Interoperability isn't just for telecom firms, email, and Facebook. In a high interest rate environment, it's also how to stop banks from scalping businesses and consumers.
"The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create new money ex nihilo), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with “loans” or “credit,” wrong because the empirical evidence in support of a “chronic excess of savings over investment” is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some “market-clearing” price (the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption that the two schedules—the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve—are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes already pointed out)."
I didn't say 'fund' loans, I said 'finance' loans. Yes, banks use deposits to finance loans. They do not need deposits to fund loans, but having deposits is cheaper than using other sources of financing.
I guess that means custom funds are perfectly safe in banks and we can abolish the FDIC! Golly gee those economists sure are smart.
I'll buy the finacialization arguments for government monetary policy, but banks' ability to 'create money' via loans is most definitely regulated (in part) by the amount of customer deposits.
But banks do not use deposits to "fund" loans:
"The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create new money ex nihilo), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with “loans” or “credit,” wrong because the empirical evidence in support of a “chronic excess of savings over investment” is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some “market-clearing” price (the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption that the two schedules—the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve—are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes already pointed out)."
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/12/debunking-mainstream-economists-secular-stagnation-loanable-funds-fallacy.html
I didn't say 'fund' loans, I said 'finance' loans. Yes, banks use deposits to finance loans. They do not need deposits to fund loans, but having deposits is cheaper than using other sources of financing.
I guess that means custom funds are perfectly safe in banks and we can abolish the FDIC! Golly gee those economists sure are smart.
I'll buy the finacialization arguments for government monetary policy, but banks' ability to 'create money' via loans is most definitely regulated (in part) by the amount of customer deposits.