Skip to main content

What are two ways the government could encourage an increase in the supply of loanable funds? And two ways the government could encourage an...

The supply of loanable funds comes from two things: Savings, and fractional-reserve banking.

When people save money in banks, that money is available to be loaned. But this is relatively unimportant actually; what matters is instead the money created by banks using that saved money as reserves. About 90% of the money supply loaned by banks is created by the banking system, not originally from savings.

The ratio between money supply and reserves is called the money multiplier, and it is capped by the reserve requirement set by the government.

So, there are essentially two ways for the government to increase the supply of loanable funds; they could either find a way to increase the amount of money saved, or they could increase the money multiplier.

The former can be done by various means; one of the most successful has been Save More Tomorrow, a system based on insights from cognitive economics that makes it the default to save a portion of your increases in pay over time---by making it a default and focusing on increases, we avoid decision inertia that makes people prefer to do nothing when they don't know what to do, as well as the loss aversion they feel when being asked to give up what they currently have.

But the easiest way to increase the supply of loanable funds is simply to cut the reserve requirement, allowing banks to increase the money multiplier. The usual reserve requirement is 10%, so the multiplier is 1/10% = 10 times. But you could also lower it to say 5%, a multiplier of 20 times.

Now, how could the government increase demand for loanable funds? The chief determinant of demand for loans is interest rates---people are more willing to take out loans if the interest rates are lower. Certain other types of regulations can also act as an additional cost to getting a loan, a sort of "shadow interest rate."

So, you want to lower the interest rate; how do you do that? The most common way is by open-market monetary policy, where the central bank purchases assets (usually government bonds) to drive up their prices and therefore drive down their yields, which in turn lowers interest rates. This is, in fact, the go-to method for responding to a recession; buy up a lot of bonds to bring interest rates down, increase the money supply, get people spending again and get out of the recession.

The government could also raise demand for loans by taking out loans directly, raising the deficit---deficit fiscal policy. When the government borrows more, this raises the demand for loans directly, which raises the market interest rate. This can create crowding out, where the higher interest rates reduce the private demand for loans---but it's usually much less than the amount that the public demand for loans increased, so total demand goes up. By combining fiscal and monetary policy, you can actually increase the money supply and get out of a recession without changing the nominal interest rate. (You can also trigger inflation that way, so you do have to be careful.)

If instead the government started paying back loans, reducing the deficit or even making it negative---surplus fiscal policy, this would lower interest rates, but for the wrong reasons; private demand for loans would probably increase, but not as much as public demand had directly decreased. This can be a good idea if you are at full employment and you're worried about inflation; but it wouldn't make sense as a way of increasing the money supply in response to a recession.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more