Chapter 59 - Government Accounting

Government accounting is done in an inappropriate manner. If the government sells, for example, an electricity utility for $2 billion, it records this as $2 billion income. If the utility was worth $4 billion, then, in reality, it has made a two billion dollar loss. The government is not accounting for its assets as is done by even the smallest business. I was explaining this to a café owner the other day. In his business, he has to depreciate his refrigerator, originally purchased for $10,000. Each year he effectively writes down the decreased asset value for the refrigerator. He might record $2000 as 'Depreciation of Refrigerator' leaving the refrigerator with a 'Written Down Value' of $8000. The government does not do this.

The government may be selling assets to pay interest on Bank Credit to private banking corporations. The assets it sells off include: utilities, mining rights, fishing rights, land for agriculture and residential land. These are all public assets sold on a one-off income basis. The government is selling assets to pay interest on money borrowed from creditors that it has the authority to create itself.


With fishing rights, the income is a permanent regular annual income providing the fishing is at a sustainable rate. It is reasonable to consider that the fish in the sea up to the fishing limits around the country belong to the nation and that foreign fishing vessels should be kept out of the area. This area of sea is and was, part of the food source of the nation and the resource effectively belongs to the state or to the people living close to the sea. There is a matter of deciding whether it is a free resource for the people or taxable resource for the people and whether it is justified income for the government. Perhaps small quantities of fish for personal consumption should be free and fishing for personal gain should incur a cost. Irrespective of your view, controls need to be placed to prevent overfishing and maintain sustainability. Taxation is a good way of doing this. Taxation on the use of nature's provided resources is more effective than the economy-destroying taxes such as Sales Tax and Income Tax.


The land of a nation is an asset of the nation irrespective of who has title over the property. It is difficult to contemplate the effect on the nation of losing all agricultural land. Fracking has the potential to do this. If the farmer uses inappropriate farming methods and degrades the land rendering the land unusable, this action would also be a permanent loss to the nation. In the extreme, the nation will not be able to feed itself. It denies the ability of future generations to support themselves all for a short term financial gain. Such inappropriate farming methods might include:

Excessive clearing in a manner to cause salty sub-water to rise and make cropping impossible.

A cropping method that allows topsoil to blow away into the sea. This may currently be happening on some of Australia's farms to the extent that some farms may become unusable within a lifetime.

The use of inappropriate chemicals or pesticides that remain in the soil far into the future.

The use of improper seed types that blow into other farmers land contaminating future food production.

The introduction of noxious weeds that are impossible to eradicate.

This example is from my fruit grower friend in the Chittering Valley, Western Australia. City folks are buying orange farms and have poor fruit-fly control practices. They even leave fruit to rot on the tree.

When a farmer has title to land, the land remains an asset of the nation and it is important to the nation that the land should remain productive into the future. It might be better that the land is leased on lifetime non-transferable leases on generous but strict terms and the lease be approved and reviewed by a body composed of appropriate people mostly of a farming background. It must be remembered that:

We need the food produced by farms.

We need the farms to be capable of producing food for future generations.

To maintain a healthy nation, we need the best quality food untainted by chemicals or modification.

We need banks to behave when lending to farmers.

We do not need farm prices inflated by the usury of bank lending practices.

Residential Land.

In primitive village life, the land would be apportioned on an as-needs basis so that each family had land appropriate to its needs in a manner that was best for the family and the village as a whole. Thus, a farming family would be given productive farming land of a size they could manage. The shopkeeper would be given an appropriate, central plot of land with an appropriate building or even assistance to build such building. It must be remembered that we need the products that the shopkeeper is selling. So apportionment of land and improvements would be done on the basis of the family need and the village need. This would be done by village elders with input from all in society. The village would not put the individual into a lifetime debt situation to obtain the basic necessities of life. This village is working on the basis that land is free but its use is apportioned according to need.

In a city, this benevolent system will not work. So the system would involve money. Under a banking system where Bank Credit is freely created by a bank by double-entry accounting and where the bank can create as much Bank Credit as it likes, the house prices will inflate. The limiting factor is the income of the purchaser and the profit orientated bank will maximize the return by loaning Bank Credit to a level that the purchaser can only just manage. With competition from other prospective purchasers, house prices rise in any district to the maximum affordable on local wages. A great portion the income of all house purchasers in the district goes to the bank as interest. The creditor class is thus scalping the income of the house owner. If the bank did not exist, the house would sell for whatever people could afford, which would be quite low compared to the bank lending its substitute money created by computer entries. As house prices rise in the city, production in the city becomes expensive. High bank interest payments making residence in the area expensive. Production costs for business rise due to this upward pressure on employee incomes until business becomes unviable. Business then moves overseas to places where usury has yet to get a grip. Consideration needs to be made to the renting of land from the government on long-term secure leases. In such a situation, such that the expenses of using land are given to the government rather than a lending institution. The money obtained from the government rent and lease arrangements would be spent on parks and facilities in the locality. It does not solve the problems of housing affordability, but it ensures the money is spent in a worthwhile manner. Where there is heavy demand for housing, people will pay the maximum affordable, therefore, the monthly payments will rise to the same monthly payment irrespective of whether it is paid to a lending institution that creates money out of thin air, or government lease fees or land tax. It is better that the money goes to the government so that more destructive taxes can be reduced. Freehold is not the best option for the nation. A mix of leasehold and land tax will give the best for the nation and its citizens.

Where city housing is sold on a 'highest bidder' arrangement, the financially weak will always be marginalized.

Mining Rights

When mining rights are sold to mining companies, the government is effectively selling the minerals under the ground. I include oil in this analysis. The government treats this collected money as income. The nature of the sale does not take account of the asset value of the minerals. It may be that if the copper, gold, oil or other minerals were to be left in the ground, they may become more valuable in the future. This leaves a valuable asset to the future generations. Mining, by its nature, is unsustainable in the long run because the minerals become depleted and then exhausted. The current accounting system used all over the world is operating on a 'money now basis' with no consideration to the future. Some minor procedures have a double harm effect. Besides producing some short-term money, they damage the environment to the extent that more long-term activities, such as farming, become impossible in the future. The most bizarre activity of all would have to be fracking. This is the practice of pumping inappropriate chemicals into the ground for a short-term supply of gas. For the short term monetary gain of a minor quantity of gas, nations are risking permanent poisoning of their farmland and permanent poisoning of water supplies. This would have to be one of the most illogical activities ever conducted on this earth causing more permanent damage than all human wars throughout history combined.


This is a tricky topic for me to comment on. I am a small business operator and I am no great fan of publicly operated enterprises. When a government runs a business it tends to be inefficient and when that business is privatized, the government tends not to regulate it well. Government run enterprises tend to rely on handouts of public money to cover for their inefficiencies. Government departments tend to bloat with staff. My experience as a computer consultant led me to believe that I could run some of these government departments with vastly reduced staff levels. As a sort of joke, a government department could reach the situation where they spend their entire workforce time administering the department, leaving no work-time to carry out the activities that they were created to perform. Government departments tend not to adopt new technologies and procedures. They tend to operate from budgets rather than prudent spending. On the other hand, large private organizations in captive market situations, tend to take advantage of this situation. They may even claim special privileges and even handouts or tax concessions from the government. Private organizations operate well in free and open business and free market situations. They are poor in monopoly and captive market situations.

One of the main reasons that a government would sell utilities is to obtain Bank Credit to operate in the banking system's Bank Credit network. It must never be forgotten that the government is the sole authority allowed to create money. The logic of selling a utility to obtain money as a short-term gain, has to be considered utterly illogical. Governments are only selling utilities and public assets because governments rely on the bank system created virtual Bank Credit for their tax collection and government payments. This Bank Credit is an artificial substitute for real money.