Finance and capital markets
- Banking 1
- Banking 2: A bank's income statement
- Banking 3: Fractional reserve banking
- Banking 4: Multiplier effect and the money supply
- Banking 5: Introduction to bank notes
- Banking 6: Bank notes and checks
- Banking 7: Giving out loans without giving out gold
- Banking 8: Reserve ratios
- Banking 9: More on reserve ratios (bad sound)
- Banking 10: Introduction to leverage (bad sound)
- Banking 11: A reserve bank
- Banking 12: Treasuries (government debt)
- Banking 13: Open market operations
- Banking 14: Fed funds rate
- Banking 15: More on the Fed funds rate
- Banking 16: Why target rates vs. money supply
- Banking 17: What happened to the gold?
- Banking 18: Big picture discussion
- The discount rate
- Repurchase agreements (repo transactions)
- Federal Reserve balance sheet
- Fractional Reserve banking commentary 1
- FRB commentary 2: Deposit insurance
- FRB commentary 3: Big picture
Banking 4: Multiplier effect and the money supply
How "money" is created in a fractional reserve banking system. M0 and M1 definitions of the money suppy. The multiplier effect. Created by Sal Khan.
Want to join the conversation?
- It still sounds like a pyramid scheme... Just replace 'good investment' with 'recruiting more investors'. Both rely on people to bring more money into the system. Surely this would eventually collapse?(4 votes)
- The difference between this model and a Ponzi scheme is in what happens between the deposit and the loan. Ponzi schemes are merely wealth transfers: no one does any additional work, no additional value is created, nothing is done to improve the economy. Good investments, on the other hand, DO provide a value-added. They do provide wealth, and create additional value. It's a perfectly sustainable model, assuming that everyone does not, all at once, decide that banks are not a safe place to keep their money (which sometimes happens, which is one of the functions of the FDIC and the NCUA.(8 votes)
- Why does Mr Khan have to stop his videos to go onto the next one in which he re-explains what happened in the previous one, couldn't he just make one really long, continuous video for a single topic?(2 votes)
- In his book he explains that effective attention spans are 10 to 15 minutes. Some people can go longer, come lose concentration.(4 votes)
- do you mean that deflation is meaning that the economy is growing upward in term of productivity?
and inflation represents the productivity going downward in all economic field of this island you created.(3 votes)
- In this context he just meant, the good investments lead to wealth creation without diluting the value of per unit money. So there is more money (often a source of inflation) still its value per unit hasn't gone down contrary to what inflation does. Inflation/deflation and their impact is out of context here. Just speaking my mind and ofcourse i am not an expert :-)(2 votes)
- What if I get a loan to do something that doesn't increase wealth? Say I get a loan to start a career as a comedian. That wouldn't actually lead to more production, but I would still be getting paid for my services, so how would this impact wealth? Am I just causing inflation?(2 votes)
- No, assuming people are willing to pay to listen to you, you are providing a service, and Gross Domestic Product is the sum of goods and services. So, you aren't contributing to inflation.(3 votes)
- I don't believe that gold is an abstract symbol for wealth. Gold is wealth in its own right. Gold is a tangible item that provides a function, just like an automobile. An automobile provides transportation, status, shelter from the elements, etc for the owner. Gold facilitates the transfer, incrimintalization, and storage of value for its owner. Paper money on the other hand facilitates the transfer and incrimintalization but allows for the manipulation of value in a way that gold does not. Isn't that true?(2 votes)
- What if people decided that gold really was worthless and that you could not buy apples with gold, you could not pay your rent with gold, essentially that gold was worth about as much sand. (We'll ignore there's a market for sand). You state that gold "is a tangible item that provides a function" and it does, but only if there exists a consensus that gold is worth something at all.
I'm not entirely sure by what you mean when you say that the value for paper money can be manipulated because you could have different countries who all have different kinds of gold coin and you could have a foreign exchange simply in gold coins and even with purely physical representation the relative value of each country's gold coin could change (be "manipulated").
Perhaps a handy way to think about it is to think about trust. A currency has value so long as you 'trust' that somebody will also think it has value and thus would be willing to trade you something for it. Gold coins and paper money fulfill the same roles. (Yes, gold can be used in electronics and other things but that's not what we're talking about).(3 votes)
- It seems to me that banks benifit it's community. Doesn't it?(2 votes)
- what happen to the people who died but saved money in bank and nobody knows it. where would those go?(2 votes)
- People usually have will of testament which allocates the money in the bank after someone dies. Even if they did not have a will, the state will give the money to next of kin if there is one. Either the children or a related family member. This is what happens in the United States.(1 vote)
- I have a big problem to understand this video
We have 1000 peaces of gold in the system at the beginning 10% of them was kept as reserve, then the bank lent 900 golds to investor who wanted to invest in irrigation project
then the worker who are paid by the investor put back 900 as check able deposit..
The bank again kept 10% as reserve and lent out 810 golds....
my problem started when he said that M1 represents the total gold amount that have been put as check able deposit
ok great.. but how do we consider this amount as a real wealth??
it is not.. the real amount is only 1000 golds
the rest are loans..
Even if those project are generating profit these profits must be flow back to the bank in order to settle their loans..
Please any one can help me to understand this situation?(2 votes)
- The real wealth is not the gold coins ( not the 2710 nor the 1000)...the real wealth are the apples and the coins are a way of accounting for that by proxy.(1 vote)
- Sal I disagree with your conclusion that M1 is "real". If everyone that had their gold pieces deposited in their bank accounts demanded their 2710 gold (M1), the bank would only be able to fulfill the demand up to 1000 gold (M0). After the bank exhausted the 1000 gold they would have zero. They would need to call in loans and the system risks collapse. I think it may be better to say that M0 represents "absolute" gold, M1 represents "dependent" gold - dependent upon the banks abiity to collect it. Do you agree with me Sal ?(2 votes)
- There is a concept in accounting called "going concern" which assumes a company will continue to be solvent and the same assumption s behind the central banking... as long as people have faith in the central bank and the government, no one would ask for their 2710 coins or notes. In any case if everyone asks for their 2710 coins they would anyway be worthless ( in this scenario as this scenario would only play out in case there is no faith in the system or its creations)(1 vote)
- Why are all the deposits from the bank's clients in the checking account or is the principle more of a practical one?(1 vote)
- You could add savings and money market accounts, but that would just make the discussion a lot more complicated without adding any better understanding.(2 votes)
Let's think a little bit about what happened in the last video. I'll review again these different notions of money supply. And then let's talk about whether it's fair for people to think that they really have the money that they have. So in the original video, after the crop was harvested, the farmers deposited 1,000 gold pieces in my bank. Then I lent out 900 of those. I had to keep some reserves in case those farmers wanted some of their money back. And I figured they would never need more than 10% at a time. I lend it out. Someone has a great idea to build an irrigation canal, so that more fields become usable and get access to water. To build that irritation canal, they take those 900 gold pieces, and they pay a bunch of workers. Those workers now have the gold pieces. They need someplace safe to put it. They put it back in my bank. Now I get 900 gold pieces of deposits. I put 10% aside again. And now I lend out 810 gold pieces. Let's say I lend it out for an entrepreneur who wants to build a factory to build some type of tools that might make the apple harvest more efficient, or faster, or need less labor, or whatever. That entrepreneur takes those 810 gold pieces and pays the builder in the town. And then the builder now has 810 gold pieces, and then he gives the money back to me in my bank. Because I'm the safest place to keep it. I stop the chain there. You can keep going on and on. Although there is some end. Notice that these values get smaller and smaller every time. And we'll do a little bit of math on that to figure out how far it can go. But then I take the builder's money, and I said, well, you know, this banking idea's a new idea to me. I'm just going to leave it all as reserves. I want to see how it all plays out first. So then we said, how much money is in the system? And it all depends on how you define money. And we made one definition of money called m0. In m0 we said-- we'll call this our narrowest definition. And this is literally, how much gold is there in the system. Or how much stuff is there in the system that could be immediately used for conducting a transaction. And I'm assuming, for the sake of this argument, that none of these players actually kept any gold in their pockets, or kept some cash in their wallets for a rainy day. Although if they did, we would included it in this calculation. I assume that everyone always deposits their gold with Bank of Sal. So when we did that calculation there was this 100 gold pieces of reserve that we had set aside at first. Then 900 here. And then 810 here. And if you add those up, you get 1,000 gold pieces in the system. Which makes a lot of sense, because we originally had 1,000 gold pieces in the system. In the example, at least as I described it, we didn't have anyone discovering any new gold. Nor was any a gold eaten or destroyed in some way. So it makes sense that there are 1,000 gold pieces. But then there's a more interesting question. If you went around the city and you asked everyone how much money they had, they'll say, I have this much in my checking account with the Bank of Sal. If you ask me how much money I had, I would tell you how much is in my checking account. I actually have very little cash in my wallet right now, if any of you are thinking of mugging me. All of my money is in a checking account. So if someone asked me how much money do you have, I'd give that number. So if you went around the town, and you asked everyone, how much money do you have, and you added it up, you would get the total of the of their checking accounts. And so we had 810 gold pieces from the contractors, 900 gold pieces from the ditch diggers, and then 1,000 gold pieces from the farmers. Let's see, 1,900 plus 810. You get 2,710 gold pieces collectively in checking accounts. And since I'm the only bank, that's the total of my liabilities here. And we call that m1. And I'm calling these that for a reason because these are the actual words that are used by economists and our government officials. There's a couple of really interesting questions here. One is how did a 1,000 gold pieces get turned into 2,710. And then, this 2,710, does it represent real wealth, or was this some kind of weird shell game we played, and it represents some type of weird pyramid scheme? How it got created-- we went through the mechanics, right? Every time I set a little aside, I lent some out, and then they deposited, et cetera. That's how it got created. The interesting question is, does it represent real wealth? The answer is it represents real wealth if each of these investments were real investments. So if this 900 gold pieces that were used to build this irrigation ditch or whatever it is, if that project actually does generate at least 900 gold pieces of future wealth-- essentially you could at least pay back the 900 gold pieces. It'll probably generate more if it's a good project. But if it generates at least 900 gold pieces of future wealth, then this is a real asset, right? This is a real asset. Likewise, if this factory really does generate at least 810 gold pieces of future wealth, if it really will allow us produce that much more apples or gold or whatever, this is a real asset here. So these people, this wealth, really does exist. This 2,710 gold pieces of, quote unquote wealth, really does exist as long as the projects that were the justification for borrowing the money actually do generate future wealth. So there's a couple of things to realize. There are not 2,710 gold pieces in this world. There only 1,000 physical gold pieces. But if these projects are real projects that are actually not mismanaged, they're not just some type of pouring money into a hole type of project, then we do have 2,710 gold pieces worth of wealth. And I really want to stress this point. Remember gold isn't wealth in of itself. Gold is used to represent wealth. You cannot eat gold. You cannot live under gold. Gold will not transport you someplace. Gold will not improve your health. It's something that's used to represent wealth. Sometimes people think it is wealth itself, and that's actually a misconception. So this 2,710 perceived gold pieces, that does represent real wealth, although it doesn't represent real gold pieces. And once again you might say, oh boy, this is some type of a shell game. But it's really not. As long as these investments are good investments. Remember, these are wealth generating investments. And notice, the money supply-- at least as we defined it with this m1-- it expanded to facilitate real economic production. So as long as this factory does generate wealth, or this irrigation ditch does generate wealth, then the money supply did not grow faster than the amount of wealth out there. If before a gold piece bought an apple, now hopefully a gold piece will still buy an apple. In fact, and this is an important thing to realize, if these investments are very good, you're actually going to have-- let's say that we used to produce 1,000 apples per year. Notice apples are real wealth. Apples are something that you can consume. They will keep you living. And you can also view them as a form of investment, because by eating them you're able to do work. But anyway, let's say before all of this investment started happening, our economy could produce 1,000 apples. Now let's say that after this irrigation ditch was produced, we go from being able to produce 1,000 apples to being able to produce 2,000 apples a year. And once again, a lot of wealth was created. Remember, we only took 900 gold pieces to build this. And all of a sudden we're doubling. We're able to produce another incremental 1,000 apples a year. Which, in our old economy, was worth 1,000 gold pieces. So that actually will definitely pay off. You borrowed 900 gold pieces and this project will generate, not 1,000 gold pieces in total, it'll actually generate the equivalent of 1,000 gold pieces per year. It increases our production of 1,000 apples per year. And likewise, let's say that this takes us from 2,000 apples a year to 3,000. So let's think about it. Now in a a given year, how many apples are being produced? We used to only have 1,000 apples being produced. Now we have 3,000 apples being produced, because these were really good investments. They really improved our productivity. So now, if you say everyone in the economy thinks that they have 2,710 gold pieces, or some equivalent of them, and we can produce 3,000 apples, now the money supply, 2,710, actually grew slower than our wealth. Let me let me draw that out. Let's say money. Wealth. I think it's really important to separate the two concepts. Money is used to transact wealth or represent wealth. It is not wealth in and of itself. And that has some important philosophical underpinnings to it. It'll probably make you live happier if you realize this difference. But before we had 1,000 gold pieces, before the banking and this fractional reserve system existed. And we had 1,000 apples of wealth per year. And I'll go more into the velocity of money. But after all this stuff happened later, we had 2,710 perceived gold pieces. This was our m1 definition. Our m0, the actual physical gold, was still 1,000. But how many apple do we produce a year? We now produce 3,000 apples. So notice, the ratio of gold to apples has actually improved. And now, if you think about it, an apple is actually going to cost less gold. Before roughly you had one gold piece per apple. Now you have less than one gold piece per apple. So because of our innovation, we actually experienced deflation. So you might have said, all of this money was created out of nowhere. This money doesn't exist. This will lead to inflation. But no, this is a very important point, because the money was put to work in actual productive investments that create wealth, that make the pie bigger, or the pie of apples bigger, we actually experience deflation. And our economy actually grew. And this was actually a very very positive example. I'll see you in the next video.