Nor can anyone suggest how public debt purchased by a central bank might be ‘paid off’ when the credit balance on the central bank balance sheets after that debt repurchase does not relate to public debt anymore, but does instead represent bank deposit accounts from clearing banks, the redemption of which requires the cancellation of the money created that these balances represent.
By collecting then cancelling the money of course. The BoE sells the debt into the public markets. It collects the money from having done so. Then feeds it back into the computers that first generated it.
The reason for paying off such QE created debt being to destroy the money that the QE created, of course. If you don’t want to reduce the narrow/base money supply then you don’t reverse QE. If you do then you do.
To expand in this, that tax is used to cancel money creation (which, as a matter of fact takes place) to limit inflation
Precisely, sometimes you do want to cancel some part of the money supply.
That is deeply telling. Using reductionist, rather than systems thinking, the authors reveal a profoundly Cartesian view of economics, using a faux-scientific approach which denies the integrated reality that the observable economy actually is coupled with a denial of the political reality of all economic decision making, including their own.
What should be made of this paper in that case? It is best seen as little more than a puff-piece presented as if an economic argument that is intended to support the status quo against a truth so apparent that those seeking to maintain their grip on power must quite literally make up arguments to support their case that are so shallow they do in the process reveal the hollowness of their own ideas.
Maybe we do actually have a lithium shortage?