Typography

I was disappointed to see that First Trust Bank, a commercial bank based in Northern Ireland, will stop issuing its own brand of banknotes. Under different names , First Trust has been in the business of providing paper money for almost two hundred years, starting with the Provincial Bank of Ireland back in 1825. Source: First Trust 99.9% of the world's population uses government-issued banknotes. A small sliver of us—those who live in Northern Island, Scotland, Hong Kong, and Macau—get to use privately-issued banknotes. Prior to First Trust's announcement, I count twelve private issuers scattered across the globe: Northern Ireland : Bank of Ireland, Danske Bank (formerly Northern Bank), First Trust Bank, and Ulster Bank Scotland : Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank and The Royal Bank of Scotland Hong Kong : HSBC, Standard Chartered, Bank of China (Hong Kong) Macau : Banco Nacional Ultramarino, Bank of China (Macau) Now there are just eleven. To our modern sensibilities, priv...

I finally had some time to read George Selgin's excellent Floored! over the Christmas holiday. Some family members saw me reading the book and asked me what it was about. The subject that George is tackling—two types of central bank operating systems—is quite technical, so I wasn't sure how to break it down for them. But in hindsight, here's how I would go about it. I'm going to explain what the issues are in terms of an instrument we all use and understand: good ol' fashioned banknotes.  ------- Imagine that when you go to your bank this morning to withdraw $200 in cash, you can only get $100 out of the ATM. The bank manager says that it is expecting another shipment of cash later in the day, so come back then. But be early, he warns, since a lineup is sure to develop. What explains this odd situation? The central bank has started to ration the amount of banknotes it issues. For instance, the Bank of Canada currently supplies Canadians with $85 billion in banknote...

Narayana Kocherlakota, formerly the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and now a prolific economics blogger, penned a recent article on the abolition of cash. Kocherlakota makes the point that if you don't like government meddling in the proper functioning of free markets, then you shouldn't be a big fan of central bank-issued banknotes. For markets to clear, it may be occasionally necessary for nominal interest rates to fall well below zero. Cash sets a lower limit to interest rates, thus preventing this rebalancing from happening. I pretty much agree with Kocherlakota's framing of the point. In fact, it's an angle I've taken before, both here and in A Libertarian Case for Abolishing Cash . Yes, my libertarian and other free-marketer readers, you didn't misread that. There is a decent case for removing banknotes that is entirely consistent with libertarian principles. If you think usury laws are distortionary because they impose a ceiling on int...

Last week Citi's Willem Buiter published a note on the three ways to get rid of the effective lower bound to nominal interest rates, one of which is to abolish cash. He goes on to say that politically, the abolition of currency would run into opposition from some of the legitimately cash-dependent poor and elderly, from those for whom the anonymity of cash is desired because they are engaged in illegal activities and from libertarians. The first constituency can be helped, the second can be ignored and the third one should take one for the team. I think that Buiter is wrong to characterize libertarians as necessarily opposed to the abolition of cash. Their take on cash is probably (or at least should be) a bit more nuanced. Since libertarians generally advocate government withdrawal from lines of business like health care or liquor retailing, an exit of central banks from the cash business should be a desirable outcome. What Buiter is advocating is a bit more extreme than just gov...

Many moons ago Matt Yglesias wrote that the "zero lower bound is a pure artifact of the existence of physical cash."  In this post I'll argue that the zero-lower bound , or ZLB, is an artifact of our modern central bank-managed monetary system, and not the existence of cash. In a free banking system in which private banks issue banknotes, competitive forces would force bankers to rapidly find ways to pierce below the ZLB, rendering the bound little more than a fleeting technicality. What is the zero lower bound? When the economy's expected rate of return drops significantly below 0%, interest rates charged by banks should follow into negative territory. But if banks set sub-zero interest rates on deposits, everyone will quickly convert them into central bank-issued paper currency. After all, why hold -2% yielding deposits when you can own 0% yielding cash? The inability to set negative interest rates is the zero-lower bound problem. As I'll illustrate, the threa...

In you were living in Canada between 1870 and 1880 there's a good change that you might have held in your wallet the odd beast that was the private $7 note pictured above. Below is a $6 note issued by Banque Nationale in 1870, a bank that continues to operate in Canada today. The first striking aspect of the $7 note is that the issuer is Molsons, the very same Molsons that brews one of Canada's best selling beers. Molsons Bank would eventually merge itself with the Bank of Montreal in the 1920s. Going back a bit in history, the brand name on these notes isn't so unusual. Most Canadians are probably not aware that the entrance of the Bank of Canada into the business of issuing paper money is relatively new. Established in 1935, the BoC has only been a money printer for 78 or so years. Private Canadian chartered banks, on the other hand, began to issue paper banknotes as early as 1819. Until they gave up their right to issue notes in 1935, these banks had been continuously ...

Robert the Bruce: Scottish  £20 issued by Clydesdale Bank. Not legal tender This is my last post on legal tender. It builds on my initial posts on legal tender, various comments, and discussion at Bob Murphy's blog . If you're getting to the debate a bit late, here are the first two posts. 1. Legal Tender 101 2. How do legal tender laws affect purchasing power? Are today's legal tender laws an imposition on monetary freedom? My short answer: not really. In the US, legal tender is comprised of Federal Reserve notes and United States coin. That means that all debts can be discharged with government coins and notes. It might seem that this would impose the circulation of coins and notes on the marketplace. But as I pointed out in my initial post, debtor and creditor can easily get around legal tender rules by negotiating their own settlement media into the terms of a debt contract. As commenter MF points out , there is one debt obligation that's tough to negotiate around:...

Lars Christensen's excellent post about the necessity of having a monetary constitution includes an interesting point about central bank independence: We want central banks to stop the ad hoc’ism. In fact we don’t even like independent central banks – as we don’t want to give them the opportunity to mess up things. Central bank independence has become the standard approach to structuring the nexus between government service-provider and central bank liquidity-provider over the last fifty years. I think a degree of independence makes a lot of sense. Running a monopoly clearing house (which is really what a central bank is) while simultaneously operating other businesses and charities (which is what a government does) presents a tremendous conflict of interest. For instance, imagine that General Electric was granted a monopoly to operate the U.S. clearing system. Wouldn't we worry that GE might use that clearing system to support its appliance or turbine manufacturing businesses...

I had a few comments on a recent David Glasner post. Basically, I was trying to understand the way he reconciles various aspects of the monetary system, namely, inside and outside money, the arbitrage mechanism that links these two assets, and the price level. David responded to me- Inside money cannot trade at a discount relative to outside money because inside money is issued on the condition of its being convertible into outside money, so they always are exchangeable at par. If too much inside money is created (i.e., more than the public desires to hold given the relative attractiveness of holding inside money relative to alternatives including outside money) it refluxes back to the issuing banks.  David says that excess inside money (say convertible bank notes) will reflux back to an issuing bank. But the only way this can happen, as far as I can see, is if somehow that bank's inside money trades at a slight discount to outside money (gold). David in his first sentence above s...

Inspired by Perry Mehrling and Fischer Black: I think I'd take your future ideal financial model even further (slide 9). The C5 in your model provides what you call liquidity puts. I see no reason why these liquidity puts need be provided by a central bank. In the future, financial products called liquidity options - the option to buy or sell some asset (say Apple stock) at a guaranteed point in the bid-ask spread - would be popular financial products traded on organized exchanges. Just as Apple CDS allow investors to split off Apple credit risk and distribute it across the economy, so would Apple liquidity options split away the liquidity risk of transacting in Apple stock in the secondary market and evenly distribute this risk to those willing and capable of holding it. A private liquidity options market has some advantages over a monopoly last resort system. Liquidity would be competitively priced and no longer supplied in an opaque manner. Central banks would either vacate the...

Lars Christense n had some interesting comments and responses on market monetarism. I pushed him on how far market monetarists departed from traditional monetarists in admitting that money creation was endogenous, not exogenous. ie. determined by the central bank. If this is indeed the case, than the market monetarists stand nearer to the middle of the historic currency vs. banking school divide than Milton Friedman did. The latter would be considered a pure currency school theorist. Same with Mises and the traditional Austrians, although the Austrian free-bankers are surely not currency school theorists. The fact that market monetarists, according to Christensen, are willing to think about money endogenously, just as the banking school theorists did, is a healthy improvement.

heteconomist.com has a post on MMT's openness and political neutrality. See A Clarification on Political Openness . Heteconomist: "I prefer to see MMT as an open framework (basically an understanding of the monetary system and national accounting) within which – or out of which – various policy approaches could be developed and pursued." Reply: I’m no expert, but I decompose the monetary component of MMT into chartalism and endogenous money. These ideas are so old… you can go back centuries to find the origins of chartalism in Locke and Berkeley (money as a ticket, agreement, or sign). Endogenous money’s roots traces to the banking school of the 19th century. MMT doesn’t own these individual ideas… they are diffused into the general body of economics. There are no intrinsic reasons why the ideas of Locke, Berkeley, and the banking school need be associated with a particular political slant. The chartalist version of Locke/Berkeley’s token theory of money surely appeals to...