By monday? LOL B Banger you're playing with the wrong guy
North Dakota is the only modern bank with a mandate to help the public good. All banks in Australia (including the RBA) are private banks motivated by one thing and one thing only - profit. They don't care about the Australian public. All they care about is keeping the economy running in such a way that they can keep collecting interest and being rich. That's it. They can invest in anything they like - they'll lend to strip clubs, brothels, nuclear waste dumps, whatever - as long as there is money to be made. Let's say there's some awesome scheme that would benefit the public hugely - the modern equivalent of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, like, say, the Bradley Scheme, but it doooeesssnnn't quite make enough money - then the banks don't care. They'll lend the money to the brothels and strip clubs instead.
By way of contrast, the Bank of North Dakota is an institution that lends money towards various projects that benefit the public good - certain forms of agricultural development etc - things that benefit the economy in the region. They don't take many risks, and despite making a lower rate of profit, still make good money. Also, because they don't lend to obvious ponzi schemes or highly speculative investments, the state of North Dakota has a very healthy economy and they can actually afford to pay their teachers (unlike everyone else, where they're laying off teachers/cops/firemen etc)
In the case of the original commonwealth bank and WW2, Australia couldn't afford to borrow money off private banks to pay for guns/ships/bullets etc - and so they issued currency backed by the government at extremely low interest which then enabled Australia to keep the national economy going whilst still having enough money to fund a war.
So the difference between a nationally backed currency and the fiat, debt profit based currency we use today is that the profits kept by bankers is the missing money required to keep economies going. These bankers have us by the balls. When they want the economy to run hot, they lend out lots of money. Then when they want the economy to contract so that they keep a higher proportion of GDP, they don't let so much money out, the economy shrinks, and people pay a greater proportion of their wealth to the banks who, at the same time, nicely forclose on properties and keep them as personal assets.
As you alluded to, our system is usurious in nature, with interest being charged on money that doesn't exist (ie you get a loan, get hit on day 1 with interest, and then you have to pay interest on that interest even though that money doesn't actually exist - the only thing that exists is the obligation to pay by the borrower).
I'm not saying abolish banking - obviously economies run more efficiently with a good banking system so that normal trade may occur - but I do think that the current system should be changed so that the RBA doesn't get to decide whenever they feel like it to alter the money supply, interest rates, and therefore, the entire economy as they see fit, and especially, for their personal benefit.
Whenever you have private enterprises yielding such massive power, you can bet your bottom dollar that they're going to use that power for their own benefit. These bankers don't care that the middle class are losing their homes, nor that the welfare class struggles to eat - regardless of "the economy" and "statistics", these guys are living like kings, and acquiring massive portfolios of assets on teh cheap because in times of hardship, they're the only ones with any money to buy anything, and so they can purchase real assets at a fraction of their real cost - then, when they let some more money out in the next manufactured "boom", those assets skyrocket in value and they live like mega kings while we work our way out of a hole that they dug.
I believe that government should be responsible for producing currency, and should benefit from that - not private banks. These bastar*s are making money on the way up, and on the way down, with the lower and middle class paying for it.
Any way you slice it, it is class warfare, whether you want to call it such or no.
