Economics

Does JP Morgan’s massive loss favour the argument for more controls?

On Friday May 1 2012, JP Morgan Chase & Co said it suffered a $2 billion trading loss. Some commentators have suggested that the huge loss emanates from so called proprietary trading or placing risky bets using the bank’s money. The loss raised the credibility of the Volcker rule, which restricts banks from trading their own money. Despite JPMorgan’s large loss, the opponents of the Volcker rule are of the view that the rule, if it were introduced, will only destabilize the financial markets and make things much worse. Hence they would like to allow market forces to do their job.

Do reduced banking controls always equate with free market?

The proponents for less control in the banking industry hold that fewer restrictions imply a better use of scarce resources, which leads to the generation of more real wealth.

It is true that a free banking environment is an agent of wealth promotion through the efficient use of scarce real resources, whilst controlled banking stifles the process of real wealth formation. However, it is overlooked by the opponents of the Volcker rule that the present banking system has nothing to do with free banking and thus a free market.

What we have at present is a banking system within the framework of the central bank, which promotes monetary inflation and the destruction of the process of real wealth generation through fractional reserve banking. In the present system the more unrestricted the banks are the more money out of “thin air” can be generated and hence greater damage is inflicted upon the wealth generation process. This must be contrasted with genuine free banking, i.e. the absence of the central bank, where the potential for the creation of money out of “thin air” is minimal.

Elsewhere we have shown that in a free banking environment with many competitive banks, if a particular bank tries to expand credit by practising fractional reserve banking it runs the risk of being “caught”. So it is quite likely that in a free market economy the threat of bankruptcy will bring to a minimum the practice of fractional reserve banking.

The existence of central bank encourages fractional reserve banking

This is, however, not so in the case of the existence of the central bank. By means of monetary policy, which is also termed the reserve management of the banking system, the central bank permits the existence of fractional reserve banking and thus the creation of money out of “thin air”.

The modern banking system can be seen as one huge monopoly bank, which is guided and coordinated by the central bank. Banks in this framework can be regarded as ‘branches’ of the central bank.

For all intents and purposes the banking system can be seen as being comprised of one bank. (Note that a monopoly bank can practice fractional reserve banking without running the risk of being “caught”).

Through ongoing monetary management, i.e. monetary pumping, the central bank makes sure that all the banks engage jointly in the expansion of credit out of “thin air.” The joint expansion in turn guarantees that checks presented for redemption by banks to each other are netted out. By means of monetary injections the central bank makes sure that the banking system is “liquid enough” so banks will not bankrupt each other.

The myth of financial de-regulation

Prior to the 1980’s financial de-regulation we had controlled banking. Banks’ conduct was guided by the central bank. Within this type of environment bank’s profit margins were nearly predetermined (the Fed imposed interest rate ceilings and controlled short term interest rates) hence the “life” of the banks was quite easy, although boring.

The introduction of financial de-regulation and the dismantling of the Glass–Steagall Act changed all that. The de-regulated environment resulted in fierce competition between banks. The previously fixed margins were severely curtailed. This in turn called for an increase in volumes of lending in order to maintain the level of profits.

In the present central banking framework this increase culminated in an explosion in the creation of credit out of “thin air” – a massive explosion in the money supply. In the deregulated environment, banks’ ability to amplify Fed’s pumping has enormously increased.

Rather than promoting an efficient allocation of real savings the current so-called de-regulated monetary system has been promoting channeling of money out of “thin air” across the economy. From this it follows that in the framework of the present monetary system in order to reduce a further weakening of the real wealth generation processes it is necessary to introduce tighter controls on banks.  According to Murray Rothbard,

Many free–market advocates wonder: why is it that I am champion of free markets, privatization, and deregulation everywhere else, but not in the banking system? The answer should now be clear: Banking is not a legitimate industry, providing legitimate service, so long as it continues to be a system of fractional-reserve banking: that is, the fraudulent making of contracts that it is impossible to honor.[1]

Pay attention that we don’t suggest here suppressing the free market but suppressing banks ability to generate credit out of “thin air”. Please note the present banking system has nothing to do with a true free market economy.

It must be reiterated here, however, that more controls within the framework of central bank banking can only slow down the pace of the erosion of real wealth formation. It cannot prevent the erosion. (Remember the Fed continues to pump money to navigate the economy). More controls will suppress banks ability to significantly amplify the Fed’s pumping so in this sense it is preferable to a so-called deregulated banking sector.


[1] Murray N. Rothbard – Making Economic Sense, Ludwig von Mises Institute p 279.

1 comment to Does JP Morgan’s massive loss favour the argument for more controls?

  • waramess

    Doctor Frank Shostak is one of my favourite economists however I have a big problem understanding how FRB can cause monetary inflation

    In a zero reserve currency the creation of credit from nothing will not ínflate the amount of money in the system but only serve to increase the velocity:

    One bank in the country and ten customers each with $10 in their accounts and the country has a total amount of money in the system of $100.

    The accounts are all at call.

    Customer A wants a loan of $10 with no payback for 2 years in order to buy a tractor from the manufacturer, customer B.

    The bank is happy to oblige. Now customer A has $20 and the bank still has $100 as they loaned money that had been deposited with them by other customers and credited the account of customer A.

    Customer A now buys his tractor from customer B who deposits the $10 with the bank, leaving the bank still with £100 (a debit to customer A and a credit to customer B).

    The bank can continue doing this as often as it likes without the bother of depositing a fraction with the Central Bank but, so far as I can see, all that is happening is that the credit has increased the velocity of money causing a tractor sale that would not otherwise have occured and an expectation of increased sales by the tractor manufacturer.

    Almost certainly, this will eventually lead to malinvestment and, were there more than one bank,the bursting of a bubble when they stop lending to each other and to the tractor manufacturer and his customers; but, no inflation of the money supply