What we cannot escape is the fact that the amount of money in the banking sector far outweighs the value of the assets that it was lent against. This is how it works. You want to buy a house, and you need to borrow £100,000. You go to a bank and they create the loan, and at the same time deposit £100,000 in your bank account. This money did not exist before: it is new money. You buy your house, and at the other end of the chain, the sellers deposit the £100,000 back into the banking system. The amount of money in circulation has risen by £100,000 and is represented by the seller's bank "savings". But those savings are a reflection of the value of the house. If the price of the house doubled while they owned it, then £50,000 of those savings is a result of inflation caused by the banking sector creating money.
Supposing the housing market crashes. There is now more money in the banking system than the value of housing stock. The value of that the money has to fall as well. During the Asian crisis 10 years ago, this is exactly what happened. Many banks went insolvent, many savers lost their deposits, and the value of money in the economy fell so as to reflect the new and lower value of assets in the economy. This was exactly what happened in Thailand, but unlike us, their government was simply too poor to bail out savers who happened to have their deposits in the wrong bank.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.