Yes, but that expanding money supply doesn't have to come at the expense of all that central bankster debt.
Observe what happened with Lincoln and Kennedy when they printed their own money, the incredible economic growth and prospertiy that ensued.
I still say the money should be the servant of commerce, not its slave. An expanding money supply should merely follow a healthy, productive economy, not the other way around.
I think we are on the same page, are you advocating something specific?
Let me put up these ideas: Lets suppose that money was strictly a medium of exchange, that it aided in barter of goods and services. The thing is most people/economists/politicians think that this is what money is, when it is something quite different. Most of the time it is able to act as a public medium of exchange, but that's not it's main purpose in life.
You would want money to be strictly a public medium of exchange? That is, a standard unit of trade that holds it's value forever. Well we don't have that. Trying to modify what we have to get what we want might never work.
If we were to start from scratch, we might have a better chance. Simply because those who brought us our current system will keep re-inventing it or corrupting any modifications we do to it. Then again, if modifications work, then great.
What I tried to say earlier is that there are a few structural problems with our currencies. One is interest. If we didn't have interest payments to make on our money supply, we wouldn't need to have economic growth just to stay afloat. Interest is a serious problem, and it is an example of mind control.
Why else would governments (us) farm out the pesky job of handing out loans to independent contractors. When handing out these loans is the basis for the circulating currency. Is this job (banking) so onerous a job that it deserves a special rate worth more than money itself?
I'd be your local banker, and charge a good rate, hire lots of knowlegeable loan officers to administrate what is in effect the nations money supply, and you know what? If I actually billed the government directly, any exorbident amount for my services, we would all be better off because of no interest on the money supply. Without interest there would be no national debts.
The fallacy, perhaps one of the most in your face, every day, affecting everybody, is that money IS just a medium of exchange. When in fact it actually disintegrates over time. It's better than trading bananas but not much.
Our money is actually a temporary medium of exchange, like a library book or video rental. What is permanent however, is the interest. In that perhaps is the crux of why our system works so poorly. Either make our money permanent (get away from furnishing the money supply through loans) or make the interest temporary too.
Although this can always seem like a complicated system to explain, it comes down to the idea that the system SHOULD work the way people THINK it works. The reality is that what we have for a public medium of exchange is not public, it is private.
Anybody may think they can keep their fortune under their mattress, but in reality, those dollars were created by a private bank, and they want them back plus interest. Every dollar (97% or so) that exists, has a homing signal back to where it was created. And the law backs that up. If the bank doesn't get your dollar back in a timely fashion it will try to get it back from someone else. A favourite method is to get governments to tax it back, who then in turn cough it up to a bank