By: GZ on Martedì 29 Ottobre 2013 01:25
Minsky sulle banche e il meccanismo di creazione di moneta non ha in realtà scritto molto. E' meglio da questo punto di vista ^il nostro Augusto Graziani#http://http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Graziani^ (che tra l'altro è originario di Modena anche se poi è cresciuto a Napoli). Qui ad esempio c'è un paper di Riccardo Realfonzo sulla teoria della moneta in Graziani: ^"Italian Circuitist Approach"#https://www.google.it/search?q=Chick%2C+V.+(1986)+%E2%80%98The+Evolution+of+the+Banking+System+and+the+Theory+of+Saving%2C+Investment+and+Interest%E2%80%99%2C+E&oq=Chick%2C+V.+(1986)+%E2%80%98The+Evolution+of+the+Banking+System+and+the+Theory+of+Saving%2C+Investment+and+Interest%E2%80%99%2C+E&aqs=chrome..69i57.1223j0j1&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8^ in cui te la riassume. Leggi il primo paragrafo qui sotto dove Graziani spiega in modo cristallino COME LE BANCHE CREANO MONETA QUANDO FANNO PRESTITI
Io ho studiato a Modena e Roma economia con prof. tutti di sinistra e Augusto Graziani è l'economista italiano noto nel mondo e anche di sinistra forse più importante nel dopoguerra (assieme a Piero Sraffa ). Bene, mi sono reso conto solo ora, che in sette anni di università non hanno fatto mai leggere Graziani quando parlava di moneta. Solo analisi sull'industria pallose. Questi vari Michele Salvati, Ginzburg, Biasco, Vianello, Padoan.... economisti di sinistra DOC, della moneta e delle banche e del debito NON NE VOLEVANO SAPERE. Anche di Marx sulla moneta e il debito dove ha scritto cose utili non ti facevano leggere niente (ti facevano leggere Marx sull'industria e il resto dove non capiva niente). All'epoca erano ansiosi di farti studiare qualunque economista di sinistra da Marx in giù, e avevano qui in Italia, ancora vivente tra l'altro, Augusto Graziani che è riconosciuto nel mondo per aver messo assieme una teoria della moneta endogena piuttosto seria. Ma niente...
***********
5. The bank as creator of money
Let us suppose that in order to finance their production, firms resort to bank credit (Graziani 1987 and 2003b). Banks register the credit granted to firms on the credit side of their balance sheets, and the amount of the deposits created in favour of firms on the debit side. Subsequently, firms use the deposits to pay their workers.
At this point, banks transfer ownership of the deposits to workers, cancelling those of the entrepreneurs. In this new situation, firms remain indebted to the banks, the workers are the banks’ creditors, while bank balance sheets report the credits granted to firms on the asset side and debts to workers as a liability.
Bank deposits have acted as final means of payment for firms, inasmuch as they have effectively freed themselves of any debt relationship with workers. In an economy without barter, the only possible money is the bank promissory note: even though it is not a commodity, only this promissory note can release firms from all the debts owed to their workers.
In this sense, the means of payment ‘assumes the form of a triangular transaction’. It is therefore clear that the theorists of the monetary circuit define the bank as the agent that has the function of creating money.
This expression refers to the capacity of ordinary credit institutions (commercial banks) to transform non monetary activity, like simple promises to pay, into activities that are money, in other words that are accepted by the community as a final means of payment. In the monetary economy money is therefore embodied in entries in bank’s balance sheets.
Naturally every act of creating money is registered in a double entry in the balance sheet (on one side the issue of money is entered as a bank liability, on the other it is entered as a credit towards the lender). In this sense it is clear that from the point of view of the economy as a whole money does not represent wealth; the exact opposite is however true from the point of view of the individual possessor of money.
It should be stressed that in their examination of the money supply, the circuit theorists invert the mainstream approach (Realfonzo 1998; Zazzaro 1995). The mainstream, in fact, envisages firstly the definition of the concept of money base (legal tender issued by the central bank), then the construction of the multiplier of bank deposits, and lastly the definition of the supply (effective and potential) of money. In other words the mainstream confirms the old saw that “deposits make loans”.
The circuit theorists reverse the traditional approach following Schumpeter’s argument that the functioning of the accounting system in a capitalist society emerges with great clarity if one begins with the study of the ‘fundamental theoretical case’, which is, basically, the Wicksellian model of pure credit (a ‘pure accounting system’) where all payments take place by means of entries in bank balance sheets (the ‘fundamental concept of the theory of money’). In other words the circuit theorists show that even without legal tender, the system could theoretically work since bank money is accepted through the confidence that agents have in the bank.
It follows that the logic of the multiplier of bank deposits is completely rejected. Ordinary credit institutions do not multiply anything; they create money (“loans make deposits”). Obviously this is not to deny that a specific monetary setup where bank money is by law tied to a money that commercial banks cannot create can tend to place a cap on the expansion of bank credits. But in this regard some circuit theorists express doubt. Ultimately, this concerns “the limit to the credit which the bank can grant [...] cannot be fixed, either rationally or practically... [it] depends on the forecast [...] of the amount of future compensations” (de Viti de Marco 1934, p. 51). As can be seen, the Italian monetary circuit authors adopt positions near to (but not coinciding with) the horizontalist ones expressed by Moore (1988).