The ratio of the "stock of money" (currency plus demand deposits) to bank reserves fell dramatically in the US in 2008 and been variable since that time. This phenomenon is best explained by a variable money multiplier.
Answer: False
The answer is False.
It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that there is no unique relationship of the sort characterised by the erroneous money multiplier model in mainstream economics textbooks between bank reserves and the 'stock of money'.
You will note that in MMT there is very little spoken about the money supply. In an endogenous money world there is very little meaning in the aggregate.
The mainstream theory of money and monetary policy asserts that the money supply (volume) is determined exogenously by the central bank. That is, they have the capacity to set this volume independent of the market. The monetarist portfolio approach claims that the money supply will reflect the central bank injection of high-powered (base) money and the preferences of private agents to hold that money. This is the so-called money multiplier.
So the central bank is alleged to exploit this multiplier (based on private portfolio preferences for cash and the reserve ratio of banks) and manipulate its control over base money to control the money supply.
To some extent these ideas were a residual of the commodity money systems where the central bank could clearly control the stock of gold, for example. But in a credit money system, this ability to control the stock of "money" is undermined by the demand for credit.
The theory of endogenous money is central to the horizontal analysis in MMT. When we talk about endogenous money we are referring to the outcomes that are arrived at after market participants respond to their own market prospects and central bank policy settings and make decisions about the liquid assets they will hold (deposits) and new liquid assets they will seek (loans).
The essential idea is that the 'money supply' is demand-determined - as the demand for credit expands so does the money supply.
As credit is repaid the money supply shrinks. These flows are going on all the time and the stock measure we choose to call the money supply, say M3 is just an arbitrary reflection of the credit circuit.
So the supply of money is determined endogenously by the level of GDP, which means it is a dynamic (rather than a static) concept.
Central banks clearly do not determine the volume of deposits held each day. These arise from decisions by commercial banks to make loans.
The central bank can determine the price of "money" by setting the interest rate on bank reserves. Further expanding the monetary base (bank reserves), however, does not lead to an expansion of credit.
So a declining ratio of some money stock measure to bank reserves is best explained by the fact that credit creation is being constrained by some factor - such as a recession.
You might like to read these blog posts for further information:
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2019 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.