There's an unfortunate endgame to the central bank paradigm.


In principle, once sovereign debt of any state becomes too high (as a % of GNP), the debt becomes unpayable (and it is convincingly argued that because the interest on sovereign bonds isn't created as part of the money supply in the same way that the principal is, that all national debts will end in default on some timescale). Argentina's creditors have recently attempted to use any means necessary (both legal judgements and force) to re-coop their losses, and they go after state assets. That means productive infrastructure that taxpayers supposedly own (lol).

And so the conclusion may well be that the central banking system is the most spectacular long-con ever conceived. When we consider that (for instance) those who instituted the US Federal Reserve provided zero capital for the institution in the first place, it can be argued that central banks represent a leveraged buy-out (where money is borrowed to buy up a company) of an entire country, on behalf of those who buy the bonds (often acquaintances of the central bankers).

It's spectacularly clever if designed that way. All the labour and resources needed to build all that infrastructure existed, the infrastructure itself wouldn't exist if not. The financial system basically lies: all this infrastructure wasn't affordable today, so we'll just throw the part that couldn't be afforded on the national debt. This is essentially a system that creates distortions in prices such that no public money ever gets spent on public infrastructure, it's always borrowed from the central banks, who literally have and provide nothing of value in return (except their debt tokens!). Then the phantom debt can be used to buy the entire state apparatus over the course of a few centuries. It's so clever that the general public sort of deserve to be treated like this, it's so sophisticated as a form of theft that there's not much point in trying to explain it to most people.