The Global Financial Crisis should be called the Global Debt Crisis. Too much debt has been created and there is not enough productive capacity to pay the interest on the debt, let alone repay the loans.
This was not meant to happen. The banking system is meant to restrict the amount of debt created by requiring loans to be secured against existing assets or future income.
In 2008, US households had debt equal to three times GDP. Today, Australian household debt is 1.6 times GDP. The total debt in the world is many times the productive assets available to generate the income to repay the debts. Even with low interest rates the amount of debt is difficult to service let alone repay.
To understand how we can remove the debt burden in an orderly way, we need to understand how the system has been able to create so much debt.
With that understanding, we can introduce additional mechanisms into our monetary and financial systems to reduce debt and reduce the likelihood of it happening again.
Making money
Most debt is created by banks providing credit. Banks do this by creating new money secured against assets or income streams.
This would appear to set an upper limit to the amount of debt created because, at first sight, there appears to be a finite value to monetisable assets, and hence a limit on the amount of debt. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the value of monetisable assets.

The financial system allows debt to be treated as an asset, with the aim of spreading risk. Every day, banks borrow from each other so that they can balance their books. When banks make loans to each other they typically create new money rather than lend existing money.
If they lent existing money, then they would indeed be spreading the risk. But by creating extra money, they in fact increase the systematic risk.
This is because the money supply is increased without the backing of tangible assets to repay the debt. Banks are driven to do this because they make profits from giving loans and not from the creation of profitable assets.
For as long as the financial system continues to profit immediately from the creation of new money, the system will tend to generate too much debt.
Sufficient control?
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) attempts to control the domestic system by changing the rate at which it will lend to other banks.
If the RBA thinks there is too much debt, it increases its lending interest rate which in turn is meant to discourage banks from borrowing from each other.
This, reduces the appetite for banks to lend, and in the process, reduces demand. Unfortunately, this approach results in recessions and depressions because a reduction in demand when debt is high reduces liquidity. This leads to a contraction of the economy and a reduction in the ability to repay debt.
This process is then accelerated by countries introducing austerity measures that reduce demand further, and with it, demand for debt. The increase in the money supply increases financial profits without any increase in productive capacity because interest is paid on newly created money.
Hard cash
We need to change this situation so that newly created money has to be invested in profitable assets before a profit is realised.
We can stop this cycle of boom and bust if we can build mechanisms so that an increase in the money supply is guaranteed to build new productive assets.
Banks will still lend to each other, but they will use existing money to make their loans. They will do this because existing money carries less lower risk than newly created money.

Because an increase in the money supply also causes an increase in productive assets, the amount of debt and money in circulation will remain below the value of productive assets in any country that adopts this approach.
We can encourage asset creation by making loans to create new productive assets interest free. At the moment banks don’t do this because building new productive assets is higher risk than buying existing assets.
Banks could give interest free loans for new assets, if the government guaranteed the loans. To be politically acceptable the loans could be for community infrastructure projects and the loans could be widely distributed throughout the community.
It has worked before
This has many historical precedents. The Commonwealth Bank under its first governor, Sir Dennison Miller, created money and lent it at low interest rates to governments for port, road and rail infrastructure as well as financing the Australian involvement in World War I.
The approach has been critical to China’s rapid progress, with banks being encouraged to lend for productive infrastructure at low interest rates. Japan and the Asian Tigers export industries were built on low cost finance.
Australia has been giving inflation-linked interest free loans for student tuition through HELP (previously called HECS) for the past 20 years.
When it is tried, interest free loans used for productive purposes almost always increases wealth without inflation.
Australia has many ways it can increase productive capacity with interest-free loans. Communications and information systems technology enable us to build systems to ensure that interest-free loans are distributed fairly to Australian citizens and that the funds are invested for the purposes they are given.
The National Broadband Network (NBN) could be financed through low-interest loans given to people who sign up to use the service.
The money from loans could be invested in the NBN as investment bonds and the loans repaid from interest on the bonds. The interest on the bonds would come from the payments borrowers make for the NBN services.
This approach would fund the NBN for no cost to the government, as the government would simply guarantee the new money the banks create for the loans.
The loans are certain to be repaid because borrowers agree to use the NBN. Once the loans are repaid, the borrowers are left with interest bearing bonds which they can use for their own purposes.
Renewable energy projects could be financed through interest-free loans distributed to consumers who agree to purchase green energy. The money from loans would be invested in private companies that must build new renewable energy productive capacity.

The loans would be repaid from the distribution of profits of the companies. The size of the loans could be inversely related to the amount of mains energy consumed by a person so encouraging lower energy consumption.
This approach will encourage savings investment in renewables because, by reducing finance costs, almost all renewable energy production is profitable at today’s prices. This approach would reduce emissions without any increase in the price of energy.
The loans are certain to be paid because the borrowers have agreed to purchase energy from the renewable energy companies they have financed. After the loans are repaid the borrowers are left with ownership of income generating assets.
Any form of community infrastructure can be financed this way. Public transport, water supply systems, toll roads, ports, education and even health.
The system can be introduced incrementally with no change to the current financial or monetary system. The RBA will still control the money supply but has a new tool.
It will advise governments how much money they can allow to be created through interest free loans for specific infrastructure purposes.
Overseas borrowings will be reduced and there will be a lower debt burden which translates into higher incomes for the population. Ownership of infrastructure will be distributed to the population. Accumulated over a lifetime this ownership will provide a retirement income.
Shifting debt
Observant readers will notice this proposal will result in a change in the distribution of credit in the population. Today, the banks rarely give loans to build new assets without another asset available to secure it.
Today almost all loans result in the creation of new money to buy existing assets. Those with more wealth can get more credit while the poor have difficulty.
The wide distribution of interest-free credit throughout the community, will result in those with less wealth getting credit provided it is used to create productive assets. This is fair and politically achievable because it does not redistribute existing wealth only future wealth.
Adopting this approach will mean that most new money will result in the creation of new assets and existing money will be used for the transfer of asset ownership through loans.
History shows us that if a profit is made from the creation of new money with an interest coupon attached then the financial system always creates too much debt.
Targeted systems must be put in place so that profits are made after new money has been invested and not before.
If this is done well, the controllers of the money supply will have additional ways to increase the money supply, the current debt overhang will reduce in an orderly fashion and debt explosions will not occur.
14 Comments
William Ferguson
Software Developer
logged in via email @xandar.com.au
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree that excess debt is the core issue in the fragility of the current economic climate. I am also very interested in identifying and removing those driving forces that have led to such a propensity for debt. But I'm having a little trouble digesting some of this article
You seem to imply that all banks are creating extra money when lending. "When banks make loans to each other they typically create new money rather than lend existing money." Was what you really…
show full commentSteve Foster
Area Manager
logged in via email @bigpond.com
William, the banks are only required to hold a percentage of deposits. I can't remember the exact figures, but for instance if they are required to hold 10% of deposits it goes something like this.
I put $1 in the bank, then they loan you $0.90 of that; they put this in your account where it is counted as a deposit. They can then loan someone else $0.81 which they place in their account, then loan another $0.73......and on it goes.....
The money is never printed, it only exists as debt.
William Ferguson
Software Developer
logged in via email @xandar.com.au
?? what ?? Surely banking regulation isn't that broken.
I had always assumed that the requirement to hold 10% of deposits was based upon their total nett position (deposits less loans), not just the sum of deposits.
If that is truly the case, then surely the first step is to rectify that.
Kevin Cox
Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Canberra
William the % reserve will prove ineffective no matter what number is set. The only real constraint on the banks is finding borrowers with collateral. The monetary system is broken because of the mechanism we have for adjusting the money supply. The attempts to stop banks increasing the money supply will prove futile while-ever it is profitable for them to do so.
The extraordinary rise in derivatives, the wild fluctuations in currencies, the volatility in commodity prices, endemic inflation…
show full commentWilliam Ferguson
Software Developer
logged in via email @xandar.com.au
OK, I understand the concept of the zero interest loans for creation of new productive assets. I fully agree that that it is a great way for governments to be able provide funds for necessary infrastructure. I also like the way that it provides everyone with a chance to share in the future wealth of those new assets instead of pushing it into the hands of a few vested interests.
But I am struggling to reconcile some of your statements. Namely :
"The solution makes it unprofitable for banks to increase…
show full commentKevin Cox
Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Canberra
William good questions
If a bank lends existing money for loans there is no risk of a "run on the bank". It can use its fractional reserve privileges and give depositors their money back without the need to borrow money to cover any request from depositors for their money. Because of the lower risk banks will tend to use existing money for loans if the money is available. Of course if there is not enough money to satisfy the demand for loans then the banks will still create money - but they will…
show full commentWilliam Ferguson
Software Developer
logged in via email @xandar.com.au
OK, this is where I'm not seeing any traction "banks will still create money - but they will not create new money unless there are good loans". I see no impetus under your proposal that will support this assertion that banks will change their behaviour. Banks face the same risk with lending today as what they would under the proposal so I don't see why they would change.
And the corollary that banks will be allowed to fail because they will be less interconnected only holds if they aren't creating new money, which as I've said I can't see why they would stop.
Banks already lend existing money (along with new money), so the risk appears to be the same for the banks. What makes you think they would change they way they do business?
Kevin Cox
Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Canberra
William I believe it is lower risk to lend existing money than create new money and I believe banks will understand that. However, we will only find out once it is in operation.
Then there is the fear factor. If banks don't do it then other players will. Banks currently have an advantage over other players because they can create money. If money is available through interest free loans there will be plenty of other organisations to lend existing money.
Kevin Cox
Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Canberra
William thanks for the questions.
The banks are the main way the money supply increases. That is why they are critical. 10% fractional reserve means banks can loan out 90 dollars for every 10 dollars of reserves. What this means is that if a bank has 10 dollars in reserves it can give 90 dollars in loans provided there is security for the 90 dollars created and provided there is 100 dollars in a readily available form (normally cash on deposits) to cover the 90 dollars of loans plus the 10…
show full commentDavid Collett
logged in via Twitter
"Banks could give interest free loans for new assets, if the government guaranteed the loans. To be politically acceptable the loans could be for community infrastructure projects and the loans could be widely distributed throughout the community."
I disagree with this, community infrastructure projects should be paid for out of taxpayers money where they provide sufficient positive externalities since they are usually not profitable in a conventional business sense. Making banks fund the projects…
show full commentDavid Collett
logged in via Twitter
Excellent article Kevin, you have given this a lot of thought.
Michael Burrows
Mr
logged in via email @gmail.com
Way to go Kevin! – create some income streams; mind you, there are probably some bureaucrats, that will over regulate your ideas: and make them less effective.
Carbon Tax, Mining Rent Resources Tax are other income streams that may assist our ‘prosperity’ in these troubled times.
The release of land (at AFFORDABLE prices) would also stimulate a bit of activity. Ha-ha imagine the ‘wealth correction’ – young couple 4Br, media room, pool, 2 car, X-Box w/60” Plasma take a reality check as ‘their false…
show full commentSteve Foster
Area Manager
logged in via email @bigpond.com
Great article. I am clearly no money expert, but couldn't this trouble be solved through the abolition of the Central Banking System? No money multiplier effect, and money which then has real value.
A brief extract from Griffiin:
Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal…
show full commentBryan Kavanagh
Research Associate, Land Values Research Group
logged in via email @lvrg.org.au
Yes, I agree entirely. However, as our tax system gives a green light to property speculation--and a red light to production, thrift and exchange--perhaps we need first capture more of the economic rent of our land, as advocated by Ken Henry - so banks can't continue to lend against bubble-inflated land prices?
Couple that with getting rid of the 125 taxes on labour and capital recommended by Ken Henry's panel, then have the government spend money into existence on infrastructure as you suggest, instead of banks producing money as debt.
The combined effect of these actions would be to raise wages in a non-inflationary manner, to reduce household debt, and to raise land rents for the financing of government. This would also kickstart economies out of this slump, of course, but are our politicians listening?