Search
Is It Time To End Fractional Reserve Banking?

Is It Time To End Fractional Reserve Banking?

Add to Reading List
Add to Reading List

The moment you realize that the financial system has an inherent fragility at its heart — that people can simply lose confidence in the system, withdraw their deposits en mass, and because banks only keep a fraction of their deposits on hand cause a liquidity crisis where the bank runs out of money — is undoubtedly a scary one. And even though the global financial system experienced over half a century of relative stability from the 1930s and 2008, where the existence of lenders of last resort like the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England acted as a stanch against large scale liquidity crises, the re-emergence of bank runs (or at least shadow bank runs) and liquidity crises in the wake of the sub-prime housing crisis reawakened many to the fragility of fractional reserve banking.

This is true to such an extent that we have seen multiple proposals for an end to fractional reserve banking by implementing full reserve banking from a diverse group of thinkers — Positive Money, the International Monetary Fund, Laurence KotlikoffJohn Cochrane and Martin Wolf. My colleague Frances Coppola gave a good, concise rundown of the detail of some of these proposals in 2012. And of course, there also exists a wing of Austrian economics that wants to squash fractional reserve banking simply through demanding an end to lender of last resort functions, so that bank runs doom banks who have acted “irresponsibly” by overextending their lending beyond their reserves face bank runs. The idea is that fractional reserve banking could not survive in a “true free market” system without government backing.

Yet I think exactly the opposite is true. Fractional reserve banking is ineradicable, and trying to do so is very risky. The Austro-goldbug case is easier to dismiss. Empirically, we know that the classical gold standard did not prevent fractional reserve banking. Far from it.There was both fractional banking and bank runs and panics during the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to the creation of the Fed in 1913 which was intended to act as a lender of last resort, as J.P. Morgan did following the 1907 panic. (And, I should add, has prevented bank panics and liquidity crises when it has acted as a committed lender of last resort and provider of liquidity insurance).

The full reserve banking case is more difficult to dismiss out of hand because unlike the gold standard it has never really been tried. Yet there does appear to be some serious logical holes in the arguments for it. Because banks would not be able to generate income via lending (because they would have to keep deposits on hand) customers would not be able to get much (or any) interest for their money, and access to the payments system would be something that would have to be charged for (or run by the government as a public utility). Positive Money, for example argues that bank users would have to pay fee would likely be around £5 ($8) per month. Ben Dyson of Positive Money argues: “Consider this a fee for a useful service, which would be more than outweighed by the other benefits you’ll get from the switch to a system where banks do not create the nation’s money as debt.”

This would effectively mean that depositors would be experiencing in effect negative nominal interest rates. People would be paying banks for the pleasure of holding their money. Obviously, this would encourage them to go elsewhere if customers want to gain a return on their money. One positive from this might be that it would channel money away from sitting as idle savings deposits and toward productive activity in the economy — reaching for yield into vehicles like mutual funds, money market funds, and exchange traded funds, cryptocurrencies which aren't insured and have no access to a lender of last resort. And it would also open the possibility of black market banking deposits — unregulated groups offering higher interest rates. As Frances Coppola argues here, we are all “banks”, because we can all extend lines of credit so anyone who wants to can really become a black market competitor in these markets. The barriers to entry are legal ones, not practical or technological ones, especially now that billions have access to computers.

Some would say that a return is only justifiable for those who take risk, so these changes would be a positive. On the other hand, the return on a bank deposit is more compensation for inflation than anything else. And the negative, of course, is that all of this money pouring out of the conventional banking system would no longer be insured by a lender of last resort, exacerbating the danger of bank runs and liquidity crises.

And as I wrote in The Week, this really is opening up an old problem that has largely been solved, rather than addressing the actual problem we faced in 2008: “The really strange thing about these kinds of proposals, as Paul Krugman argues, is that they act like conventional bank runs were a problem in 2008. They weren't. Bank runs have largely been prevented since the Great Depression by the existence of a lender of last resort and deposit insurance. In fact, the crisis of 2008 involved very few runs on conventional deposits but a massive run on shadow bankingThe shadow banking sector was a huge new sector of things that acted like banks that, crucially, were not regulated as banks, and had no access to a lender of last resort.”

The solution to crises in shadow banking, I would argue, is to regulate shadow banking (and anything that acts like a bank) like you would conventional banking, by providing liquidity insurance and a lender of resort function.

Indeed, other crises during the pre-2008 period also emanated out of parts of the financial sector that were acting as banks without being regulated as them, for example the UK experienced a wholesale run on unlicensed mortgage lenders in 1974.

And the bigger problem may well be that a money supply determined by committee is unresponsive to the broader financial and economic conditions in the economy. Under the current system, banks can increase the money supply to demand for money in a decentralized manner. Having the money supply determined by a committee (as the full reservists advocate) opens us to economic planning problems. Committees may badly misjudge the demand for money, leading to mistakes that cause excessive inflation and deflation.

Of course, I admit I am sympathetic to some of the anti-fractional reserve rhetoric, if not their solutions. Yes, the fact that the vast majority of money is created by private banks means that they have a central role in allocating society’s productive capital, centralizing power around them. The power to create money bestows the capacity to buy talent, resources, and even political favours. This is a strong motivation to want to reduce the power of the financial sector by reducing its power to allocate productive capital. But a money supply determined by committee is also vulnerable to the dangers of political capture and cronyism. 

On the other hand, there is already a tried and true conventional solution to this concentration problem which has actually worked in the past (for instance, during the post-WWII economic boom) that can work in the context of a conventional fractional banking system: redistribution, infrastructure creation and Keynesian measures to reduce and keep unemployment low. We do not need to try risky and unproven remedies like full reserve banking to fight inequality, and to keep the financial sector in check and prevent bank runs.

JOIN PIERIA TODAY!

Keep up to date with the latest thinking on some of the day's biggest issues and get instant access to our members-only features, such as the News DashboardReading ListBookshelf & Newsletter. It's completely free. 

Comments

Please read our Community Guidelines before posting

Dan Kervick,

I agree there is no sharp dividing line between money and non-money: anyone can try using lumps of gold or bottles of whiskey as money if they want. But I suggest that for the vast majority of transactions between households, shops and small a medium size firms, there is only one form of money: central bank created money or commercial bank created money which trades at par with the former.

I also accept that in the world’s financial centres lots of “stuff” is used in lieu of money, e.g. short term government debt. But surely those forms of money enable people to circumvent EXISTING ATTEMPTS by the authorities to control the economy just as much as they would under full reserve?

It's clear from the article that the author does not comprehend how the monetary system actually works and is thus in no position to make recommendations on it. In particular, fractional reserve banking does not exist - it is a myth taught to economists.

Don't take my word for it, here's what the Bank of England say:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/051.aspx

“Most money in the modern economy is in the form of bank deposits, which are created by commercial banks themselves… When a bank makes a loan to one of its customers it simply credits the customer’s account with a higher deposit balance. At that instant, new money is created…”

“…the relationship between reserves and loans typically operates in the reverse way to that described in some economics textbooks. Banks first decide how much to lend depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to them…It is these lending decisions that determine how many bank deposits are created by the banking system. The amount of bank deposits in turn influences how much central bank money banks want to hold in reserve (to meet withdrawals by the public, make payments to other banks, or meet regulatory liquidity requirements), which is then, in normal times, supplied on demand by the Bank of England.”

Banks create 'money' out of nothing (counterfeit), then loan it in to the economy (indentured servitude) at interest (usury). Where exactly does the 'money' to pay for the interest come from? More loans. And we wonder why there is so much debt lol. We desperately need to eradicate this debt ponzi scheme and it's "infinite growth on a finite planet" paradigm.

Learn more: http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/

Some initial steps to take: http://www.positivemoney.org/our-proposals/

Anton van der Merwe,

Re your alleged “glaring flaw” which you claim advocates full reserve have not spotted, I’ve certainly spotted it. And my answer to your “flaw” is as follows.

To answer your point, we need to distinguish between where the commercial bank system AS A WHOLE expands the amount it lends, and second, where an INDIVIDUAL BANK expands the amount it lends at the expense of other banks.

As to the first scenario, I do not see any good reason for any significant gyrations in the TOTAL AMOUNT that commercial banks lend. In fact it is precisely such gyrations which are half the problem. That is, in the three years prior to the crunch, commercial bank created money / loans were expanding much faster that normal and much faster than the stock of central bank created money (base money). And that resulted, lo and behold, in a boom followed by a bust.

Then, as always happens in busts, commercial banks did exactly what we don’t want them to do, i.e. put the whole process into revers: e.g. call in loans, etc. In short, the commercial bank system EXACERBATES the boom bust cycle.

I thus suggest it is better for the CENTRAL BANK / government to determine the total money supply. Indeed, that is exactly what they try to do under the existing system when trying to counteract booms and busts.

As to the second scenario (and individual bank expanding the amount it lends faster than others) as you doubtless appreciate, when that happens, the relevant bank loses reserves to other banks, i.e. it becomes indebted to those other banks.

And that’s not necessarily undesirable, especially if the indebted bank thinks it has found some particularly worthwhile or viable borrowers.

But under full reserve, exactly the same would happen. That is, there’d be a limited stock of money (or a stock of money that expanded by a small percentage every year), thus if an individual bank wanted to expand faster than others, it could perfectly well do so by borrowing from other banks, or other institutions or individuals.

Indeed, a large amount of inter-bank lending takes place under the EXISTING system.

your aside that maybe it is time that money/banking becomes a public utility might be more of an insight than perhaps you realise. Most financial transactions undertaken by banks are primarily designed to skim money from commerce through the creation and exploitation of volatility. Banking has become excessively parasitic on commerce and is the greatest source of inefficiency/drag in the modern market economy - like any parasite or predator - it has a beneficial role when in balance with its host but becomes destructive of both its host and itself when it becomes super-efficient at pursuing its own interests. Also when we think of money we forget that money serves two functions - one as a store of wealth and the other as a mechainsm for facilitating exchange. Much of our current problem is that the focus is excesssively on the store of wealth function and too little on the exchange function. And these two functions have an inherent confounding relationship. If the latter role dominated then all sorts of surprising things would happen = and particularly money could become a simple utility then money supply would be determined by the quantum required to fully employ the resources avaibale to a society. If there is unemployment the government could simply introduce more money into the productive sector, if there is inflationary presuure it could withdraw money. Much of the current economic disease is that the store of money function is being inflated through quantitative easing while the exchange function is being starved. Oddly enough this problem only got seriously out of hand with the introduction of the computer. Virtualisation of banking allowed the predator function of the banks to become super efficient because it enabled trading to occur on an increasinlgy vast scale at at increasingly incredible speed and with ever increasing complexity= Moore's law applies to the application of computer power as much as it does to the processing power of computers

Maybe banks are not just no longer necessary but have come to be destrcutive to both commerce and capitalism.

I think the fundamental flaw in the Chicago Plan, Positive Money, and similar approaches in that family is that they have accepted the Chicago school's diagnosis of financial instability (and pretty much everything else) as a monetary phenomenon, and are under the impression that if we do a better job controlling the money, we can achieve financial stability. But credit and debt arrangements can be executed with a variety of instruments, most of which are negotiable. If you change the rules for one financial subsystem, people will just innovate with all of the others to accomplish with them what can no longer be accomplished with the newly regulated one. Money is not special; there is no all-important dividing line between monetary instruments and other instruments. People can conduct business with negotiable derivative instruments and employ pseudo-banks and shadow banks. The entire system of credit and debt needs vigilant regulation to maintain stability.

And even on its own terms, full reserve banking will also make the rich richer, since it pushes in the direction of a financial system based on intermediation and a loanable funds market linking creditors and borrowers, and puts financial power in the hands of wealthy holders of surplus dollar stocks. Instead of bank credit rates being driven by an ongoing flow of liabilities from the central bank, they will be driven by a private market dominated by wealthy suppliers of surplus dollar stocks to customers for credit.

One glaring flaw with the full-reserve banking proposal which none of the proponents seems appreciate, let alone address, is the fact that the system will be far more rigid than the current system. The fact that banks create money when they make loans means that all the requirements for funding by the millions of people and businesses can be automatically accommodated in a decentralised and efficient mechanism. Moreover, in such a system, the money supply is very elastic and increases and decreases organically with demand. Such a system has performed incredibly well in accommodating rapid if variable growth without deflation or high levels of inflation. Can you please explain to me how you can be so sure that removing this elastic feature of the money supply won't constrain economic growth? If you can't be sure don't you think it is a little unethical proposal such an experiment?

Ralph Musgrave

"Re your suggestion that everyone be allowed an account at the CB, that’s already more or less the case in that anyone can have an account at a government run savings bank: National Savings and Investments. Of course NSI does not supply cheque books or plastic cards to account holders, but account holders can access their money in 24 hours, so NSI is virtually the same as the safe accounts proposed by advocates of full reserve. And if NSI took the small step of issuing cheque books and debit cards (without allowing overdrafts) it would then be running safe accounts exactly as proposed by advocates of full reserve."

If the NSI's issued cheque books and credit cards their deposits would be as functional as current commercial bank deposits and what I propose under the CB. The main difference would be that the NSI issues deposits and also holds the reserves it receives at the CB if I am correct. The CB will only issue reserves which everyone can hold which is simpler. Reserves will not be liability of CB whereas NSI will issu liabs and also hold reserve assets. Also if CB is conducting policy direclty with the public the government wont be involved under my proposal so CB independence will be preserved to a greater extent. Economies and scale and scope should also prevail if central bank accounts are issued by one entity and used for monetary policy, deposits and payments.

"Re your claim that “You cant stop any entity from creating financial assets which may later be used as money”, it’s actually the LIABILITIES of banks (or other entities) that can become money."
I agree that its mainly banks that issue money when they issue liabs in form of deposits. But under my proposal they will have to pay to issue deposits becuase people can just hold no return no risk deposits at the CB. What about bitcoin? etc... I dont see how we can stop private money issuance anyway. If bank issuers of deposits have to pay to issue these deposits then this is self regulating and benefits of segniorage will be the people that hold deposits not banks.

"As to the idea that such entities can’t be stopped from engaging in that activity, I fail to see the problem. I’d just force all entities offering to accept and lend on or invest money to state very clearly on all their literature that investor / depositors are not guaranteed £X back for every £X deposited. In fact that’s already the case with unit trust and other stock exchange related investment literature: that is, such literature has to say something to the effect that “this investment can fall as well as rise in value”. That effectively stops it being a form of money, since a dollop of wealth which is initially worth £X and is then worth 90% of that amount next day just ain’t money.

Definetely education is important so people understand the risks. The fact that the CB can provide risk free deposits should severely limit 0 return deposit creation by banks. Therefore most deposits will just be interest bearing which will also limit money creation by banks.

Heres my proposal : cmamonetary.org

Dan,

I think your proposals have several problems. First, you claim that interest rates for all types of loan should be decided by bureaucrats. To substantiate that, you need to prove that bureaucrats are better at determining the optimum rate of interest for sundry types of loan than the free market. You’ll have a hard job there, I think.

Moreover, if those bureaucrats over-estimate the appropriate rate of interest for a particular type of loan, lenders will simply ignore banks and lend directly to borrowers (something they do to a significant extent anyway).

Next, you claim that “endogenous growth in the money supply with the financing of entrepreneurial ventures is a feature of the contemporary monetary system, not a bug”. Well that’s begging the question. That is, opponents of fractional reserve can point to a number of serious “bugs” in the existing system. One is that endo money creation is pro-cyclical: certainly there was a dramatic rise in endo money in the UK just prior to the crunch and that doubtless exacerbated the crunch. And a second is that the endo money system cannot survive without taxpayer backing (trillion dollar bailouts, TBTF subsidies, lender of last resort facilities, etc). Pretty serious “bugs” I’d say.

Next, your first paragraph advocates nationalising banks, but your second paragraph (particularly the endo money point) praises private money creation. Bit of a contradiction, there I think.

Finally you claim that “If people want to . . . eliminate rentiers” and prevent “massive concentrations of private capital” then we should “socialize the system for heaven’s sake”. Problem there is that it’s not just in the banking industry that “rentiers” operate, and nor are “massive concentration of private capital” attributable just to banking. That is, rentiers and accumulators of private capital operate in EVERY sector of the economy. Thus logically, you ought to advocate the nationalisation of everything: a communist state.

Anton Van Der Merwe,

Your claim that the endo money creation feature of the “current system” is “underappreciated” is wide of the mark. If you read the literature produced by various avocates of full reserve (Milton Friedman, Laurence Kotlikoff, Positive Money – I could go on), you’ll find they all perfectly well aware that the current system does endo money creation.

Next, you claim that “This means that money supply need never be a constraint on economic activity.” That I’m afraid flies in the face of the facts: the existing banking system would have caused total chaos five years ago and caused catastrophic “constraints on economic activity” if taxpayers hadn’t come to its rescue. And even with taxpayer support there has still been a serious “constraint on economic activity” over the last five years or so, hasn’t there?

Re your claim that all problems can be solved by “tinkering with capital requirements”, I suggest that is naïve. If capital requirements ARE RAISED, banks will simply bribe or cajole politicians into reducing them again. Indeed George Osborne has been opposing ANY SORT OF IMPROVED CAPITAL REQUIREMENT AT ALL, as pointed out by Martin Wolf in an FT article.

I think public banking is a better way to go. If banks were public enterprises, interest rates on loans for any of various categories of lending would be a matter of public policy. Some could be high, some low, some even negative if the public wants to subsidize various categories of investment in that way. There need be no "reserves", since all banks might be branches of a single government-run central bank. Bakers' salaries could be kept low; large bonuses would effectively be a thing of the past. Returns on capital would accrue only to those participating in the equity financing system, and could be regulated.

But going to a private system based on 100% reserve lending would, I fear, be a recipe for enduring economic stagnation. The integration of the monetary system and endogenous growth in the money supply with the financing of entrepreneurial ventures is a feature of the contemporary monetary system, not a bug. If people want to incorporate greater financial stability into the system, and eliminate the rentiers and built-in potential for dangerously massive concentrations of private capital, then socialize the system for heaven's sake. Full reserve banking is the modern liberal's foolish idea of opting for stagnation because they lack the guts to propose economically progressive socialization.

I also think it is seriously risky to try to switch to a completely untried system that has several obvious problems. The most important of these is the fact that lacks the capacity of endogenous money creation which is the most important and underappreciated feature of the current system. This means that money supply need never be a constraint on economic activity. The system has its problems, but these are well understood and can be tackled by tinkering with things such as increasing bank capital requirements. For its problems the current system has accommodated the most incredible level of growth over the past 50 years. How bad can it be? Conversely the monetary systems in place before the current system were never able to accommodate growth at anything like the same rate. Lets not overreact!

John Aziz’s article contains a large number of errors and as follows.

First, there’s his phrase “..banks would not be able to generate income via lending..”.

As the advocates of full reserve clearly explain (e.g. Positive Money, Milton Friedman, Laurence Kotlikoff etc) full reserve splits the banking industry into two halves. One half is 100% safe, and does not lend on money (though possibly money could be invested in short term government debt as advocated by Friedman). And the second half DOES LEND out money to riskier borrowers, e.g. industry, mortgagors, etc. And that half thus earns a significant amount of interest or a dividend for its depositor / investors.

Thus Aziz’s above claim flies in the face of reality.

In the same sentence, Aziz makes the claim I’ve seen a dozen times before, namely that those depositing money in the second half (the safe half) would have to pay a fee for the privilege of having a bank account.

Well the first answer to that is that many of us already do!!! I personally pay £13 a month bank charges and get sweet nothing by way of interest. It seems that John Aziz is not aware of what’s actually going in his local high street banks.

Next, Aziz claims that fees charged by banks would encourage depositors to flee to black market banks offering better rates. Well thanks, but it would take an awful lot to persude me to deposit money with some back street black market shadow bank. Same goes for 99% of depositors.

Next, Aziz quotes Krugman as saying that banking problems have been solved by the existence of deposit insurance and lender of last resort facilities. Well of course they have!! But those two luxuries enjoyed by banks and depositors are SUBSIDY OF THE BANKING INDUSTRY!!!!!!!

Anyone can solve any problem by throwing enough taxpayers’ money at it. As the introductory economics text books explain, subsidies misallocate resources and reduce GDP unless there are good social reasons for the subsidy.

Then Aziz suggests that shadow banks should also enjoy the above subsidy. Does he also think that even more “shadowy” lenders, loan sharks preying on council estates, should also be subsidised? Plus I take it he thinks those hypothetical black market banks he referred to earlier in his article should also be subsidised.

Next, Aziz claims that “the fact that the vast majority of money is created by private banks means that they have a central role in allocating society’s productive capital…” False logic.

The fact that some organisation (say the Mafia) is currently supplying an economy with its money supply, is not of itself an argument for that type of money creation.

Next, Aziz claims “But a money supply determined by committee is also vulnerable to the dangers of political capture and cronyism.” Well the answer to that is that the existing Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee is very much the sort of committee that would determine how much new money is created under full reserve. Thus if there is a problem with “political capture and cronyism” then EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM applies to the existing system.

Then in his final paragraph, Aziz wants “Keynesian measures to reduce and keep unemployment low” rather than full reserve. Well what do “Keynsian measures” consist of? They actually consist of having government borrow or print money and spend it (and/or cut taxes). Advocates of full reserve (Positive Money anyway) favour the print option. It is thus totally untrue to suggest that Keynsianism is an alternative to full reserve.

Just saying that bank runs are no longer a danger because of the presence of a lender of last resort is ducking the issue. *We* the taxpayers are that last resort. The total sum at risk can be many times the GDP; effectively fractional reserve, TBTF banks socialise the risks they take, whilst reaping the rewards. We, the people can no longer afford this risk, which is why state-guaranteed fractional reserve banking has to end.

Danny Cooper,

Re your suggestion that everyone be allowed an account at the CB, that’s already more or less the case in that anyone can have an account at a government run savings bank: National Savings and Investments. Of course NSI does not supply cheque books or plastic cards to account holders, but account holders can access their money in 24 hours, so NSI is virtually the same as the safe accounts proposed by advocates of full reserve. And if NSI took the small step of issuing cheque books and debit cards (without allowing overdrafts) it would then be running safe accounts exactly as proposed by advocates of full reserve.

Re your claim that “You cant stop any entity from creating financial assets which may later be used as money”, it’s actually the LIABILITIES of banks (or other entities) that can become money.

As to the idea that such entities can’t be stopped from engaging in that activity, I fail to see the problem. I’d just force all entities offering to accept and lend on or invest money to state very clearly on all their literature that investor / depositors are not guaranteed £X back for every £X deposited. In fact that’s already the case with unit trust and other stock exchange related investment literature: that is, such literature has to say something to the effect that “this investment can fall as well as rise in value”. That effectively stops it being a form of money, since a dollop of wealth which is initially worth £X and is then worth 90% of that amount next day just ain’t money.

Positive Money’s system for stopping investments being turned into money is slightly different to the above.

You cant stop any entity from creating financial assets which may later be used as money. Full reserves seems like it may be difficult to implement.

In order to make the monetary system more stable and monetary policy more efficient and equitable the central bank could provide depository and transactions in central bank money to all people like it does to depository banks. Private deposits remain the same as now.

Under this system people wont withdraw deposits en masse from the CB because they will be risk free. People can also deposit at commercial banks like they do now for demand deposits or interest bearing time deposits. The payments system which is systemic will still be operating even if all the banks collapse. People wont have to pay to make deposits. Intermediation wont be affected like under full reserve banking either.

Additionally the central bank can conduct policy directly with the broad public which have a higher propensity to consume than current central bank counter-parties making policy more efficient. Expansions of central bank deposits wont need accompanying increases in debt like current system because at present money is usually expanded through lending. The central bank will just place money in peoples accounts in pursuance of its targets.

I'm not normally one for invective in comments sections, but this is a highly dis-ingenious strawman of the arguments for full reserve banking and one of the least impressive things I've read on this site to date.

Proponents of full reserve banking do not argue that bank runs are the issue, rather that the ability to create and distribute new money to maximise profit concentrates power and wealth at the top, as well as introducing systemic fragilities via ensuring that balance sheet contractions by financial institutions will lead to falling demand and recession. A full reserve banking model, as proposed by positive money, would allow for intermediation, maturity transformation and a fully specced financial system without the macroeconomic risks of the current one. This article mis-states the nature of the problem, ignores the benefits and hams up potential costs.

Twitter Feed

RT @2noame: Boom Bust: Coppola (@Frances_Coppola of @PieriaView ) on the mess in Europe & Kling on #basicincome https://t.co/Xe0ZSVsIwy @RT…

Don’t blame it on Rio – Glencore may turn out to be fortunate it had its advances rebuffed - http://t.co/jkQSivxDtS

RT @dsquareddigest: “Your Next Favourite Macroeconomist” https://t.co/dmscPxyCHj in which I borrow techniques of music journalism to hype @…

On the Need for Large Movements in Interest Rates to Stabilize the Economy with Monetary Policy - by @mileskimball http://t.co/mVAfYS3O9G