REDUCE YOUR GDP
you pay MORE intrest

its just too clever..!
""GDP is the sum of all transactions,""

and taxes ensure govt collects at least a quater of it
[figure out how much tax your paying]

""The extra money needed
because of growth will be a fraction of GDP.""

bazz..think
every penny needs more pennies to pay the intrest
but its only got..with a promise of paying back MORE

we can never have enough to pay all the intrest
only by promising ever more..can you get it

EVERY cent is lent
WITH INTREST

thus for you to pay your debts
with my money..i need to default paying mine back
[thats the only way you can get their notes]

only money there is
WAS lent at intrest into egsistance

""zero growth that will no longer a factor.""
intrst keps growing
till someone goes broke
ie italy ireland spain italy uk australia.etc etc
WE ARE ALL PAYING INTRST*

""Will then the RBA start buying back money and burning it?"

they allready do

""If not all that extra money sloshing about will cause inflation.""

yes think about WHERE THE NEXT BATCH OF MONEY CAN COME FROM
someone must lend it
then pay back MORE than they lent

Bazz,"Where dose new money come from?" It is mostly created by private central banks in their computers as debt.I heard one figure that the US Federal Reserve has created $20 trillion from nothing and loaned it out to institutions and Govts around the planet.This they call "quantitative easing" but in reality depreciates our money making us poorer and the elites richer.

If you want a really simple explanation get on youtube and see Paul Grignons' 'Money as Debt' It does it in cartoon form and looks at the history of money. While you are there,down load 'The secret of Oz' by Bill Still,it won the Biff International Award in 2010 for best documentary.

Once you study it and really understand the proper function of money in our society,it all becomes very clear.

Our RBA at the very least should be creating alll the new money to equal our inflation rate of 3%.This is $ 32 billion per year but we let off shore banks do it for us.That inflationary money depreciates your wages.That value actually belongs to you.

It is like you doing overtime and the boss says,"Tell you what Bazz,I'll do you a favour.I'll loan the money to you for that overtime you did and you can pay it back at interest." This is how insane the system is.We used to have 4 State Govt banks and the Commonwealth that created some of the money for infrastructure debt free.We now have to borrow all of our new money as debt from private banks.The RBA paid our Govt in 2008 a dividend of $500 million when the new money added to our economy as debt was 140 times this amount.

The basic question is,who should own the increases in your productivity? Private banks or our Govts who can give us a tax credit.We are all being taxed to the hilt to pay for debt to private OS banks.In 1976 total debt both public and private to OS banks was 3% of GDP.Now it is 53% of GDP or $750 billion plus Gillards debt.

"The basic question is,who should own the increases in your productivity? Private banks or our Govts who can give us a tax credit..."

Why shouldn't *you* own the increases in your productivity? Why do you assume it should be siphoned off into the pockets of some unwanted elite?

You still haven't given any reason why money needs to be created in line with increases in productivity or population.

And just because governments "can" give you a tax credit, having been given the power to siphon off your increases in productivity for their own benefit, what makes you think they *will*, rather than pocket the difference as they usually do with their revenue increases?

Govts will do the right thing by us Peter if we have a proper Constitution that limits their excesses.As Ron Paul says,a constitution is there to protect the people from their Govts.

We don't have a Constitution that represents the will of the people.There needs to be a Bill of rights/reponsibilities that makes Govt accountable,the finance system and our legal system.The last time someone really thought about it was the formulation of the US Constitution and before that the Magna Carta.The US Constitution has been dismantled firstly in 1913 with the introduction of the private US federal Reserve,and now with Bush/Obama via the Patriot Act and Preventative Dentention.

Under Howards' Sedition Laws anyone of us can be gaoled without trial indefinetly on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist or attempting to bring down a Govt.Very broad definitions that can quickly cause a society to close down and self censor.

"Govts will do the right thing by us Peter if we have a proper Constitution that limits their excesses"

The problem is Arjay that those written Constitutions don't work. For example, the US Constitution makes the Fed illegal in 3 ways:
1. firstly it says the only powers of the federal government are limited to those set out in the relevant section, and controlling interest rates is not among them
2. secondly it says that government shall make nothing but gold coin a tender in payment of debts, which rules out paper money, and
3. the tenth amendment, which is in the bill of rights, says any power not granted to the feds is retained by the states and the people. This makes the Fed illegal. All the Presidents who presided over it should have been impeached.

Similar things have happened with the Australian Constitution - the High Court has interpreted it so expansively as to trash it. Basically they say it means 'The government can do what it wants'.

The problem is that all the checks and balances that are supposed to keep it within the explicit limits it provides - are all comprised of *government agencies*.

So there's no evidence that that a properly written Constitution will be able to stop the government from abusing a power to print money - because it's not true.

You know, don't you, that the originator of the idea that the money supply should be increased in line with productivity was Milton Friedman, the dean of the Chicago School during the Reagan years? He wrestled with this problem - how to set up a government authority to inflate the currency, but not too much. The best he could come up with is a constitutional amendment to confer power to inflate within a stated range, but not even he thought that was satisfactory. And so it isn't!

Considering the enormous damage that inflation does, not just to the whole structure of the economy, and to social justice, but also to society's *moral* values of honesty, and work, and savings, and prudence, we have to ask, what is the original problem that is so bad, that a govt power to inflate is the solution?

Well? What is it? What would be so bad if the money supply was not inflated in line with productivity?