Of course, such definitions in assessing their activities were not made at this conference and were not reflected in its documents, but the essence of the matter was precisely that. At the Jamaican conference, it was decided to create a fundamentally new monetary system, which later received the name “fiduciary” in the neoliberal school of economic thought, i.e. based on trust in the Central Bank. This name was obviously hypocritical. However, the essence of the matter was not so much in the name of the new monetary system as in that within its framework, central banks, despite the removal of gold from the elements of the monetary system, reserved the right to issue activities, and therefore, they reserved the right and on such an instrument of its regulatory activity as refinancing at its own stake.

This was another “Solomon decision” of those individuals who once formed central banks in their countries, freeing themselves from the need to replenish gold reserves, and now have released their subsidiaries from their obligations. But at the same time, they did not deprive them of the tools that were characteristic of them under the conditions of only a gold-standard monetary system. Having resolved the contradiction between the declarative and actual scale of the monetary unit through the abolition of this scale itself, they gave rise to another contradiction - between the instruments of the regulatory activity of the Central Bank and the essence of money in the new monetary system.

In fact, under the conditions of a new type of monetary system, the number of monetary units indicated on all legal media - bank notes, personal accounts, plastic cards, and “electronic wallets” began to represent the material content of the market in all its various forms. However, the creators of the new monetary system could not recognize this. Otherwise, they would deprive their brainchild - the central bank - of share premium. Being caring parent companies, they left this income to their subsidiary on the grounds that now instead of gold, these or other assets and liabilities of the Central Bank will become the basis for the issue. Replenishing the volume of such, the Central Bank could still produce an additional issue of cash and refinance it at its own interest. Only if earlier this percentage was mainly the economical basis of the Central Bank’s income, now it's changing value has become positioned as an instrument of counter-cyclical regulation of the market and market conditions. In addition, refinancing began to be presented as a tool to replenish the so-called liquidity of banks and the market as a whole.

As new assets of the Central Bank in countries in which the Central Bank is a subsidiary of commercial banks, and national funds have the status of freely convertible currency, government debt obligations began to appear. The Central Bank began to produce cash and acquire government debt on them. Accordingly, cash flowing into and out of the market was no longer representing monetary gold reserves, but government debt purchased with cash printed by the Central Bank. The key point in this vicious circle is the “amazing” factory, which continuously produces cash that goes into circulation through refinancing. Obviously, the costs of the Central Bank for the production of these funds can not be compared with the number indicated on the bank notes produced. The difference between these values in modern conditions is the predominant basis of the Central Bank’s profit, which it is not inclined to flaunt. Moreover, he does not dedicate anyone especially to his accounting. The mentioned curious circumstances of the Central Bank’s activity often cause genuine interest among people concerned about justice in the system of market relations. While economic science is limited only by an impassive statement of the fact that the Central Bank has monopoly super profits, which is engaged in the emission of “the capacity” of the said “factory”, economic science focuses primarily on the positioning of cash produced by the Central Bank as its own and their introduction into circulation on a credit basis, i.e. through refinancing is not really justified.

In practice, it leads to inflation. The fact is that the number of monetary units designated by the Central Bank on newly produced banknotes has already appeared on the market in non-cash form due to the creation of national gross income. And the task of the Central Bank in modern conditions, in fact, should be to convert the funds that appeared in non-cash form into cash. However, in this case, a privately owned Central Bank would turn into a non-profit organization, the ownership of which would not make economic sense for commercial banks that established their own subsidiary. The transformation of the Central Bank into a non-profit organization does not completely meet the interests of the state, which receives considerable income from it and constantly sells its debt obligations to it. The general interest in the current state of affairs both on the part of the most powerful participants in the market process - the largest commercial banks, and on the part of the state in the person of the Ministry of Finance is almost obscured by the fact that the introduction of credit-issued cash produced by the Central Bank is i.e. through refinancing is not justified and also causes inflation.

True, for the sake of fairness, it should nevertheless be noted that the inflation rate in these countries is actually quite low - no more than 3-5% per year. The explanation for this paradox is simple - part of the cash produced by the Central Bank is put into circulation in the form of dividends to its shareholders, part is sent to the state budget for free, and part is really refinanced by commercial banks, but at a very low percentage. Commercial banks, receiving funds from the Central Bank in the form of dividends, have a greater opportunity to provide loans, increase investment activity and thereby prevent inflation. The state, which receives issuing funds from the Central Bank, sends them to budget recipients free of charge. Moreover, often these funds are sent abroad, and their return to the national market space is under tight control. Commercial banks, which are not co-owners of the Central Bank and therefore attract funds from it only in the form of loans, do this, we repeat, at a fairly low interest rate, which also restrains inflation.

Thus, the inconsistency of the situation lies in the fact that, in fact, inflation is provoked through refinancing, but it is practically restrained. However, such inconsistency cannot exist for long. And the point here is not even that the state already in almost all economically developed countries exceeded the limit of its debt for 100% of the value of the national gross product, but that in modern conditions money cannot represent the Central Bank’s printing production capacity alone banknotes, as well as assets of this bank, acquired with "equity funds".

In fact, the funds that make up the quantitative certainty of money, in modern conditions, are not the assets and liabilities of the Central Bank, but the material content of the market in all its various forms - the qualitative certainty of money. And in such conditions, refinancing is simply a rudimentary instrument of the regulatory activity of the Central Bank. This tool is in conflict with the essence of money and the content of the modern monetary system, i.e. its existence is not justified and therefore this tool should be reformed, or rather, abolished.