Here’s a little game for you to play the next time you’re in
a situation in which someone is ranting about “the banksters.” First ask him or her, “Say, what is a bankster, anyway?” If the ranter manages to answer that one to
your satisfaction (instead of dodging the question with some variation of “If
you don’t know, I’m certainly not going to tell you”), ask, “And just what the
heck is a bank?” If the first question
didn’t stump the ranter, the second definitely will.
 |
| Sir Robert Peel, Currency School Co-Founder |
It’s a trick question, you see. Pretty much all economists and politicians
come from a “Currency Principle” perspective (that is, they belong to the “Currency
School”), when banks are an application of the “Banking Principle” (that is,
they fall within the “Banking School”).
What’s the difference between the Currency School and the
Banking School? Possibly to
oversimplify,
·
Currency School economists and politicians
believe that “money” is itself a thing of value (a commodity), while Banking
School economists and politicians (assuming you can find any) believe that
“money” is a symbol of a thing of value (a contract).
·
To an adherent of the Currency Principle, the
issuer of money transfers wealth, while to an adherent of the Banking
Principle, the issuer of money transfers a claim on wealth.
·
In the Currency School, money is only one medium of
exchange, while in the Banking School money is the only medium of exchange: “all
things transferred in commerce” — anything that can be accepted in settlement
of a debt.
 |
| Colonel Robert Torrens, Currency School Co-Founder |
The three mainstream schools of economics (Keynesian,
Monetarist/Chicago, and Austrian) are all Currency School. (The belief that Keynesian economics is a modified
Banking Principle school of economics comes from confusing private sector bills
of exchange and government bills of credit, and not understanding private
property or contracts . . . sorry you asked?)
The differences among the Currency Principle schools of economics are,
·
In Keynesian economics, money is a general claim
on the existing wealth of the economy issued by the State, making the State the
real owner of everything in the economy.
The amount and value of the currency may be adjusted to achieve
political and economic goals (“Chartalism,” or “Modern Monetary Theory”). Ultimately (merging the concepts of private
and collective property), the money supply is a non-repayable debt the nation
owes itself. The amount of government
debt outstanding is irrelevant, because issuing or retiring money simply
increases or decreases the number of claims on existing wealth. Interest rates are subject to change to
discourage or encourage investment.
 |
| Samuel Jones-Loyd, Lord Overstone, Currency School Co-Founder |
·
In Monetarist/Chicago economics, money is a
general claim on the existing wealth of the economy, which may be issued either
by private sector banks or the public treasury.
In either case, the amount of money issued must equal the value of
existing wealth of the economy. If too
much money is issued, there is inflation, which erodes private property. If too little money is issued, there is
deflation, which inhibits economic growth.
The amount of government debt outstanding, and the activities of private
sector banks must be strictly regulated to avoid issuing money is excess of the
existing wealth in the economy, thereby causing inflation. Interest rates are the price of money and
must be set by the market.
·
In Austrian economics, money is a commodity with
generally recognized value and acceptability (formerly silver, now gold) that
serves as a medium of exchange to facilitate commerce and that can be used as a
standard to measure all other things of value.
If the needs of an economy require an increase in the money supply,
either the natural increase in the supply of gold through mining or commerce,
or a rise in the price of gold as it becomes scarcer relative to other things
of value in the economy will bring in more gold and stabilize prices at their
natural, real level. Any increase in the
money supply from other sources is thus inflationary as it interferes with the
real price level established by parity with gold, whether or not the price
level rises, and any decrease in the money supply by artificially controlling
the price of gold is deflationary for the same reason, whether or not the price
level falls. Interest rates are the
price of money and must be set by the market.
Obviously, if you use a “bank” — a financial institution
based on the Banking Principle — as if it were a financial institution based on
the Currency Principle, you’re misusing a very powerful tool. Think along the lines of using an industrial
grade bench or table saw with a precision 30-inch blade to cut out paper
dolls. You won’t get good paper dolls,
you might ruin the saw, and you’ll probably cut off one or more of your hands,
arms, or legs.
