Karnal wrote on Oct 23
rd, 2025 at 4:30pm:
[quote]We have an independent Reserve Bank that handles all the money creation. One of its jobs is to create money on their computer to pay all the government's wonderful employees and programs. In turn, they use the cash to pay off their loans to the bank, and there you have it, the economy in action - a vast spiral of activity, promises to pay, and time.
"We have an independent Reserve Bank that handles all the money creation".
Mainstream error #1:
In the current obsolete Neoclassical economy, most money is created in private banks when they write loans - create deposits - for credit worthy customers.
(google)
Yes, most new money is created when private banks make new loans to creditworthy customers, a process often described as "credit creation". When a bank approves a loan, it creates a new deposit in the borrower's account, which is a form of electronic money that can be spent. This means the loan comes first, and the deposit is created to fund it..
Hence your assertion: "an independent Reserve Bank .... handles all the money creation" is vague; the central bank in our system is a semi-private entity which acts as a reserve bank for all the private banks; and:
(google)
The government borrows by issuing securities to the public and institutions at market interest rates. However, the RBA does provide a crucial function for the government by managing cash flows, and in very rare circumstances, it may provide a limited overdraft facility to cover temporary mismatches between spending and revenue. Nothing about central bank money creation there.
You may be referring to QE, a rare process in which the government authorizes the reserve bank to issue money to banks , to increase liquidity in the banking system during an economic downturn.
(But QE is ineffective, because people don't want to borrow money from banks in a downturn).
Finally, the next paragraph in the google article quote above:
How the government funds itself
Borrows from the public: The government fully funds its deficit by issuing government bonds to the private sector and other investors. Hence the notorious "taxpayer money" which funds government, either by taxes or bonds.
And there-in lies the cause of the impending collapse of democracy, ie government funding via "the private sector and other investors": the government can NEVER raise enough funds from the private sector to fund an economy which works for all because bond holders demand government's "live within their means" - remember Liz Truss's fate when bond vigilantes reacted badly to her "unfunded" budget.
While most people - even rich people - want LOWER taxes, and demand government 'balance the budget (like households must do).
(And btw, the PBofC is equally deluded by the Western mainstream
government-debt-bad" narrative, so you can stop saying "... we do it this way in Oz").
Quote:The march of compound interest, as
Walt Rostow called it. It's how our economy works, interest adding to economic growth and more money, always on the up and up. Once economies get into the swing of this, there's no going back - until you get a financial crisis, but by then, you should have the savings to weather it out.
1. Compound interest only benefits savers; a large minority of the low-wage work-force and 'welfare' recipients can NEVER save.
2. Financial crises are a regular feature of neoclassical economies; and central banks with their absurd NAIRU dogma regularly ruin many lives while attempting to control inflation by wrecking the economy, and increasing unemployment.
Sure enough, a year or so ago when the unemployment rate was 3.5%, Bullock said "unemployment will have to increase to 4.5% to bring down inflation" - and here we are, with the latest unemployment rate just ticking up to 4.5%....job done!
Pity those now forced to join the ranks of those living on Job Seeker.
Add the involuntary under-employed and those who have givng up looking for work and are therefor not even counted in the stats, we have a million and half workers not being able to work to keep themselves out of poverty, in Oz.
(To be cont).
True, but the RBA's held off recession for the past 30-odd years in Australia, dear.
I know you'll say, yes but that's just one measure of suffering, consider the effects of the Asian Financial Crisis, the GFC, and covid on countries without government stimulus packages.
Read your Walt Rostow in the link. Compound interest doesn't just apply to savers, it was the main theory of economic development in the 60s and 70s, prior to neoliberalism.
I'd be wary of applying macro economic solutions to the lives of the working poor, dear. While that's definitely a job for governments, those of us who've received benefits and lived poor may prefer to see themselves having a little more agency.
Who knows? We well may be wrong.