There are many ways to think about it, but one I find amusing is that a national currency is a federated system of many smaller currencies that trade at par.
Paper money is clearly not the same thing as an electronic record in a bank account. Paper can't be stored in a database. They are kept equivalent because banks (and people) trade them at par, for example using ATM's.
Each bank (including central banks) has its own computer system for its accounts. Bank account money never leaves a bank's computers. There's no way to get it out of the computer, any more than you can remove your virtual treasure from an online role playing game.
So this seems like a good way of thinking about what happens when a bank creates money. They can create virtual currency in their own computer system, not in anyone else's. It doesn't make them richer, any more than a game company creating virtual gold pieces makes them richer. The money is either meaningless (if held by the bank itself) or a liability (if it belongs to a bank customer). To a bank, only outside money counts as wealth.
Transfers happen via trades. To pay anyone not using the same computer system, a bank needs outside money of some form.
So inside money and outside money are clearly different. To a customer, money in Bank A might seem equivalent to money in Bank B, but to Bank A, only dollars in Bank B are assets, and to Bank B, only dollars in Bank A are assets.
So, one way to approach the "what is money" question might be to look at payment systems. How is it that all these different sub-currencies are made to trade at par?
Realising this is what made money a lot easier to understand for me, and simplified the difference between different kinds of money. In the end its easier just to think of them as different currencies with stable pegs. It answers questions like - how can the banks issue money? Of course some of them are easier to exchange with (e.g. bank credit over notes) and this makes them more useful in trades.
For example (bank money = real money) only because the bank is willing to keep the peg at (1.00 bank credit = 1.00 real currency) as you state whenever you use an ATM, take money out at the counter, etc. When the bank runs out of real money to maintain this peg it can and has deviated in the past (e.g. people selling their bank accounts at say 30c to the dollar in the great depression). In normal times however their much smaller money stock is enough to keep the peg going against the usual net deposit/withdrawal flow.
Of course if a central bank comes in and can lend that bank unlimited real money the peg could be maintained. Indeed that can and has happened.
There are some ideas to implement negative interest rates on bank accounts only but keeping cash by introducing a second cash currency that explicitly does not follow a stable peg. I.e. inflation targeting only has to be done on cash not bank accounts. Bank accounts will get price level targeting which means no inflation.
I guess what I don't understand by this proposal is how the exchange rate is actually maintained. Will they print a lot more cash to keep the exchange rate depreciating as thus? The devil will be in the detail of this.
Paper money is clearly not the same thing as an electronic record in a bank account. Paper can't be stored in a database. They are kept equivalent because banks (and people) trade them at par, for example using ATM's.
Each bank (including central banks) has its own computer system for its accounts. Bank account money never leaves a bank's computers. There's no way to get it out of the computer, any more than you can remove your virtual treasure from an online role playing game.
So this seems like a good way of thinking about what happens when a bank creates money. They can create virtual currency in their own computer system, not in anyone else's. It doesn't make them richer, any more than a game company creating virtual gold pieces makes them richer. The money is either meaningless (if held by the bank itself) or a liability (if it belongs to a bank customer). To a bank, only outside money counts as wealth.
Transfers happen via trades. To pay anyone not using the same computer system, a bank needs outside money of some form.
So inside money and outside money are clearly different. To a customer, money in Bank A might seem equivalent to money in Bank B, but to Bank A, only dollars in Bank B are assets, and to Bank B, only dollars in Bank A are assets.
So, one way to approach the "what is money" question might be to look at payment systems. How is it that all these different sub-currencies are made to trade at par?