Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



The return of private banking?

| 1 Comment

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about an ice cream parlor in Pittsburgh that operates a small "banking" business on the side. The shop owner, Ethan Clay, accepts deposits and offers 5.5% monthly interest, paid in the form of store credit, redeemable in ice cream, coffee, waffles, etc. He'll extend small loans for a flat rate and will cash checks. It's an honest business and his customers, are delighted to participate.

Naturally, the State of Pennsylvania is doing everything it can to shut him down. The Journal quotes Ed Novak, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Banking: "We are going to do something. You can't mess with people's money." It's hard to beat the irony of a banking regulator complaining about "messing with people's money." How, one wonders, would Mr. Novak describe what his overlords at the Federal Reserve have been doing? Flooding the market with dollars, artificially levitating the stock market and depressing interest rates -- does he imagine that none of this (all brought to you by the unelected mandarins at the Federal Reserve) has "messed" with the value of everybody's money?

As the Journal reports, the big problem is that the State isn't exactly sure how to shut down Mr. Clay. The article quotes Richard Sylla, financial historian at NYU, who observes that there is a common-law right to engage in banking. But private banks have fallen out of favor because they lack government-backed insurance. Fair enough, but if the customers are willing to take a chance in return for 5.5% monthly interest, payable in ice cream, why should the State intervene? Mr. Novak warns that a return to the "private banks" of the nineteenth century is too risky. "Banking in the 19th century was a hit-or-miss proposition," he says.

Worse than today? Consider this report from Cato, which examined the history of nineteenth century banking, in which both state-chartered and unchartered "free" banks issued their own banknotes without any central coordination from the federal government.

By 1860 there were more than 1,600 private corporations issuing banknotes and an estimated 8,370 varieties of notes "in form, color, size, and manner of security." . . . The U.S. economy grew at an average rate of 4.4 percent per annum over this period, while prices fell at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent. GDP was 20 times higher at the end of the period, while the price level remained roughly constant, indicating that competing banks provided neither too many nor too few notes during this period of strong economic growth.

One might argue that the economy could use more entrepreneurs like Mr. Clay "messing" with people's money.

1 Comment

It is an interesting marketing concept - Ice Cream Store/Ersatz Bank. Can't he get money for less than 5.5% at the bank?

Are we going back to the wild west days of laissez faire capitalism of the 19th Century? Personally I don't have an objection to it. Or the Evil Age of Lochner?

When you consider Parrish, The New Deal, Galbraith, The Great Society Regulations and all the rest that followed there is a lot of toothpaste to put back into the tube. I'm not up to the challenge. Are you? Politicians seem to like the power concentrated in state capitols and DC.

What surprises me is that there is no regulation that will directly apply to this case. What have those boys and girls up in Harrisburg been doing all this time?

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.