{Maybe some plutocrats believe banks have already loaned enough total money supply into existence, and now that capitalists have all the money and the nations and their people owe all the debts, it's time to collapse the banking system and move to an exclusively capital markets financial system where the capitalists directly own all the money. It's the equivalent of accumulating all the gold in a system where gold functions as the money, then shutting down gold mining to prevent additional money from leaking into the economy and devaluing the purchasing power of the existing stock of money ... which you, as the capitalist class, own.}
When a bank sells loans to a capital markets bundler or investor, the bank uses the payment money to extinguish both the money it issued and the loan it issued, off of the bank's own balance sheet. In this system, banks earn income-money by the up-front fees they charge for mortgage and other loan origination. By selling the debt-assets off their balance sheets, banks no longer bear any of the default risk of loans. Mortgages and most other loans register as "risk assets" against the bank's Basel-limited capital to assets ratio, so banks earn risk-free money by originating and selling loans, and their capital is freed to earn even more money by originating even more loans.
US Treasury debt, by contrast, is considered "risk free" by Basel, so banks can create unlimited sums of bank deposit money to buy US government debt and hold it on their balance sheets as interest-earning assets. As long as the US government possesses the power to get money by taxing its people, the stream of "risk-free" bond interest payments is "secure".
Capitalists do not build or buy up industrial infrastructure because they want to convert their money into fixed capital in order to be productive members of a democratic society. Capitalists invest in fixed capital with an eye to earning money profit from their money investments. Because money can buy everything else, including "cargoes of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men" (Revelation Ch.18), money is liquid capital. Money is the flexible power to pay people to do whatever you want them to do, and money is the flexible power to have whatever you want to buy, including love or the facsimile thereof, because "it's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one" (Marilyn Munroe, How to Marry a Millionaire).
At the bottom of the hierarchy of the capitalist power structure we find the unemployed and the workers who essentially own no property and who directly depend on other people (state or private charity, or employers) to provide them with money and/or employment to earn money. Above them, as employers to pay earned incomes and as taxpayers to pay bond interest and fund the welfare state, we find the "bourgoisie" of professionals and managers, and especially small businesspeople who personally own and work their small economic resources and who participate in the market economy. Then at the top and ruling over all is the capitalist class who gain vast personal and corporate wealth by their oligopoly ownership of the money-issuing system and the high-profit commercial and industrial infrastructure.
Money is the command and control system of a money economy, an economy in which everything is bought and sold for money rather than "traded". Money "is" the macro economy, the system that governs the micro economy. It matters not that there is real economic demand for goods, and an in-place infrastructure of factories and resources and workers ready to produce economic goods to supply that demand. If the people who want goods have no money to pay for goods, no workers are employed and no supply is produced. The productive infrastructure sits idle and the demand languishes unsatisfied.
What we typically think of as "the economy" is the productive economy that applies intelligence and work to resources in order to produce commodities that are of value to humans. The economy, in this sense, is the micro economy. Money is the demand side of every buy/sell transaction. Money in the hands of people who want things is "effective demand", which is the kind of demand that will be met with supply. There will be no supply without demand money. Money demand sets the productive economy to work. The macro money system rules over the micro productive economy.
In a mythical barter economy, by contrast, people's production of trade goods (supply) functions as the trade medium (the demand 'money') to trade for other people's economic production of trade goods. The goods themselves function as both the goods supply and the demand currency. Say's Law would be true, if a barter economy existed: Supply creates its own demand. Farmers produce more chickens than they want to eat, with the intention of trading their surplus chickens for the tinsmith's tin pot and the tailor's leather coat. If we assume, as classical economics did, that everybody "wants" more chickens, tin pots and leather coats, then we can assume real economic demand is unlimited. Under these conditions of economic want, the more surplus goods that are produced and traded in a barter economy, the more economic wealth everybody can consume. The farmer can enjoy the use of tin pots and leather coats. The tinsmith and tailor can enjoy chicken dinners.
This is Adam Smith's utopian free market economy. It is a barter system populated by tinkers, tailors and candlestick makers. There are no industrial capitalists monopolizing industries in this economy, just a bunch of individual farmers, craftspeople and tradespeople producing what they can and trading their surplus production with each other. And especially, there are no money-issuing bankers in Smith's free market economy.
Production and trade of real economic wealth makes all participants richer in goods, in a barter economy. But none of these producers produced a single dime of money, and none of them sold any of their goods for money. In the barter myth, all goods are "traded" for other goods, not bought and sold "for money".
Needless to say, we do not live in a barter economy. "Traders" of the ancient world traded cargoes of goods from one area for cargoes of goods from another area where those goods were exotic and expensive. Then the trader hauled home a cargo of goods that were considered exotic and expensive in the home market. But traders ultimately sold their cargoes for money which, in those times, was typically gold or silver. The ambition of traders was not to end up with "economic" wealth in the form of enormous warehouses full of all kinds of goods that moth and rust destroy, and thieves break in and steal. Their ambition was to sell goods for money, and end up with an enormous hoard of gold (relatively easier to secure in well-guarded vaults).
Traders were "capitalists" whose ambition is to accumulate capital (money), not small business tinkers and tailors who produce economic wealth to earn their daily bread, who spend their money income buying consumer goods to enhance their material standard of living.
People sometimes revert to barter during periods of (deliberate or unintended consequence) money scarcity, but trading economies (as contrasted with economically self-sufficient hunting/gathering or feudal agriculture) work by buying and selling goods for money. Goods are the supply side of the trade; money is the demand side of the trade. It is not actually "trade". It is "buying and selling", which is a completely different kind of system than trading chickens for tin pots. You and I can produce chickens and tin pots from the natural resources of the Earth. But if you and I produce any "money", we will be hunted down as dangerously subversive counterfeiters. Bankers jealously guard their monopoly of money issuance.
In, The Long Twentieth Century, Arrighi builds on the work of Fernand Braudel's 3 volume 1982 book, Civilization and Capitalism 15th to 18th Century. Arrighi writes,
"The conventional view in the social sciences, in political discourse, and in the mass media is that capitalism and the market economy are more or less the same thing, and that state power is antithetical to both. Braudel, in contrast, sees capitalism as being absolutely dependent for its emergence and expansion on state power and as constituting the antithesis of the market economy. ...Capitalism only triumphs when it becomes identified with the state, when it is the state."
In, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith agreed, observing that, rather than competing in market economies, corporations seek to gain monopolies, aided and abetted by state policy, in order to control their input costs and sale prices (the exercise of market power), and thus ensure themselves regular profits not subject to the vagaries of market forces. Smith's free market utopia (Smith was not describing the actual economy of 1776 Britain) was populated by myriad independent small businesspeople, each producing into his niche and trading his surplus product in the marketplace. Small business owners are at the same time the workers whose own hands perform the work of economic production.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
