You simplified the whole thing in two words Supplies=savers Demand = borrowers Thank you❤️
@felexkomen849828 күн бұрын
Thanks
@masokys5 жыл бұрын
Bless you, Mr. Sal
@bronzor17184 жыл бұрын
AP macro test anyone?
@alexcantin22463 жыл бұрын
How'd you do?
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
How'd the AP test go?
@Trapahead2347 ай бұрын
:(
@agentxstudiosofficial6 ай бұрын
@@Trapahead234 2 days yikes
@JustBeClever6 жыл бұрын
It’s too bad that the suppliers (savers) of loanable funds get screwed over by a .01% interest rate while the banks take those funds and loan them for up to a 20% interest rate depending on borrower credit.
@glennwatson3313 Жыл бұрын
If your bank is charging you 20% on a simple loan get a new bank.
@victoriaowen78693 жыл бұрын
Is there a video on how this is impacted by elasticity?
@luvu4evr0004 жыл бұрын
thanks for this
@akotofiq83942 жыл бұрын
🙏🏻 thanks for these videos
@johnbiesterfeldt50445 жыл бұрын
But banks don't lend out our deposits. Banks create loans 100% from credit, which means that there is no limited pile of "loanable funds," which also means that the supply v. demand function doesn't apply here. And we can see this, because interest rates really don't move with demand in the way a S v D model would predict.
@teddyj.31984 жыл бұрын
Nailed it
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
I thought that banks *do* loan out deposits; they just have to keep part of them on-hand because of the reserve ratio.
@johnbiesterfeldt50442 жыл бұрын
@@PunmasterSTP Nope. Reserves and bank deposits are actually two very distinct types of money. Reserves are liabilities of the central bank, and bank deposits (account balances) are liabilities of the commercial bank. Think of it like cash and poker chips. You play the game with the chips, but you settle up at the end of the game with cash. Just like we transact (mostly) with bank account balances, and the banks settle up with reserves.
@joecurran2811 Жыл бұрын
That is correct but where supply and demand DOES come into it is there has to be a demand of borrowers who are willing yo borrow and a supply of banks who will create the credit. Additionally, interest rates also affect the amount of credit in the system, at least indirectly.
@thulanimthembu71822 жыл бұрын
Really impressed
@sanchitadas473 жыл бұрын
So is the interest rate of savers and borrowers same ?
@andylorimer14072 жыл бұрын
savers like higher interest rates, the loans they give out will have a higher return, where as borrowers favor lower rates as they can borrow money for cheaper.
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
At equilibrium, yes, it should be the same for both.
@muslihahmunahar7594 жыл бұрын
i am super understand! thank you so much!
@ParthivDesaii3 жыл бұрын
what if, govt increase taxation on interest and dividend ?
@glennwatson3313 Жыл бұрын
If Congress increases taxes on interest then savers save less. If Congress increases taxes on dividends then people who buy stock buy less stock.
@bucko23076 жыл бұрын
Is this the right video Hartman?
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
I came across your video and I was just curious. Who's Hartman?
@kingcobra7700 Жыл бұрын
@@PunmasterSTP I am also curious. Who's Hartman?
@PunmasterSTP Жыл бұрын
@@kingcobra7700 Sadly I'm not sure we'll ever know. @bucko2307 had one video on his channel, which mentioned a "Cameron", but I have no idea about this Hartman character.
@Charvak-Atheist2 жыл бұрын
but here what is the role of Central Banks ?
@ktrnaman2 жыл бұрын
no central bank in classical model as it is not autonomous in that period.
@joecurran2811 Жыл бұрын
Austrian economists sat the central banker keep interst rates too low for too long leading to a credit bubble and subsequent crash. Other economists, probably Marxists aside, tend to be more positive.
@srilaakha88653 жыл бұрын
Suppose government provides tax rebate to small business on their business-related expenditure. Assuming no change in government budgetary position, this policy is likely to have a positive effect on household (or private) saving in the economy (Hint: think about the effect of this policy in Loanable Funds Market) how do i answer this question
@sarahkhan85262 жыл бұрын
Did u find ge answer? If yes, pls do tell. I m curious too
@riteshraj60372 жыл бұрын
In this scenario supplier is more and demand is less that's shift DL to left and reduce the wages
@-xziaz-783915 күн бұрын
Going to shift demand to the right wich will increase the interest on household savings?
@WorldWideSk8boarding3 жыл бұрын
is this the same as money demand and money supply ?
@andylorimer14072 жыл бұрын
no
@WorldWideSk8boarding2 жыл бұрын
@@andylorimer1407 so the demand for borrowing money(L(r,y)) and the supply of money being lent(vertical line representing money in circulation) is not the same as “money demand” & “money supply” ? I just thought its the same thing, except that one is represented by interest rates & output while the graph in this this video is represented by r & quantity of money
@simonebeerendonk35725 жыл бұрын
omg loveyou
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
Asteroid mining? Elon, did you hear that?
@tim1ver1706 жыл бұрын
Fourth!!!!
@shaahin68183 жыл бұрын
This is very wrong. No bank lends deposits. They create money when they lend
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
I think it's fair to say that a bank "lends out deposits". When people save money at banks, the banks would have to keep some of that money on-hand as reserves (due to the presence of the reserve ratio) and then they could lend out the rest. Because of the multiplier effect, this would effectively create more money in the economy, but I think it's still okay to think of deposits as being lent out.
@johnbiesterfeldt50442 жыл бұрын
@@PunmasterSTP Lending accumulated money would not increase the amount of money in the economy (how could it?). It WOULD increase the amount of *credit*, though. That theory (which is incorrect, but...) would have "real" money zipping around in the economy, with about 10x as much in bank accounts (with no "real" money backing up those balances, save for a bit "in reserve"). Now - make the logical leap, and we are describing a credit creation system, as opposed to a fractional reserve system or a financial intermediary system. There is "real" money, and there is credit. Governments and their central banks create "real" money (reserves), and banks create credit. Banks cannot create reserves - they have accounts at the central bank (who is also the settlement agent), and these accounts are used for interbank settlement. What deposits do for banks is this: they bring in reserves, which banks need for settlement (and for meeting reserve requirements). But it is wrong to think that reserves are loaned out. A bank can create millions in new loans, but as long as money coming into the bank is approximately equal to money going out, very few reserves will ever be needed for net settlement.
@PunmasterSTP2 жыл бұрын
@@johnbiesterfeldt5044 Thanks for your message and I think I am understanding what you are saying. I agree that it is the government and central banks that create money and that commercial banks can only create credit. But metaphorically, I think it's reasonable to say that commercial banks create "money", at least in a loose sense. I think it's a situation somewhat similar to virtual memory. A program running in a computer might have no idea of how much RAM is actually installed in the system, and how much space (if any) is dedicated to the swap file on the harddrive. As far as that program is concerned, it just has access to a certain amount of memory, no matter how much is "real" (actual RAM) or "virtual" (on disk). Philosophically, I think you could even say that governments don't create money. It's the will of the people or a social contract that ultimately establishes the government's legitimacy and "credits" it with the ability to create a currency which can serve as a medium of exchange. Like a lot of things in life, I think situations with money and memory can be subject to many points of view...
@johnbiesterfeldt50442 жыл бұрын
@@PunmasterSTP Yes, banks absolutely do create money - M1 money, the stuff we transact with - and they create the vast majority of that. But we need to be clear in differentiating between bank-created and government-created money, even though there is some intersection there. I found it helpful to start with bank-created money, since banks can operate without any government-created money at all (or a central bank). They can create loans for borrowers by expanding their balance sheets (which is why we call it "credit money"), and they can settle up interbank transactions via settlement accounts, where Bank A creates, say, a $100K balance for Bank B, and Bank B does the same for Bank A. Settlement is then completed by adding or subtracting from those settlement accounts as net interbank transactions dictate. Banks also used to print up their own banknotes. No govt. help necessary, but central banks are very helpful as both a settlement agent and as a backstop to prevent bank failures. Govt.-created money sits atop banks on the hierarchy. The central bank is the banks' bank, and the government's bank. Central banks are not subject to debt failures, as long as they only deal in their own currency. They can operate in the red. If you are interested, I go over all of this stuff in detail on Quora.
@shaahin68182 жыл бұрын
@@PunmasterSTP This has been rejected over and over, even BoE and Fed published articles to refute the money multiplier and fractional reserve banking. Richard Werner 2014, 2016 showed it in the first empirical study as well. This video is misinformation.