Split-circuit reserve systems in contrast to a single-circuit sovereign money system
There are basically two types of approaches to bringing about a system where the money is under public control – on the one hand a variety of 100%-reserve systems (full reserve systems) dating from the 1930s, on the other hand a number of variants of the newly developed approach of a plain or single-circuit sovereign money system.
Full reserve systems retain the split between demand deposits (bankmoney) used in nonbank public circulation, and reserves (central-bank money) used in interbank circulation, thus representing a double-circuit system. A plain sovereign money system abandons the split-circuit structure based on a mixed money supply of deposits and reserves in favour of a single circuit on the basis of sovereign money only, issued by the central bank (in Europe) or by a comparable monetary authority (in the US).
Comparing the two systems
Here is a paper comparing 100%-reserve with a plain sovereign money system. The 100%-reserve approach, as it turns out, is not entirely consistent with its goals.
Read > 100%-Reserve and Plain Sovereign Money
or download the paper > as a PDF.
Here is a > summarising synopsis comparing 100%-reserve with a single-circuit sovereign money system.
Fusing the two systems?
The question remains: Can a split-circuit full reserve system and a single-circuit full currency system be made compatible with each other? Or, at least, can a reserve system be aligned with a plain money system? Yes, this might be feasible, but it appears not to be optimal.
Read here a 6-pages paper on > How to emulate plain single-circuit money within a 100%-reserve system
or read and download > as a PDF.
In its Monthly Report of April 2017 the German Bundesbank has published, as an 'Appendix' to an article on money creation today, Remarks on a 100% reserve requirement for sight deposits (after uploading go to pages 30–33). In this article the Bundesbank explains why it does not think much of 100%-reserve banking. The snag is – whether on purpose or lack of proper understanding – that 100%-reserve banking is insinuated to be the same as the present-day approach to a single-circuit sovereign money system. This, of course, calls for a > Critical response to the Bundesbank's view of 100%-reserve banking.
Michael Kumhof, IMF (left and left below), presents
The Chicago Plan Revisited.
The IMF-working paper of the same title by J. Benes and M. Kumhof, 12/202 August 2012, revised draft February 2013, is available > here.
It looks as if in this case Chicago Plan, which stands for 100%-reserve banking, or 100%-money, might be a misnomer, at least partially. Rather, this version of that plan seems to be a hybrid of 100% reserve and plain sovereign money (plus a number of debatable dirigiste elements).
Is such a hybrid system feasible in practice? Would it be sensible? In payment operations either there is a bank-liability system accompanied by reserves, or the system works on the basis of fully liquid bank assets. If one intends to have both - 100% liquid money (payment assets) and deposit coverage - one of the two is redundant.
A synoposis by Andrew Jackson (Positive Money) also deals with the Chicago Plan
> Another plan for full reserve has been conceived of by Kaoru Yamaguchi, professor of economics and system dynamics, Kyoto, Japan, and developed in form of system dynamics modeling. Here you can download > From Debt Money to Public Money. Modeling the Transition.
By the same author > Money and Macroeconomic Dynamics, 2015-16
In its Monthly Report of April 2017 the Bundesbank has published an article on money creation in the present system of split-circuit fractional reserve banking, also including a criticism of the reform approaches to 100%-reserve banking - which is misleadingly insinuated to equal the contemporary concept of single-circuit sovereign money.
The publication is in German only, but there is an English extended abstract, including a statement on the Bundesbank's view of 100%-reserve banking > How money is created.
Here then is a > Critical response to the Bundesbank's view of 100%-reserve banking.
• Some readers may know Ralph Musgrave from his blog Ralphonomics, including a certain tendency of the author towards immediately proceeding to writing on topics as he sees them, not bothering too much about giving a detailed and precise account of what he is writing about. Reading his stuff can all the same be inspiring, and here are his > Fourty-two Flawed Arguments for and against Full Reserve Banking.
• 100%-Reserve Banking - the History, House-of-Debt Economic Commentary from Atif Mian and Amir Sufi, 26 April 2014.
• Thomas Mayer, senior advisor of Deutsche Bank and fellow at the Centre for Financial Studies, speaks up for safe deposits through 100% reserve coverage. This really would be > A Copernican Turn for Banking Union, CEPS Policy Brief, No.290, 14 May 2013.
Reprinted in > real world economics review, issue no. 65, 2013.
• Andrew Jackson, Positive Money, on > Can Full Reserve Banking actually even stop credit-money creation? The Chicago Plan v. Positive Money, Clint Ballinger's Blog, 25 Dec 2012.
• Stephen Zarlenga, American Monetary Institute, on > The 1930s Chicago Plan and the American Monetary Act.
• Système bancaire à réserves fractionnaires et la monnaie cent pour cent, présentation animée sous forme de feuilles comptables, par Stéphane David, 2013.
• Christian Gomez: 100% money. Un réexamen de la proposition d’une réforme radicale du système bancaire: L’imposition d’un coefficient de réserves de 100% > Osons Maurice Allais.