Why Can't the Government Create Money?

Not sure if someone has already said this before but anyway.

1. Read a £10 note, it states that the queen owes the bearer the sum of £10 worth of gold, this is because in the UK money is regulated by the amount of gold held by the bank of england.

You see it every day on TV; politicians will say: “We have to cut spending so we can pay down the national debt.” However, award-winning filmmaker, author and “back-door” economist Bill Still says:“You can’t pay down the National Debt under our current system without further deflating the money supply. The problem is that ALL our money is created out of this debt. To reduce the debt would be to reduce our money. We have to think outside the box – to a system the U.S. has employed at critical times in the past with success – exactly the same system which the nation’s leading economists implored FDR to implement during the Great Depression, but they were ignored.”And what about “austerity” measures? “Austerity” measures alone are doomed to failure,” say Still. “According to the CBO, by 2020 interest payments alone on the national debt will exceed $1 trillion – twice the current annual discretionary budget of the U.S. Congress. Only eliminating the “national debt” system entirely can fix our broken economy.”How could that be done? “Simple,” said Still. “Every nation needs to do two things:
1. Forbid any more government borrowing. The national money would no longer be created out of debt. If Congress couldn’t borrow, they would have to feel the political heat of raising taxes immediately. This alone, would put the brakes to runaway government spending.
2. Forbid banks from lending money they don’t actually have. This practice is called “fractional reserve lending”. In its place, banks would have to move to something called “full-reserve lending”. “This would make borrowing more expensive,” said Still, “but that’s a good thing. Consumer borrowing has to be slowed as well.”
Another popular remedy discussed is a return to gold-backed (or any commodity-backed) money. The book shows why gold is not the solution. “We had gold backed money in the early 1930s. It did not prevent the Great Depression, nor the post-Civil War depression before that. Gold money is good for big bankers, but horrible for the middle class – or freedom in general,” says Still.“It’s not what backs our money which is important; it’s who controls the QUANTITY. Will it be we, the people, or will it be the biggest banks. Right now, commercial banks are in complete control of the quantity of money in every nation on earch. We have to take back the money power into the hands of we, the people. Money is THE defining power of a sovereign nation. Money must serve the public interest. Today, it serves only the interest of the biggest banks.”The argument against government-issued, debt-free money is that those rascals in Congress will print too much of it if they get the money power. “Well, of course,” said Still. “So don’t let them. Don’t you think that we can find in this nation a group of public-spirited, honest individuals who could form an independent Monetary Board to oversee the total quantity of money issued based on an honest assessment of inflation numbers instead of the cooked-up numbers the government currently puts out to serve its political purposes? Inflation is only a matter of controlling the quantity of money. We certainly cannot control the quantity if banks create all of it! If that’s all it takes to fix all these economic problems, don’t you think we can do that?”

stop cutting and pasting from blogs and passing it off as your own thoughts. It just makes you a laughing stock. We all know you don't know what you're talking about.

I've called him out on his plagiarism as well.

Mods, surely that's a ban-able offence?

stop cutting and pasting from blogs and passing it off as your own thoughts. It just makes you a laughing stock. We all know you don't know what you're talking about.

He is literally incapable of debating. No matter how many times we explain things to him,

I've called him out on his plagiarism as well.

Mods, surely that's a ban-able offence?

This will end up with a socialist revolution...so I back it LMAO

Why is the politics forum infested with puerile folk and trolls? In order to redeem yourself, can you explain how the Sovereign Money proposal for monetary reform has any relation to Socialism?

That's all. Wealth accumulation will still exist. Inflation and deflation due to an expansion or restriction of money supply will still exist. Capitalism will still exist. The so called middle class and lower class will still face major issues.Money supply is one issue. It isn't the only issue. It compounds the problems created by capitalism.

There is no such thing as a debt-free monetary system. You're talking compete gibberish. Actually, you're copying and pasting someone else's complete gibberish, which is even worse.

Only a troll would label a concept gibberish and not expand on that.
I suggest you visit the following links if you genuinely don't understand it. The second one contains a list of impressive essays explaining the concept and countering the misconceptions.

http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Creating_a_Sovereign_Monetary_System_Web20130615.pdf

http://www.sovereignmoney.eu/

http://www.monetary.org/

Why can't you explain in your own words rather than simply linking to blogs that you don't have the academic training to be able to understand?

There is no such thing about debt-free money.

If you think there is, explain how.

Here is the problem, friend. I sense that you haven't actually joined this thread to genuinely learn about this proposal in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, but simply to be arrogantly presumptuous about my intellect, as highlighted in the quote above, and to play an obnoxious game where
1. You assert a point in the absence of reasoning and / or evidence
2. I counter the point with reasoning and / or evidence
3. You ignore it entirely and reassert your position and / or engage in mockery.

There is a reason why I highlighted "explain how," too. It lacks specificity. What exactly do you not understand? I can refer you to post #294 and the opening post, and you can form a more specific query. Why are you overly concerned about the relevant research that I have copied and pasted, rather than what it actually explains? Can you not see why I feel disinclined to engage in a discussion with you? If there is a certain part of the text that you are unable to understand then I can make it clearer for you in my own words. But you never give me that opportunity because your role here, in my considered opinion, is to serve as a distraction from the discussion.

Give me a reason to take seriously again your contributions to the thread.

I asked you to explain it, it appears you cannot. Money is debt. Debt-free money is a contradiction in terms.

This thread is done. You've embarrassed yourself, you've embarrassed your university, you've embarrassed your family.

because they are spending the money on terrorists group.

I asked whether or not the government can create debt-free money, not how they spend debt-based money.