Shadow,
If you've got the degrees you say you have, surely you have the critical thinking skills to separate out the economic claims Bill makes and his own far left liberal views?

"I also looked for any reference to reserve banks 'creating money' without funding this through... bonds, and I could not find this anywhere."
His posts are categorised. I suggest you try the Debriefing 101 and Economics categories.

"I cannot find a single example of 'printing money' outside the 3 disasters I mentioned previously. "
And that, Bill convincingly argues, is due to a combination of convention (with procedures in place since the Bretton Woods era), bank liquidity considerations, and misplaced concern about its effects.

But the most important thing is that central bank lending to commercial banks is neither funded nor matched by bond issues.

Like yourself, I am still waiting for you to provide a single credible link i.e. from a bank showing what you claim. Misinformation is rife in economics. The myths that printing money is sufficient to cause hyperinflation and that governments shouldn't borrow directly from their own central banks are very widespread – indeed I used to believe them myself. But nowhere, other than from you, have I ever encountered the claim that central banks can't lend their own currency to commercial banks without borrowing the money from somewhere else first.

"Secondly, I can understand that for those like you with no formal education in economics that the subject might appear to be magic and the gods such as Keynes and Friedman make pronouncements that are followed slavishly by lesser mortals."
I'll let those with no formal education in economics speak for themselves, but I've never regarded the subject as magic or any economists as gods. They are not to be slavishly followed, but it is sensible to follow the evidence.

It was never Bill's opinion that attracted me to his blog; rather it was his careful mathematical analysis of the situation and his refutation of the assumptions about the markets and human interaction that many of the widespread economic theories are based on.

Shadow what's wrong with a bit of slavish following. You are a slavish follower of Liberal Party economic nonsense, you hang on the crazy economic word of the Mad Monk and Joe Cocky. How more slavish can you get!

Aidan,

Despite my shortage of spare time, I did wade through the dross that is bilbo's blog. What I completely failed to find was any claim on his part that the RBA simply creates money, only his opinion stating that it should. I also failed to find any "careful mathematical analysis" unless you version of mathematics does not extend past year 9.

What I did find however, were many posts pointing out the benefits of taking on endless debt to build infrastructure. Which while I disagree with the principle for obvious reasons, it does acknowledge the practice of funding deficits through borrowing and not through "printing" money.

The status so far is that you, with admittedly zero economics background have stated an opinion that is at odds with economics as taught at every reputable university and backed by nobel laureates. Your single link to support your point actually does quite the opposite.

At this point you have the credibility of a homeless man with a "the end is nigh" sign.

Shadow,
"Despite my shortage of spare time, I did wade through the dross that is bilbo's blog. What I completely failed to find was any claim on his part that the RBA simply creates money, only his opinion stating that it should."
Did you miss http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=352 ?

What he's claiming the RBA should do is lend money straight to the government. But the fact remains that the RBA also lends money to commercial banks.

"I also failed to find any "careful mathematical analysis" unless you version of mathematics does not extend past year 9."
What a weird comment! Is a proof any less valid just because it doesn't require differential equations?

"What I did find however, were many posts pointing out the benefits of taking on endless debt to build infrastructure. Which while I disagree with the principle for obvious reasons, it does acknowledge the practice of funding deficits through borrowing and not through 'printing' money."
By convention. But he frequently makes the claim that government spending is unconstrained.

"The status so far is that you, with admittedly zero economics background have stated an opinion that is at odds with economics as taught at every reputable university and backed by nobel laureates. "
Your accusation that I have zero economics background is not admitted, it's false.

Stating opinions contradictory to those of economists is no big deal – other economists do it all the time.

But your claim about central banks being unable to lend other than what they have borrowed is blatantly false, and so easily refuted by any central banker, that I doubt you could name one economist in the world who believes it!

Aidan,

You are backflipping more than a gymnast. You said "It was never Bill's opinion that attracted me to his blog; rather it was his careful mathematical analysis of the situation", and then when I challenge you claim " Is a proof any less valid just because it doesn't require differential equations?" A proof without detailed analysis (usually with some level of mathematics) is not a proof only an opinion.

Bilbo's Bloggings contains essentially only opinion which is shared by no reputable economists.

I also note that you link to Bilbo's blog it is not the RBA that simply creates the money. The RBA acts like a bank in that it trades in financial assets such as bonds forex etc. The "creation" in the post you linked is essentially the RBA buying the fantasy bonds that the government issues which is in essence the government creating money. This is possible but generally never done due to the consequences as experienced by Germany, Argentina and Zimbabwe. (I purchased on ebay a $100 000 000 000 000 Zimbabwe note which at the time had real value of about 50c

Shadow I'm not backflipping at all. A proof that needs university level maths to understand has no intrinsic advantage over one that relies on more basic concepts. NONE of the year 9 level stuff is invalidated by what people learn afterwards.

I admit the stuff he's been posting more recently contains more opinion, but he has already dealt with the proof.

As I said, I too once believed that a government borrowing money directly from its own central bank led to hyperinflation. Bill satisfactorily explained why it didn't. Although it helps control the money supply, it's not actually needed if the central bank pays interest on the deposits the commercial banks make with it. The German hyperinflation was due to the lack of an effective tax system; when the Weimar Republic implemented one, their currency quickly stabilised. Argentina had made the terrible mistake of pegging its currency to the US dollar - see http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21418 . Zimbabwe printed money to finance a war, while simultaneously persecuting their main export industry and discouraging foreign investment. It couldn't've done any more to fail if it had tried to!

I'd gained the impression that a government borrowing money directly from its own central bank led to hyperinflation from Jeffrey Sachs's description of the Bolivian hyperinflation (which he'd ended) in his book The End of Poverty. But Bill pointed out one thing that Sachs had neglected to mention: the cause of the hyperinflation was the sudden need for foreign currency for the government to pay back a loan. The advantage of borrowing through the banking system rather than direct is that it enables a country to escape an emergency by defaulting, yet the consequences of defaulting are so bad that going into hyperinflation is regarded as preferable, so there's really no advantage at all. Far better to stick to your own floating currency so you can avoid the problem altogether.