Shadow,
If you look at M1 instead of M0 you'll still see an upward trend.
Most money creation is done without literally printing money, but the effect is the same: the money supply increases. Accounting convention means that debt also increases so that everything sums to zero, but nobody who understands the system thinks that debt will, should, or even could, be eliminated in the future unless the system is replaced by something different.

I do not agree with your claim that Bill's evidence and reasoning turns conventional economics on its head. You, and indeed he, may like to think it does, but a lot of the apparent difference is due to his political views. Excluding those, there are five important things he understands that many mainstream economists don't:

1) Sectoral balances.
This SHOULD be Economics 101 stuff, but few mainstream economists even mention it and many make predictions that a basic knowledge of sectoral balances would show to be ridiculous, then act surprised (or worse still, refuse to even acknowledge any mistake) when events inevitably prove their predictions wrong.

2) Money creation does not depend on reserves.
Neither for central banks nor commercial banks. The amount of money in circulation depends on how much can be lent profitably at the interest rate the central bank sets (and commercial banks are also restricted by the Basel requirements).

3 Sovereign nations have unlimited credit.
So as long as it sticks to its current policy of only borrowing in Australian dollars, the government can always afford a stimulus when the economy needs it.

4) Countries will never need to reach a zero debt position.
And hence the concept of Ricardian Equivalence (which Ricardo himself never claimed to be true) is false. It also means any money the government borrows now will not have to be paid back by the next generation. Surpluses may sometimes be needed to control inflation, but never just to pay off debt. And hypothetically, if the government did reach a zero debt position, a surplus would be no less desirable for controlling inflation.

(continued)

5) What really causes hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation requires the printing of money, but avoiding printing money for fear of hyperinflation is like avoiding having electricity in your house for fear of electrocution!

All other factors being equal, printing money will just result in competitive devaluation. As other things are not equal, sometimes it won't even do that. Whereas hyperinflation requires a sudden large devaluation. In the Bretton Woods era, currency values were fixed, so if a country printed more money the market couldn't devalue it. But the market regarded it as increasingly overvalued and the eventual capitulation to the market was hyperinflation. Nowadays the markets set currency value in real time so that problem can't occur.

Printing money and suddenly selling it off to pay off a large foreign currency loan will cause hyperinflation, as will not having an effective taxation system, and of course as Zimbabwe found out, wrecking your export industries while discouraging foreign investment has that effect too.

There are many times when printing more money is too inflationary. But it's not hyperinflationary except in eel understood circumstances that are easy to avoid.

(sorry, "eel" should say "well".)

Aidan, I despair!

Every time I point out an error you come back with another.

M1 (cash and deposits) will trend up with the economy and inflation and while the RBA will print extra cash as required by the retail banks to meet transactional requirements.

As for sectoral balances, most of this is covered in Economics 101, it is just not referred to as Sectoral balances. However, I fail to see its relevance to the RBA printing money.

Sovereign nations do not have unlimited credit as Greece found out. Credit needs to be paid with interest. Accumulating debt ramps up the interest until it consumes the budget. For example, Aus's federal tax revenue is about $400bn p.a. while the interest on Labor's debt is about $14bn p.a. or 3.5% of revenue. Instead of paying overseas debtors, it could have been used to pay for the NDIS ad infinitum.

Printing money is like having a hand grenade in the house, as there is no circumstances where using it makes things better. (and you have yet to provide an example where it did)

Shadow, no matter what you say Cocky Joe Hockey and The Mad Monk are stuffing up the economy anyway! Unemployment UP, Taxes UP, Prices UP, Profits UP, Wages DOWN, Living Standards DOWN. The CORRUPTION PARTY (formally The Liberal Party) destroyers are at work.
Adian please join the Liberal Party and run for the seat of North Sydney and if by some miracle Abbott wins a second term Australia needs a new Treasurer!
Shadow please join the French Foreign Legion they also need a new Treasurer.

Paul,

It seems whenever your dopamine levels drop you feel the need to rattle off a word salad.

"A Sun-Herald survey of the big four banks, as well as six second-tier banks, including St George and the Bank of Melbourne, asked whether delays over the government's budget measures were harming the economy.
ANZ chief executive Mike Smith said they were certainly not helping.
"They [the government] have a clear mandate to govern and should be allowed to get on with it," he said, in a swipe at the Senate."

It is clearly the Labor Greens coalition of the corrupt whose obstructionist policies are harming the economy.

I guess both Aidan's and your feeble grasp of economics is representative of the complete vacuum of economic knowledge in the Gangreen party.