Pericles,

You cannot accept the idea of money being different from debt. As I have said previously double entry bookkeeping while having great utility does have its downfalls. One of these is that some people think that because you create money you have to create a loan because that is required to "account" for money. They are different things and simply because your method of accounting requires this does not make it a reality.

Even when I show you how to fit the system into double entry bookkeeping model by giving zero interest loans that may or may not be repaid you still do not accept the underlying proposition.

Unless you recognise this you will never understand what I am talking about and why it works.

Probably little use in continuing the dialogue - but thanks because it has helped me work out why people have this misconception that money = loans.

In my view Pericles is attempting to turn this discussion into one of semantics in an attempt to avoid acknowledging the incontrovertible evidence that private bankers' interests are immensely detrimental to the interests of society as a whole.

Pericles asks, "What on earth does 'originates as debt' mean?"

Then he answers his own question: "In the sense that anything that isn't actually in a physical form has to be recorded as a debit/credit transaction in the Bank's books, ..."

And with the debt, there is an obligation to pay back the debt with compounding interest which, as I have shown, is an impossible obligation for society, as a whole, to meet.

When governments assume the right to create money themselves, there need be no debt.

During the American Civil War, instead of borrowing from private banks to pay for goods and services, the US Government simply issued its own money as legal tender. Not only did they fund the war, but they funded a massive expansion of infrastructure and without incurring crippling debt.

Perhaps, Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser could learn a lot from this.

As I have shown the private bankers did not approve and that seems to be why President Lincoln was murdered shortly after the end of the war.

So, Pericles, instead of continuing to split hairs, why not tell us why you think it was a bad idea for Lincoln not to have financed the war by borrowing from banks?

And tell us why you think that North Dakota would be better off today without its state owned bank?

And why not tell us why you think the British Parliament was right in the middle of the 18th century to force the American Colonies to borrow from private British banks instead of simply printing their own money?

---

Yabby wrote, "Politicians, deciding to give away printed money to their favourite pork barrel, would be a disaster!"

Why need sovereign governments controlling the supply of money be a disaster?

As I have shown it can and has worked and has worked far better than (tobecontinued ...)

Pericles is very adept at reducing all economic activity as a double entry book keeping charade,since Pericles and many others realise the advantage that the finance industry has over the rest of society purely by having the ability to create counterfeit money legally.

This is the most powerful slight of hand that underpins the banking industry and it's financial parasites.

(... continuedfromabove) it has with any private banking system.

And if it occasionally doesn't work properly, then in a democracy, we can usually fix the problem by removing from office those who have mismanaged the finance system.

All the rest of the edifice of Yabby's case since then rests on this very shaky foundation.

---

Hear! Hear! Arjay (and Fickle Pickle, Grim and under one god also).

Whew, fortunately even politicians are smarter then many of the
cowboys posting on this thread :)

There are good reasons why central banks were set up in most
countries. For their job is to focus on keeping the economy
healthy and ticking over, not just winning the next election.

I can just see it now, Dagget's dream of hooking up election
promises, directly to the printing presses. In your next
breathe, you will be telling us, that you are concerned about
inflation!

Given that even politicians agree that they could not be
trusted with the above, frankly I think that you are peeing in the breeze of fantasy there.

As it is, central banks are still the only ones allowed to print
money, they are still under the control of parliaments and
their profits are paid back to treasuries.

Australian Govts did in fact compete directly in the
banking market, when they owned the Commonwealth Bank. It was
sold off however, to pay off Govt debt. Its easier for Govt
to simply cash in on the enormous amount of tax revenue that
banks generate, with no investment required. Consumers have
benefitted as well, for today bank spreads are roughly half of
what they used to be, in the days of the old Govt owned Commonwealth
bank.

its sad gabby can see govts cant be trusted with owning the henhouse/bank

but humans being human..those wanting to controle the money simply get into banking...lol...

where the same scum..get to run the hen house anyhow...[WITHOUT HAVING TO ACOUNT to pesky voters]

your points as usual are really pathetic gabby

if govts cant be trusted..then the same type in bankers costume..cant be trusted EITHER...

but your refusing to face facts...scum will do what scum does...at least if govt owned...the full proffits would return to the people

your other points are equally feeble..the govt control you imply..is via the fed or treasury...and who gets picked to run them...former bankers..like were seeing in usa...ALL members of the ursury boys club banker cartel