Shadow, your accusation that I have no formal education in econmics whatsoever is a lie. As I told you before, I studied one economics course as part of my civil engineering degree.

"Before you seriously try and debate economics you should read at least one first year economics text to give you a rudimentary understanding of the concepts so that you don't sound like a blind person debating the use of colour by Van Gogh."
WTF do you think it is that I don't understand?

Aidan,

My engineering course also included a short course in Macroeconomics which essentially gave me a taste for further study. But only an extremely superficial understanding.

In a nutshell, what you clearly don't grasp is monetary policy, finance or any in depth knowledge of macroeconomics.

In spite of repeated requests you have failed to provide any evidence of central banks printing money outside of the handful of failed states we have discussed. Notably there are no cases of hyperinflation without the printing of money.

A little eco 101 for you. Aus gets a large portion of its investment and loans from outside the country. Both of these are dependent on the fiscal stability of the country and currency. The moment the government started to print money, the dollar would plunge and Aus's credit rating would tumble leading to a rapid outflow of capital, interest rates soaring and the fastest economic collapse in History.

Shadow, the problem seems to be that you have failed to comprehend that some of the stuff you learned at uni was incorrect.

If you want evidence of central banks printing money, have a look at http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/money-supply-m0 and set the chart to go back a few decades. You can even compare it with other countries' M0 (or M1, as the definitions vary between countries) to see that we're not unique in this.

Countries are reluctant to borrow from their own central banks, mainly for historical reasons (because doing so WAS a hyperinflation risk in the Bretton Woods era, even though it isn't any more), partly for bank liquidity reasons, and maybe there is also a fear of spooking the markets as some traders may be under the same false impression as you. However even if a few traders did get spooked, it would only be one of many factors affecting the dollar's value, and the price wouldn't fall very far – it may plunge a US cent or two, but it's no scarier to traders than the QE that other countries have. Our dollar's long term value is driven by imports and exports, and is ultimately self correcting – if it falls, our exports are cheaper and we export more and import less; if it rises we import more and export less.

Aidan,

Yes my problem is that I trust the 99.99% of economists and Nobel Laureates that have built up a body of knowledge (of which an undergraduate degree covers the basic building blocks) over your gut feel. I look forward to you pointing out which part of the theory of the economics degree is wrong, as I am sure there are millions of Phds and a handful of Nobel laureates waiting with baited breath.

This skepticism is enhanced when once again you "prove" that central banks are printing money by providing a link that does nothing of the sort. Clearly you have no concept of the M0 money supply. (this includes liquid assets such as cash, bonds, forex etc.) The US Federal reserve is injecting money into the economy without "printing". This is done by borrowing money at low rates by selling treasury bonds, and in turn buying higher interest company bonds of those wanting to invest.

Shadow, if you think 99.99% of economists concur, it suggests your knowledge of them is very limited. As Keynes himself reputedly said, "if all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they'd still point in different directions"!

The things you think you know that are likely to be wrong are the ones that are based on false assumptions. Not having an economics degree myself, I am not sufficiently familiar with its content to determine which bits of it are wrong, but fortunately Prof Bill Mitchell does, is, and have already done so. It is his evidence and reasoning, not any kind of gut feeling, that I based my opinions on.

This does not mean that I uncritically accept his views. I don't. I disagree with many of his political views, I don't think financial transactions should be as tightly regulated as he does, and I totally reject his assumption that the trend of increasing private sector debt is unsustainable. So if you've got a sensible objection to what he's saying, I'm all ears. But totally unsupported claims about highly illogical restrictions on what the central bank can lend will get the short shrift they deserve, and assumptions that any direct borrowing will send currency traders into a complete panic will be treated with a large amount of skepticism. The fact that the RBA engages in open market operations means that, like QE, it would be a procedural change that wouldn't have a huge effect on the final financial outcome.

And if you think an increase in the base money supply isn't evidence of printing money, where do you think it comes from?

Aidan,

I wish you would actually read my posts, as I just gave a prime example in the US's QE that creates money in the economy without necessary "printing" an additional cent. The "base" money supply which includes cash but consists mostly of "liquid" assets increases significantly if the liquid asset base (bonds) increases even if the cash component remains static. But you would know this if you had understood even the rudiments of money theory.

As for economists disagreeing, no one will claim that any scientist, or economist is in complete agreement with any other of his profession. However, whilst they may disagree on the finer points and often on interpretation of incomplete data, they all agree on the basic fundamentals which forms the bulk of the undergraduate degree.

If you are prepared to pin your colours to Bilbo's " evidence and reasoning", especially given it turns conventional economics on it head, then it would only be reasonable for you to share it. I have yet to see this in any of the links you have provided.