Treasuries are now, although not always, publicly auctioned.
A government may print additional money if there is a purchaser for bonds it has made available, and the central bank is responsible for printing money that government treasuries (bonds) represent, and the central bank may actively purchase government bonds that does have an effect on the money supply.
However, both references to the central bank’s “printing of money” are metaphorical, indirect, and distant allusions to legislation that directs the printing of money.
In the sense that the government gets money to fund its growning debt at bond interest price, after which secondary rates are passed to the public through the central bank, it is dissapointing that it is akin to asserting that government credit ratings are always better than private credit ratings.
It would be a unique track if there were a method to make bonds more expensive, thereby figuratively raising interest rates on government borrowing as a consequence to a lowered credit rating because of its growing debt, while respectively providing a private lender with lower interest rates due to its better credit rating.
I agree that interbank lending does cause an immediate increase in interest rate on the private sector intrinsically adding a prohibitive element to an efficient use of money for free enterprise.
A 6% reward to the central bank seems to be a special endowment with high reward for usery and for diminishing optimal efficiency of money.
To balance special endowment against egalitarianism, while avoiding bureaucratic collectivism, implement the public private trust.
It is popularly known as “quasi private, quasi public.” However, regardless of its status as a private or public institution, it is a government granted monopoly on money and banking.
“… one way or another…sooner or later, a new money system is bound to emerge [in place of dollar hegemony]. Most likely, it will have gold at its base. Why? Because in thousands of years of human experience, nothing better has ever been found. Not that we completely discount the possibility of a better system; humans can be clever. But money is the sort of activity where you don’t want cleverness. You want dumb, honest solidity…you want something that cleverness can’t undermine or circumvent. You want money that smart people can’t fiddle…and that is gold.”
You can keep your “public-private trusts” and all other money schemes. No more schemes. Money is what the market deems it to be and nothing else. This is not even a normative or policy statement, it is simply a description of the case-in-fact. Distortions of the market in money production created by central banks and other schemes are indescribably detrimental to human prosperity (cf Austrian Business Cycle Theory).
“references to the central bank’s “printing of money” are metaphorical, indirect, and distantallusions to legislation that directs the printing of money.”
metaphorical - of course, you cannot reasonably deny me the luxury of speaking in metaphor, which luxury you reserve to yourself
indirect - no, the Fed’s operations are not indirect because the members of the Fed (the commercial banks) which vote on and control the expansion of high-powered money through loans to the commercial banks and purchases of government bonds also control money multiplication and the extension of credit to the general public.
distant allusion to legislation… - no, the Fed does not require legislative approval to expand the money supply to whatever degree it chooses. The combined $2.1T pricetag of the bailouts, TARP, QE1 & QE2 should be proof enough of this elementary fact about the Fed. The “legislative” component of these actions was mere rubber-stamping.
Please read this and this for accurate information about the Federal Reserve, money and banking. Your disinfo isn’t going to fly on this forum, Monk-eye. However, I’m glad you’re expending your time and energy here where your disinfo will not go uncorrected.