Those with authority over the areas of economics and trade are involved in making mistakes. The mistakes are part of capitalism and have been ongoing up all the way up until the present.
What they seem to be involved in is that they are involved in practices that serve to throw more and more money into the system. According to my sources of information, these procedures actually increase the money supply. But there is something here we do not get and what we do not seem to "get" is the matter of how this is wrong ---- a morally wrong thing. This is the case, though, and it is so: the money is being created in a capitalistic and democratically-oriented system. In this system persons must be equal in their political rights. They are allegedly equal in political rights. So, to create money in a system like that, where all are equal in regard to this parameter of their rights (political rights), it appears to me important that we distribute any such monies equally to all persons, to all of those who are the constituted equals.
This follows from the assumption of economic equality, an equality wherein each person has the same economic/market rights. That's the basis. This means, for example, in terms of job-seeking. Or, for example, how to spend income gotten from working at the jobs. Another example is the right to start a new business --- no bias can be arbitrarily introduced into such a system. It is therefore the indication that any such monies would need to be distributed to everyone equally, in the democratic, equalistic society. That in turn implies that it would done in a centrally-coordinated way, which we would expect would proceed under government authority, or, perhaps, some surrogate of government. At the same time, all this does not mean that capitalist countries need to add new money. I don't know about that. The idea of introducing money seems a fairly abstract one.
What is not right morally, and what is not right in any general or logical terms whatsoever, is for private banks to create and distribute any such money. However, using credit mechanisms, they do so. That this happens does not seem to be in doubt. There is a general consensus between two groups - activist groups and established institutions such as universities - that banks do create money. The difference between the two lies in whether it is scandalous or not. Is it fundamentally wrong, or no? I think it is more accurate to comprehend it as being wrong. But it is as if the college professors are on sleeping pills or something. They do not seem to get the fact that is obvious to a child?, that there is a basic problem with private entities, for example like bankers?, simply cooking up their own money? It contradicts which I would expect to see in the economic system, because this economic system is, should be, linked with democracy.
There isn't anything wrong with saying that. And it is not anti-capitalist. It is simply following out some extant social-economic institutions to their logical conclusions. So what I said is true: there are some persons with authority over the areas of economics and trade that are involved in making ongoing mistakes.