described, the price would be too high for the northern countries to pay. They will not relinquish their national parliaments in favor of the European Parliament without, to use a common-law notion, "consideration."

That consideration must be a form of control. Behind the democratic facade, there must be a predominance of control lodged in the northern countries. How can this best be achieved?

Through control of the central bank, and short-term interest rates. A tight monetary policy favors the more economically powerful areas -- the "core" -- of a currency region, and keeps the weaker areas -- the "periphery" -- more or less in thrall.

Would that be enough? Possibly. A monetary policy geared to the needs of the northern countries would ensure enough prosperity in those countries to shoulder a good deal of the welfare-state burden of the southern countries, without precipitating an inflationary spiral, which is what would take place if monetary policy were geared toward the southern countries. And the southern countries would console themselves with the awareness that their sky-high unemployment rates and exuberant levels of welfare payoffs were covered. The facade of a European Parliament would give the impression of democracy, and, for the rest, all residual conflicts could be worked out on the pitch -- of what use is the UEFA Champions' League if not this?

Much Ado About Easing

"Quantitative Easing" is the latest thing to get in a tizzy about these days. Everyone seems to have an opinion on quantative easing, either in favor (deflation-countering inflation is a good thing) or opposed (depreciation is a bad thing).

An investment analyst whose work I recommend, Nicholas Vardy, the "Global Guru," recently jumped on the QE bandwagon. The sentiment among global growth prognosticators has recently turned bullish. The question for Vardy is, "So what really has changed since the end of the summer?" And his answer, "of course, is quantitative easing." What is the effect of quantitative easing? "An extra $600 billion sloshing around global financial markets has two effects. First, it devalues the dollar, sending dollar-denominated commodity prices higher. Second, with interest rates forced down, investors are sent on a desperate chase for yield, driving up the prices of all assets in emerging markets."

The problem with this argument is, so-called quantitative easing does not cause $600 billion to begin sloshing around financial markets. It doesn't slosh around anywhere but the Fed's primary dealers' balance sheets. Now these primary dealers are commercial banks, and the money they have credited to them by the Fed, in exchange for the Treasuries they sell, is money which is added to their balance sheets. Hence, there is $600 billion more sloshing about there, not on the financial markets. For that money to enter financial markets, these banks have to lend. That is the way our two-tier banking system works. Now, the question is, are there market players out there willing to borrow, and put up the necessary collateral, in order to come by that additional $600 billion, in order to drive up securities prices on financial markets? That is the missing link that must be shown to exist in order for fears of depreciation to be grounded.

Vardy's second point, regarding lower interest rates and the "desperate chase for yield," is more to the point. Indeed, this is the primary effect of "quantitative easing," which is to flatten the yield curve from the long end. By doing this, the Fed may well be trying to force banks to lend more because the alternative, profits gained from borrowing at zero interest to buy interest-yielding treasuries, will narrow. I think that is the Fed's end game, not fomenting inflation/depreciation, which depends on a lot more than simple quantitative easing. But the Fed could achieve such a goal more quickly and surely by simply raising interest rates at the short end, thus flattening the yield curve from that side, which would do much to encourage lending. After all, the October 2010 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey doesn't show any increased lending activity at all. When such lending activity does increase, that is when we need to start worrying about inflation, depreciation, and cutting back on the Fed balance sheet.

Why the Fed Should Boost Interest Rates

If the Fed wants to boost economic activity, it should think about raising the federal funds target rate. Why? Wouldn't that restrict lending? Paradoxically, it would likely increase lending.

This would force banks to engage in more lending in order to make a profit. Currently, banks can make money doing virtually nothing, as they borrow money from the Fed at zero percent interest and use that money to buy government bonds yielding 2-3%. This blog makes the same point. If banks can make a profit without risk -- because government bonds carry no risk -- then why lend at risk? But if the Fed raises its rates, then this margin will shrink and banks will be forced to engage in riskier activity, such as lending to business and consumers. Perhaps then, as the big banks move away from risk aversion, interbank rates would drop, facilitating borrowing across the board.

The argument is that raising rates will plunge the economy into a depression. With bonds trading at yields of less than 2%, bond markets, it is said, are signalling that inflation is dead. But is this not to reverse the actual situation? Are bonds not trading at this low a level because the baseline rate is zero? Raise the rate, and these short-term rates will also rise. This will simply have the effect of flattening the yield curve -- 30-year rates remain stubbornly above 3 1/2%. As long as the yield curve does not invert, is there a problem with that?

St. Louis Fed chairman Thomas Hoenig has been arguing for some time that the federal funds rate needs to be moved out of the zero percent range. His argument makes sense. The Fed can do more to boost economic activity than lower rates.

What is Common Law?

Common Law is a term I use as an umbrella concept, shorthand for a comprehensive world-view of limited sovereignty, restricted government, private law (property and contract), the self-reliant citizen, the market order not only of goods and services but of credit and debt and goodwill, of coordination of equals rather than command by superiors of inferiors. Another term for this is the rule of law. But because that latter term is fuzzy and not often filled in with concrete content, I resort to common law, which is the better term for that reality anyway.

But the term common law does generate some confusion. Usually when one hears it, one thinks of the historically determined Anglo-Saxon and cognate legal systems, with all of their peculiarities and practices, which only the practicing lawyer has occasion to master.

Indeed, this is a valid viewpoint. For one salient characteristic of true common law is that it develops practically through the process of adjudication, in the courtroom, through the dialectic of adversarial thesis and antithesis. Here, of course, lawyers rule the roost. But that does not mean that common law is not also something more than mere practitioners' fodder.

Hence, it cannot be that the practicing lawyer "owns" this system, and views any incursion by "laymen" to be illegitimate. But alas it is more often so than not. Yes, the guild mentality reigns here as everywhere else, despite the fact that in a democracy, the law ought to be a domain open to the citizen, accessible to his inquiry, amenable to his uses. Ah, for a return to the days of a truly liberal conception of citizenship, where the professional saw his task as aiding the gentleman citizen rather than lording it over the unclean and untutored! But that is a subject for another day.

We need the historically grown positive law, even for legal and political philosopy, even for economics, because without it we are all at sea. Which means that the practitioners of that law cannot withhold it as their own private domain. The law is of and for us all. And, to properly understand common law, one must understand the philosophy behind the very notion of a common law.

Very simply, common law is law which applies across the board in a given jurisdiction, applies to all equally. It is the uniform law of a sovereign polity. And, beyond this, it is the general equity behind all positive law. So it is both basic principles, and practical application thereof in a universal way. Opposed to this regime is the regime of privilege, where the rulers exercise their wills to impose commands or orders or distributions, rather than allowing matters to be arranged by free and equal individuals in the give-and-take of bargaining owners. The regime of privilege ruled the roost in pre-modern Europe, and has since taken up its positions in modern government, with its war against the rule of law in favor of favoritism, privilege, and interest-group-based politics.

To combat privilege we need to recover the concept of the common law. I hope to set up a web site soon dedicated specifically to exploring the common law paradigm. This will integrate the various books I've written, and will write, on the subject, as well as other work in the fields of law, politics, and economics, so as to see them in the light of this same paradigm.

Stay tuned.

The New Normal

Rush Limbaugh discussed the concept of the "New Normal" on his radio show yesterday. He was pretty much on target: the "New Normal" is considered by many to be some inevitability, for which the Obama government is not responsible. I discuss the concept at length in my upcoming book Common-Law Investing. What I try to make clear is that the "New Normal" is not anything inevitable but simply the result of overspending government, entitlement-mentality citizenry, and the dysfunctional dependency fostered between these two. And I make clear that there is an alternative, in terms of investment, to this "New Normal," and that is emerging-markets countries where this kind of dysfunctional politics has been abandoned in favor of market discipline. The "New Normal" is not inevitable but it certainly is a good possibility given the state of mind of First World citizenries these days. That's bad news, but the good news is that emerging markets offer an alternative to those who do not buy into it.

New Book: Common Law & Natural Rights

I haven't been posting much lately, and there's a reason. I've been busy writing a new book. And it's ready for the reading public. The title is Common Law & Natural Rights: The Question of Conservative Foundations, and it is an examination of natural rights as the foundation for conservatism, as opposed to the common law. It is the contention of the book that natural rights has served neither conservatism nor contemporary polities well. The reliance on natural rights and its daughter, the separation of powers, has led to overweening government, based on absolute democracy. The common law as a self-contained, independent bulwark of liberty is proposed as the alternative. For more information, follow this link.

Regarding the Stahl book on constitutional law, it is nearly finished. I hope to have it ready for publication within a month or two. Stay tuned.