A bit of a longer post that I've been meaning to make, but please do read (max 3 min). It outlines how I think SA can use SARB to achieve growth without needing to wait for investors:
SARB funding development doesnโt automatically mean inflation. The issue is what the moneyโs used for. If money is created for imports or for consumption in an economy that canโt meet the extra demand, then yes, it can become inflationary.
But if itโs used to build energy, rail, ports, factories, water systems and other productive assets, then the new money is matched by increased productive capacity. Zero-coupon or perpetual funding basically means thereโs no normal interest burden and no repayment deadline hanging over the state. Since SARB would technically own the asset (eg: a dam or energy power plant), it wouldn't function as ordinary debt on the stateโs balance sheet. In effect, SARB would be acting as a long-term investor rather than a normal lender (demanding immediate profits).
This would need a serious regulatory push, plus a separate institution that vets projects before funding. This institution's role would be to ask: will this create jobs, expand production, reduce imports, lower costs, improve exports, and what inflation risks could it carry?
This wouldn't be reckless money creation leading to a Zim situation as the money would increase supply and productivity.
Currency stability is the result of growth, employment, production, exports, energy security, etc. It's silly to believe that currency stability comes from worshipping interest rates while SA decays.