I enjoyed Jim Osborne‘s comment mentioning what he called “bankers’ currency”. Clearly bankers’ currency is what all currency now is.
The only ‘recent’ example of currency that was not (but was in fact the Treasury’s rather than the bankers’) is the short-lived Bradbury’s.
It showed that we do not actually need the bankers to produce money. But that is what we now have.
While “bankers’ currency” shows who actually now produces the stuff out of thin air, it does nothing to show in whose interest it is produced..
Using the narrative of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) more and more of us get how money is created. Thus, with the corruption of Conservatives channelling almost all sourcing in the pandemic to their own doners through ‘VIP’ channels where government issues vast amounts of money to enrich their friends – both Tories and many critics understand that no taxes were required to create this money.
Modern Money supporters are not demanding that this ‘extra’ money leaves other areas of state expenditure underfunded, though many others object on that basis. Rather they are asking on whose behalf was this money created by the government?
That is a political value judgement and completely separate from how the monetary system works.
Once having established how that system works we have to move on to establish the straightforward cui bono? question. In any normal democracy worthy of the name, we would assume that money was only ever created for the general good of everyone in its democratic electorate.
What Conservatives both in party and press are skilled at, is deceiving everyone into thinking that there is a limited amount of money and when government has cretaed it that the rest of us have to pay it back.
And – to the bankers, of course…
In that way calling what we have today a bankers’ currency is all too apposite.