Author Topic Options
Offline

Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 196
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:40 pm
 


These kinds of issues are so important yet people unfortunatley find them boring. I mean, the way money is created is responsible for how a society works and what the society is aiming for. I think that monetary reform is one of the greatest things going for the CAP, and that's probably why their on the sidelines - who cares about economic mumbo-jumbo when healthcare needs fixing? Eventhough the monetary reform proposed by the CAP could solve most of the funding problems our governments (federal, provincial, territorial) face today, people tend to focus on the symptoms (i.e. healthcare falling apart) than on the disease (the way private banks are in complete control of creating money). <br /> <br /> The problem we now face is how to implement monetary reform - we can't just unilaterally change the entire system in our nation without other (important) countries doing it at the same time. Acting alone would be economic suicide.



"But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea." - Tommy Douglas


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2599
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:01 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= lesouris] These kinds of issues are so important yet people unfortunatley find them boring. I mean, the way money is created is responsible for how a society works and what the society is aiming for. I think that monetary reform is one of the greatest things going for the CAP, and that's probably why their on the sidelines - who cares about economic mumbo-jumbo when healthcare needs fixing? Eventhough the monetary reform proposed by the CAP could solve most of the funding problems our governments (federal, provincial, territorial) face today, people tend to focus on the symptoms (i.e. healthcare falling apart) than on the disease (the way private banks are in complete control of creating money). <br /> <br /> The problem we now face is how to implement monetary reform - we can't just unilaterally change the entire system in our nation without other (important) countries doing it at the same time. Acting alone would be economic suicide.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yeah, but someone has to go first. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>



"True nations are united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory". -

-Patrick J. Buchanan





PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:46 am
 


CAP had some good ideas and some good people, but unfortunatly they had no balls, and were satisfied being an illusion of presenting democratic option to the citizens.<br /> It apears that they were just a side show to support the Liberals.<br /> reality bites<br /> Dennis baker


Offline

Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1592
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:17 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= dbaker] CAP had some good ideas and some good people, but unfortunatly they had no balls, and were satisfied being an illusion of presenting democratic option to the citizens.<br /> It apears that they were just a side show to support the Liberals.<br /> reality bites<br /> Dennis baker [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> dbaker, if you are going to post such derogatory comments, at least post some evidence to back up your claims. Otherwise it's just an insult from the peanut gallery.


Offline

Active Member

Profile
Posts: 114
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:22 pm
 


Well, what I would like to know is, how could CAP get off the ground in a decent jump, because it only seems to be able to gain registry, but nothing even close to 1 seat, or even 1% of the votes. Yet it is a party which I think most Canadians I know want, since we're always going "damn Americans", or criticizing their policies, such as the Iraq War, same-sex marriage, or even them banning Alberta's (all of Canada's) beef.<br /> Just how can they expand?



Freedom is the right of all sentient beings


Offline

Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:40 pm
 


Simple,money.The monster that we all love to hate.The goblin that destroys whether we have it or not.<br /> A rich party will draw members like flies to sh*t.<br /> Lets face it,money has become a beast athing to run from,yet we run to it in times of need.<br /> It buys our comfort,our discomfort,our happiness,our unhappiness.We let it decide who lives or dies.We gave it breath,now we find a way to kill it. Quite a two-faced whore it is.



General strike could be coming to a place near you...are you ready? Boycott 2010 Olympics,I don't my grandkids still paying for Campbells soup.


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1870
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:15 am
 


This is an old argument, but some rudimentary facts will dismiss it since it's basically the 'why don't we just print more money to cover our debts' argument (the Bank of Canada has to get it from somewhere). Basically, because it leads to rampant inflation such as what we saw in Argentina. In Canada, such inflation would virtually bankrupt our economy where most people are just getting by as is. <br /> Banking deregulation is a separate issue, keep in mind that we had a debt as early as the forties. Today it can be argued that it is primarily the wealthier who can afford to buy savings bonds and treasury bills, and we've pretty much wiped out corporate taxation- but it still has to be repaid, whether you own it, or the bank or a corporation owns it. You are certainly free to give back your canada savings bonds and tell them not to worry about it. You can also write your bank and all the companies you deal with and see if they will do the same.<br /> Also, our currency would fall to nothing since 'money' is traded internationally. If we suddenly decided to print tons more money, the exchange rate (one of them) would go berserk. They tried this in Germany after world war one and people were burning money for heat it was so worthless. Under GATT we can't change that unless we want to cut ourselves off from the world and become self sufficient. <br /> This is another one of those popular myths that people like to believe, a good article, although dated, on the REAL issue of the national debt is available at:<br /> www.canoe.ca/CNEWSPolitics0003/02_berton.html<br /> <br /> although that's the economics of it, here's another interesting one, sorry I had it saved, I can't find the actual website but here it is, even more dated but to the REAL point (I think)<br /> <br /> SFSS speaker denounces "unempolyment budget" <br /> By Paula Smith <br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> <br /> SFSS Forum guest speaker, Dr. Marjorie Cohen, an SFU Professor of Political Science, talked about Paul Martin's budget last Wednesday, calling it an "Unemployment Budget". "It is the first Budget since the 1930s that made no mention of job creation," said Cohen. <br /> <br /> "It is a regressive, narrow and self-serving budget." said Cohen, "It will hurt Canadians -- especially the poor." She noted that the drastic cuts will have a damaging ripple- effect that will be felt throughout the entire Canadian economy. <br /> <br /> Hardest hit by the cuts will be those who are the least capable of protecting themselves, low wage "working poor" many of whom are women and single parents. <br /> <br /> "Other Western Nations have not witnessed cuts this deep and drastic, nor is Canada's deficit the worst when compared to other Western Nations," noted Cohen. "It is solution based purely on simple arithmetic. It clearly is not a logical economic solution with average Canadians in mind ... Martin's Budget will only benefit the pocketbooks of [the] very, very rich." <br /> <br /> Cohen went on to demonstrate how this budget is detrimental to Canadians, and how it will benefit only the extremely rich. Below are statistics cited by Cohen: <br /> <br /> *This budget will be the end of Universal Programs in Canada such as Medicare and access to Higher Education. <br /> <br /> *Three Quarters of Canada's "National Debt" to foreign sources is held by Private Corporations -- not by governments as the media would have you believe. <br /> <br /> <b>*61,480 of Canada's leading Corporations paid no Taxes at all last year. Instead they got tax credits. </b><br /> <b>*Banks recorded the largest profits ever recorded -- $4 Billion. </b><br /> <br /> <b>*The Royal Bank recorded a 290 per cent increase in profits, paid less than one per cent in tax, and bankrolled a $300 million R&D tax credit for computerisation. This enormous R&D tax credit left a significant number of Canadians unemployed and searching for increasingly scarce jobs.</b> <br /> <br /> <b>*The average profit recorded by 122 of Canada's largest Corporations was 142 per cent which amounts to 18 billion in profits, yet they paid no taxes.</b> <br /> <br /> Cohen said that 15 years ago, Corporations shouldered approximately 25 per cent of the tax burden. Today, however, the majority of tax burden formally carried by the corporate sector has been shifted onto the shoulders of the average Canadian. <br /> <br /> Cohen maintains that this is the true cause of the 1994/95 tax revolt -- not because universal social programs are extravagant to maintain. <br /> <br /> "The adverse of effects of Martin's budget will not be felt until next year," said Cohen. This time-lag will help defuse impact of Martin's budget when it does hit home, as voters have a tendency to forget. <br /> <br /> <b>Cohen was particularly worried about the "Block Funding" strategy used by the federal government. She sees it as a way for the federal government to offload their debt onto the provinces. </b><br /> <br /> The Block Funding program has no mechanisms for accountability, said Cohen, as the provinces can use this block of funding anyway they feel fit. Cohen also predicts that the block funding program will be eliminated altogether in the not-so-distant future. <br /> <br /> The economic scenario for Canada's future is gloomy. Cohen feels that once social programs are dismantled, they are extremely hard to get back. <br /> <br /> Further, as the federal debt load is unceremoniously dropped into the provinces' lap, progressive social programs on a provincial scale cannot be implemented, especially in light of a "competitive global marketplace" where the "Canadian foreign debt", (three-quarters of which is held by highly profitable private corporations) drags down the Canadian economy. <br /> <br /> <br />


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1870
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:23 am
 


Sorry, I was a little off topic. The real issue is the 'myth' about inflation. That can be argued endlessly-but this certainly isn't the forties. However, an easy answer is that if the Bank of Canada printed more money for our social programs every other country would do the exact same thing for the exact same reason which would, again, leave us at an equilibrium-since we have to pay workers, buy equipment, etc. Even if not, our currency would fall by an equal amount internationally, meaning it would take more money to accomplish those goals. Our monetary system is governed by international financiers, if you want to change that, you've pretty much got to cut Canada off from the rest of the world.


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1870
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:45 am
 


OK, sorry about this, just disregard those other posts. Way off topic.


Offline

Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2066
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 pm
 


Marcarc not sure if you are saying this is true or this is a falacy; quote: 'basically the 'why don't we just print more money to cover our debts' argument (the Bank of Canada has to get it from somewhere). Basically, because it leads to rampant inflation such as what we saw in Argentina. In Canada, such inflation would virtually bankrupt our economy where most people are just getting by as is.'<br /> <br /> My understanding is that it is a falacy, that if the Bank of Canada printed the money we need it would not create inflation, simply because we need it for social programs etc.; if they created the money and we didn't need it, the result would be inflation. The banks print money today, not based on securities or gold, simple put when someone goes to the bank to get a loan, the money is created and put into their account, which is now in circulation, a minute before that money did not exist. Therefore the money we have in circulation today is debt based, the banks used to have to hold a percentage in the bank of Canada as security and they don't do that today. <br /> <br /> So if everyone who had money invested tried to withdraw it today, it couldn't be done. The major difference is that if the Bank of Canada printed the money the government needs, instead of borrowing from the chartered or private banks, then we wouldn't be paying the interest we are to those banks. Where it is created is not the issue, it would not create inflation if the Bank of Canada printed the money instead of the major banks, but it would create less profits for the major banks, less debt to the Canadian people. So who is benefitting from todays, money creation? Not the people.<br /> <br />



"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1870
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:58 pm
 


If you don't want to pay for the video, there is this:<br /> <br /> <b>Appendix B – The Bank of Canada<br /> Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free<br /> Say Three Economists<br /> <br /> français </b><br /> <br /> <br /> (An article published in the March-April, 1995 issue of the Michael Journal.<br /> The introduction and comments are from Alain Pilote.) <br /> <br /> Thanks to the sacrifices that have been made for over sixty years by the “White Berets” of the “Michael” and “Vers Demain” Journals, more and more people in high places are discovering the absurdity of the present financial system, and the urgency for the Federal Government to create its own money, interest free, instead of borrowing it at interest from private banks. Here are excerpts from a pamphlet published in 1992 entitled “The Deficit Made Me Do It!”, edited by Ed Finn, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (251 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 804, Ottawa, Ont., K1P 5J6), in which three economists — Harold Chorney, of Concordia University in Montreal, John Hotson, of the University of Waterloo, and Mario Seccareccia, of the University of Ottawa — “debunk the myths about government debt,” and repeat, in their own words, what Louis Even and the Social Crediters of the “Michael” Journal have been explaining since 1939. (An updated version of this pamphlet, entitled “10 Deficit Myths”, was issued in January, 1996, and is also available from the same address mentioned above,) <br /> <br /> Here is a text that makes a change with the conventional speeches of economists that are disconnected from reality. Moreover, this text points out the real problems and solutions concerning the public debt, at a time when several people are talking about slashing government spending — even social programs, like the pensions and unemployment insurance — to reduce the deficit. The subtitles are from the “Michael” Journal: <br /> <br /> by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia <br /> <br /> “Governments these days find it easy to defend cuts in services and programs. All they have to do is point to their annual deficits and their total accumulated debts. (As of March, 1994, Canada's public debt was about $546 billion.) This public debt provides the politicians with a convenient excuse for cutting spending or raising taxes. Or both. «We're broke,» they tell us plaintively. «We can't afford to increase public services, or even keep them at their present level.» <br /> <br /> A lesson of war <br /> “As the deep recession dragged into 1992, Finance Minister Don Mazankowski said he couldn't do anything about it. His hands were tied, he said. The federal government was broke. The cupboard was bare. The deficit and accumulated national debt were so enormous that his first priority had to be to reduce them — even if that meant prolonging the recession and making it even worse. <br /> <br /> “So his budget contained almost nothing to revive the sick economy. With interest payments on the debt gobbling up one-third of tax revenue, his response was to keep taxes high and axe more public services and agencies. Like Martin Luther before him, Mazankowski in effect proclaimed: «Here stand I. I cannot do otherwise.» <br /> <br /> “But it doesn't take an economist to see that in fact he could. All you have to do is imagine what the government would do if it got involved in another Gulf War — or if that war were still raging. Would the Finance Minister have brought down the same kind of budget? Would he have said, «We'd like to keep on fighting, but we're broke, so we're calling our troops back»? Not on your life! <br /> <br /> “Did Canada surrender half way through World War II because the national debt had grown even larger than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? Of course not! Somehow the extra money was found. If it wasn't by raising taxes or borrowing from the private banks, why, the Bank of Canada simply created all the money the government needed — and at near-zero interest rates, too! <br /> <br /> “When World War II ended, the national debt relative to the national income was more than twice as large as it is now. But was the country ruined? Did we have to declare national bankruptcy? Far from it! Instead, Canada's economy boomed and the country prospered for most of the post-war period. <br /> <br /> The Bank of Canada has failed in its duty <br /> “Why isn't the same thing happening today? Why was a much larger national debt shrugged off in 1945, while today's much smaller debt (as a percentage of GDP) is being used as an excuse to let the economy stagnate? <br /> <br /> “The answer can be found at the Bank of Canada. During the war, and for 30 years afterward, the government could borrow what it needed at low rates of interest, because the government's own bank produced up to half of all the new money. That forced the private banks to keep their interest rates low, too. <br /> <br /> “Since the mid-1970s, however, the Bank of Canada, with government consent, has been creating less and less of the new money, while letting the private banks create more and more. Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government — and of course you and me, as well — with outrageously high interest rates. And it is these extortionate interest charges that are the principal cause of the rapid escalation of the national debt. If the federal government were paying interest at the average levels that prevailed from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, it would now be running an operating surplus of about $13 billion!” <br /> <br /> The updated version (January, 1996) of the pamphlet expresses the same ideas: <br /> <br /> “The Bank of Canada was established in 1935 by an Act of Parliament. In its legislative mandate, it is directed to promote economic growth and employment, as well as preserving the value of the Canadian dollar. <br /> <br /> “Shortly after the Bank opened its doors, it was faced with the bankruptcy of provincial governments due to the Depression. Interpreting its mandate widely, as it is supposed to do, it made precedent-setting loans to restore the finances of Manitoba. Generous loans to other provinces followed. <br /> <br /> “World War II found Canada ready and determined to act in the Allied cause. The war effort of the federal government was financed through enormous deficits and very low interest rates brought about by the Bank of Canada. At war's end, the national debt stood at about 120% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), nearly double the level of today. Yet Canada went on to enjoy the greatest period of economic growth in its history... <br /> <br /> “(Now) the Bank of Canada has decided that any government spending not financed by taxation is inflationary, so it no longer extends credit to the government by holding bonds and Treasury bills. Its small holdings of government debt are confined to the banknotes needed by the economy for currency in circulation...” (End of 1996 updated version's excerpts.) <br /> <br /> Interest rates and inflation <br /> “Thousands of years of sad experience with the concentration of wealth and debt slavery caused all the ancient books of wisdom — including the Bible and the Koran — to condemn the charging of immoderate rates of interest.(...) The conventional wisdom, however, is that inflation is the greatest threat to the economy and must be restrained by raising interest rates. This flies in the face of the common-sense observation that rising prices (inflation) are caused by rising costs, and that interest rates are costs. So raising them will raise prices, not lower them. <br /> <br /> “Also raised by this policy, of course, is the income of the money-lenders, which explains why they subscribe so fervently to the perverse doctrine that high interest rates are somehow anti-inflationary. Certainly the world's bankers and other money-lenders have gained much from the nonsensical notion that, while giving workers a big raise is inflationary, giving money-lenders a big raise is not. <br /> <br /> “Many economists rail against «wage push», and it's true that wages have risen by 2,700% over the past 50 years. But in the same period government tax revenue went up by 3,400%, and net interest by 26,000%! Yet, most of the economic textbooks that deplore rising wages don't even mention the tax and interest pushes. And it is not because they are complex ideas — rather, they are simple and obvious — but because it would be so embarrassing for economists to admit they've made a boner of such magnitude: that their theory of monetary policy violates basic principles of scientific logic. <br /> <br /> The creation of money <br /> “One of the most pervasive myths about the government deficit is that governments which spend more than they receive in revenue must borrow the difference, thus increasing the public debt. <br /> <br /> “In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners. <br /> <br /> “Business and the conservatives in politics and the media are horrified by the suggestion that the government exercise its right to create more money. They claim it would precipitate another ruinous bout of inflation. <br /> <br /> “But money creation is money creation — whether by a private bank or the Bank of Canada. And a government in debt only to the government's own bank is not really in debt at all. If it wants to go through the rigamarole of having the Treasury «borrow» from the central bank and later pay interest, that is a minor matter of bookkeeping. As long as the central bank's profits are returned to the Treasury, the results are much the same as if the Treasury had created the money itself. <br /> <br /> “There is no reason why the growth of Canada's money supply (averaging about $22 billion annually in recent years) could not be more substantially created by the Bank of Canada. If that policy had been followed, the federal government would not have been obliged to add to its debts to pay interest on old debts. Instead, the Bank of Canada has produced barely 2% of the money added in recent years, while the chartered banks added the rest as they made loans to households, businesses, and all levels of government. At the very least, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks should share the privilege of creating money on a 50-50 basis. <br /> <br /> “Those who dismiss such a proposal as «inflationary» should be required to explain why it would be more inflationary for the government's bank to create $11 billion and the private banks $11 billion, rather than the present practice of having the government's bank create $0.7 billion and the private banks $21.3 billion! <br /> <br /> “Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney-era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation. <br /> <br /> “It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free. <br /> <br /> Banks create money <br /> “We have to keep in mind that our monetary economy only grows when the money supply grows. Under the present debt-driven system, the only way we can increase the money supply is by borrowing it into existence from the private banks, thereby increasing our indebtedness to them. <br /> <br /> “It can't be stressed too much that the private banks, unlike non-bank lenders, create the money they lend. They do not — as is so widely imagined, even by the bankers themselves — lend their depositors' money. The amount of new money created by a bank loan, however, is only sufficient to pay back the principal. No money is created to pay the interest, except that which is paid to the holders of bank deposits. That's why debts must continually grow faster and faster in order for each layer of additional debt and interest to be paid. <br /> <br /> “If that strikes you as a very dumb and dangerous way to operate a monetary system, you're right. Clearly it would be much safer and more sensible to have at least a large amount of the needed new money spent into circulation debt free by the federal government — or lent by it interest free to the junior levels of government which lack the power to create money. Reform of the monetary system is therefore the key to controlling the deficit and lowering the public debt.” (End of the three economists' pamphlet.) <br /> <br /> * * * <br /> <br /> Comments of the Michael Journal <br /> <br /> We congratulate these three economists who dare to go off the beaten track. More and more people are echoing the message of the Social Crediters of the “Michael” Journal, and they urge the Federal Government to create its own money, and to put the Bank of Canada at the service of the Canadians. <br /> <br /> The Minister of Finance and “orthodox” economists keep repeating that this solution (government-created money) is unworkable, since, according to them, it would automatically bring about runaway inflation. Yet, this policy of government-created money was actually tried out successfully in Canada during World War II (when half of the money supply was created by the Bank of Canada), and it is during those years that Canada's economy boomed the most, with near-zero inflation. <br /> <br /> Others will say that the Bank of Canada cannot reduce its interest rates (the Bank Rate, which is set every Tuesday by the Bank of Canada), because if the rate is too low (lower than that of the United States, for example), foreign investors will flee Canada and invest their money in other countries with higher interest rates, where their investments will yield higher returns. This argument would fall by itself if the Federal Government would create its own money, instead of borrowing it. Figures made in Canada are just as good as figures made abroad to finance production made in Canada. Besides, what would Canada do if it were the only country in the world, with no foreign countries from which it could get money? Should we be condemned to starvation in front of our own goods, through lack of figures to buy them? <br /> <br /> The three economists quoted above suggested that the Bank of Canada should create half of the money supply in our country. This suggestion is timid! What the Social Crediters of the Michael Journal propose is that the Bank of Canada should create all of the money supply for Canada, since money creation cannot be left in the hands of private interests. Make no mistake: private banks would still exist, and still lend money, but they would not have the power to create new money with their loans. When a chartered bank makes a loan to a business or individual, the bank would get the money for the loan from the Bank of Canada, interest free. The private bank would be accountable to the Bank of Canada for that money, having to return it to the central bank when the loan is paid back to the private bank. (This technique is explained in detail in the first pages of Louis Even's booklet, “A Sound and Effective Financial System”.) <br /> <br /> The Bank of Canada has been diverted from its purpose, and instead of being the Bank of the Canadians, it has become the bankers' bank. The Chrétien Government must bring the Bank of Canada to heel, and have it finance the needs of our nation, debt free. It is the only solution to solve the problem of the deficit and the debt. <br /> <br /> Several groups are lobbying for more spending cuts; some even say that our Finance Minister did not go far enough with spending cuts in his last budget. It only makes less money left into circulation, which makes the situation even tougher for all Canadians. As the three economists mentioned above put it in their pamphlet, “strident calls for cutbacks and belt-tightening measures are, in tough economic times, the worst possible course to follow. It is in fact a lethal prescription for recreating the widespread unemployment and suffering of the 1930s.” <br /> <br /> Mr. Prime Minister, you don't wish such a state of affairs to occur, do you? Well, to prevent if from happening, you have no alternative but to apply the Social Credit principles of Clifford Hugh Douglas and Louis Even! <br /> <br /> Moreover, all the premiers who complain about the reduction of transfer payments to the provinces in the federal budget, should join forces to pressure the federal government to put the Bank of Canada at the service of all the Canadians, and finance the provinces with interest-free money. But make no mistake: if our governments are not backed up by public opinion, they won't have the courage to challenge the power of the Financiers. So it is your duty, dear readers of the Michael Journal, to create this public opinion in favour of a return to an honest debt-free money system, by getting all your friends and acquaintances to subscribe to the Michael Journal. This is the prime requirement for the liberation of our country. Good luck! <br /> <br />


Offline

Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1443
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:43 am
 


Very good post Marcarc, very informative. It looks to me like the government gives as much of the public purse as it can to the corporations while undoing public rights and decreasing corporate accountability.





PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:19 am
 


Lets see I have had many conversations with Connie Fogal and have met and talked with Paul Hellyer!<br /> <br /> Paul folded like a deck of cards when the NDP shunned his advances.<br /> Paul (to his credit) during on visit to Penticton at a public debate indicated my Wheat Starch system would have at least a 100,000,000 dolar increase in the Canadian(GDP) Gross Domestic Product.<br /> <br /> They did lack the balls to bring my issues to the light of day, while indicating to me, moral support!<br /> <br /> CAP hap a real chance of influencing Canadian Politics, but lile Mel , they were just an illusion, of democracy, having no real intention of honest politics but more of Liberal side show.<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker


Offline

Forum Junkie

Profile
Posts: 546
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:55 pm
 


<b>whelan costen</b>: Your paper was certainly backed by gold prior to World War I., when the gold-backed pound was king. I'd guess that your paper went off of gold during the war, went back on sometime in the 1920s, and went back off in the 1930s, following a similar path to the pound.<br /> <br /> <b>Armageddon</b>: I presume that the NDP didn't exist at Confederation; how did <i>they</i> expand?<br /> <br /> <b>Marcarc</b>: Perhaps one of the reasons for Canada's booming post-World War II. economy is that European industrial competitors were decimated by the war? (That certainly played a part in the USA's booming post-World War II. economy.)<br /> <br /> Note that those ancient books of wisdom condemned <b>usury</b>. The original definition of usury was lending money at interest - <i>any</i> rate of interest - not lending money at an "immoderate" rate of interest.<br />



Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.

— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2599
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:48 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Sorry, I was a little off topic. The real issue is the 'myth' about inflation. That can be argued endlessly-but this certainly isn't the forties. However, an easy answer is that if the Bank of Canada printed more money for our social programs every other country would do the exact same thing for the exact same reason which would, again, leave us at an equilibrium-since we have to pay workers, buy equipment, etc. Even if not, our currency would fall by an equal amount internationally, meaning it would take more money to accomplish those goals. Our monetary system is governed by international financiers, if you want to change that, you've pretty much got to cut Canada off from the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Technically we're governed by the Bank of Canada monetarily...it wouldn't even be necessary to print the money in the central bank, though this is desirable. During W.W. II all they did was force the private banks to hold a reserve in the central bank. This ment the total amount of money stayed the same, avoiding inflation, but the money on the bonds was returned to the Bank of Canada, which was nationalized in 1938....government paid itself...I'm still a little fuzzy on the details regarding how the reserves heldin the Bank of Canada worked.



"True nations are united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory". -

-Patrick J. Buchanan


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.