Thus it's a very regressive policy framework that the government's embarking on, where the risk is moved onto those who are most vulnerable, and if there is another financial shock, if there's an oil shock for example, the people who will pay the penalty are the poorest people in society or homeowners for example, who will fall into negative equity if interest rates go up even 1 or 2 percent there will be really big problems.
The market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given period. As the money supply grows, more money is available, which can be invested in productive avenues. However, it can also be used to gamble and drive up asset prices.
If they don't have enough of this central bank money, then effectively they can't make payments and if that happens pretty quickly, the entire system seizes up.
You can't deal with poverty when you have a financial system and a money system that distributes money from the poor to the very rich. Any distribution that you try and do in the opposite direction is effectively pissing in the wind. If you look at issues like increasing inequality, one obvious way to tackle inequality is to have a redistributive tax system.
That's the more questionable end of the market, that's the bit of the market that things like a financial transactions tax will try and chop away at, because the assumption there, and it's not incorrect, is that it just produces instability for everyone else.
And then there are institutions, the outstanding one at this point is the IMF, that will actively try and enforce this state of affairs. So it's not greatly shadowy, that there are people behind the scenes somewhere trying to manipulate stuff. This is actually quite overt. This is happening and this is how it has been for my entire adult life.
If they don't have enough of this central bank money, then effectively they can't make payments and if that happens pretty quickly, the entire system seizes up.