My plan to pay off the deficit at the rate of twenty billion dollars per month?

DennisTate · Apr 20, 2024

Am I a blithering idiot to think that this could work?????

In my opinion.... An Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income to all forty one million Canadians of merely five hundred dollars per month........

that is put into the economy in essentially the same manner as the Bank of Canada policy of 1938 to 1974 should....... in my opinion...... PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT.......

AND SOON THE NATIONAL DEBT OF CANADA.....

AT THE RATE OF ABOUT TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH!!!!!

This idea is so simple that this may scare you!!!!!

Forty one million Canadian citizens and legal residents......
if they each receive FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS CANADIAN......

CREATED IN THE MANNER THAT MS. BETTY KRAWCZYK RECOMMENTS......

[in a way that creates essentially zero COMPOUND INTEREST OWING OVER TIME]......

THEN AFTER this money turns over about three times in the economy......

it will be taxed back into the Treasury.......

and will begin to pay down... .first the Deficit and soon The national Debt of Canada??????

Essentially this same idea can work in the USA as well!

https://bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-pierre-trudeau-turned-us-into-debt.html

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES
Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.
Trudeaumania was just gearing up when I immigrated to Canada in late 1966. I, too, was impressed with Trudeau. He was intelligent, articulate, with liberal ideas. And as Prime Minister, Trudeau repatriated the Canadian Constitution and told the morals’ police to stay out of people’s bedrooms. But then…but then. As Anthony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar reminds us… “the evil that men do live after them while the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”

But somehow this worked backward for Trudeau. Many Canadians still think highly of Pierre Trudeau, but in 1974 he did one terrible thing that changed the lives, for present and future, of all Canadians, for the worse. Trudeau gave the leading operations of the Bank of Canada over to the private banks operating in Canada.

The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Apr 20, 2024

In my opinion economists Harold Chorney... John Hotson and Mario Seccarrecia are three of the best minds in Canada when it comes to this topic.

By Harold Chorney, John Hotson and Mario Seccareccia:

“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.”

A lesson from the War

https://www.michaeljournal.org/arti...ce-our-country-debt-free-say-three-economists

......
“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."

The creation of money

“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.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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!

“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.

“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.”

Banks create money
Click to expand...

But the idea of putting this money into the economy through a B. M. I. is one that I stole from economist Milton Friedman..... and then updated his idea to our modern situation.

DennisTate · Apr 20, 2024

After P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau's colossal error here is how the national debt of
Canada spiralled out of control:

My guess is that he was pressured into doing this so that the same thing could be
arranged in the USA:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ashington-swamp-from-the-ottawa-swamp.551407/

Can we learn about the Washington Swamp from the Ottawa Swamp?

?
Does the Ottawa Swamp and the Washington Swamp have the common denominator of ELITISM?

NO
2 vote(s)
22.2%

*
YES
6 vote(s)
66.7%

I am not sure but this is an intriguing theory that I may research further?????
1 vote(s)
11.1%

Change Your Vote

And both images can be seen here:

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-public-debt-problem?/plenty34.htm

DennisTate · Apr 20, 2024

Those three brilliant Canadian economists theorized that political leaders love The Deficit... because it gives them the perfect excuse to do essentially nothing about homelessness....... or poverty.. or increasing wages more than inflation.... or.... or.... or.....!

The Deficit Made me do it
Chorney, Harold; Hotson, John; Seccareccia, Mario
Publisher: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa, Canada
Resource Type: Book
Cx Number: CX6887

Abstract:
The authors of this booklet, three eminent economists, provide facts and figures why the government use the excuse of cutting job creation and public services to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

MONEY acts in the economy much like BLOOD within a human body........ if a body is drained of blood.... it will die......

If an economy is drained of money... that economy will die!

https://famguardian.org/Publications/InThisAgeOfPlenty/appenB.htm

Appendix B – The Bank of Canada
Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free
Say Three Economists

français

(An article published in the March-April, 1995 issue of the Michael Journal.
The introduction and comments are from Alain Pilote.)

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,)

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:

by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia

“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.»

A lesson of war
“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.

“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.»

“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!

“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!

“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.

The Bank of Canada has failed in its duty
“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?

“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.

“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!”

The updated version (January, 1996) of the pamphlet expresses the same ideas:

“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.

“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.

“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...

“(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.)

Interest rates and inflation

https://famguardian.org/Publications/InThisAgeOfPlenty/appenB.htm
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Apr 29, 2024 at 2:31 PM

......[/QUOTE]

Do Biden's advisors and Trudeau's advisors seem to want to crash the markets?

DennisTate said: ↑

Printing a lot of extra money will not of and by itself produce hyper-inflation.....

you also need to DECREASE PRODUCTIVITY......

paying people more who do nothing......and hammering away at the twenty percent of the population who do eighty percent of the most valuable work with higher and higher and higher levels of taxation.......
is a good way to set the stage for hyper-inflation......
and both Biden as well as Trudeau have been doing that for these past two years.
Click to expand...

?
Do Biden's advisors want to create an economic crisis?

No
9 vote(s)
40.9%

*
Yes
11 vote(s)
50.0%

I certainly hope not????
2 vote(s)
9.1%

I hope so... because I know how to invest no matter which way this goes!
0 vote(s)
0.0%

Change Your Vote

DennisTate · Apr 29, 2024 at 3:48 PM

Is it possible that Canada's Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau may have been attempting

to save the world ENVIRONMENT from overly PRODUCTIVE Canadians through his

rather obvious error back in 1974?????

Is this statement one of the most insightful paragraphs ever written on the productive capability of

human beings..... [or Canadians].... if they can agree that a project is important and worth investing money and time and talent and effort in?

"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." (Genesis 11)

Thomas Robert Malthus was an Anglican priest who understood this principle quite well... and yes.... there is a legitimate PESSIMISTIC way to view all of this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of human population planning to ensure resources and environmental integrities for current and future human populations as well as for other species.[2] In Britain the term "Malthusian" can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of family planning, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.[8] Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their support for the use of birth control. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (i.e., abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. He also worried that the effect of contraceptive use would be too powerful in curbing growth, conflicting with the common 18th century perspective (to which Malthus himself adhered) that a steadily growing population remained a necessary factor in the continuing "progress of society", generally. Modern neo-Malthusians are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

Malthusianism has attracted criticism from diverse schools of thought, including Georgists, Marxists [9] and socialists,[10] libertarians and free marketadvocates,[11] feminists,[12] Catholics,[13] and human rights advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, insufficiently researched,[13]misanthropic or inhuman.[14][15][3][16] Many critics believe Malthusianism has been discredited since the publication of Principle of Population, often citing advances in agricultural techniques and modern reductions in human fertility.[17] Some modern proponents believe that the basic concept of population growth eventually outstripping resources is still fundamentally valid, and that positive checks are still likely to occur in humanity's future if no action is taken to intentionally curb population growth.[18][19][better source needed] In spite of the variety of criticisms against it, the Malthusian argument remains a major discourse based on which national and international environmental regulations are promoted.
Click to expand...

Ecclesiastes 10:19
"A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things. "

Do economists who are worried about us Canadians becoming OVERLY PRODUCTIVE understand that one of the only ways

to slow us down........

is to use COMPOUND INTEREST OVER TIME... to make it look on paper as if we are BANKRUPT?????

I wrote something about this in my 2004 campaign.....

www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.com/

WHAT IS UNDERCONSUMPTIONISM? DO YOU THINK OUR PRIME MINISTER COULD DEFINE THIS THEORY IF ASKED ABOUT IT TOMORROW MORNING?

Basically, underconsumptionism, is the idea that in a technologically advanced economy, the sum total of the wages paid out to all workers involved in the creation of consumer goods, will never be as high as the value of the goods that they can produce. Globalization and the lessening of trade barriers between nations can cause the discrepancy between the supply of funds in the hands of consumers, and the total global level of production, to become almost incomprehensible.

This quotation from a Lubavichter Jewish website sums up the question quite well:
Click to expand...

"1. The first thing Moshiach does is do away with bad marketing."
"That's the true villain that has held us back all these years. Ask any
consumer electronics or computer engineer. We could all own household robots to
do our work. We could be consuming less than 10% of the natural resources we
consume now if it weren't for those nefarious busy bodies who market quantity
rather than quality. Given the true needs of most people and the productivity
possible with modern technology, we should all be working an average of 2.5
hours a week. What's responsible for the other 60+ hours? Bad
Marketing."

"Moshiach's marketing people will get people's minds back on the right
track. Thinking about real quality of life. About their relationship with the
earth and with their bodies and their souls and the people around them. Once
that's done, just about everything else we need to create paradise is here
already."

[Sighting Moshiach, chabad .org
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2811/jewish/Sighting-Moshiach.htm
]

Click to expand...

My 2006, 2008, 2016 and 2004 campaign writings as ART.

?
Is the world economy being deliberately dampened, perhaps to save the environment?

*
Yes
3 vote(s)
75.0%

No
0 vote(s)
0.0%

Maybe?????
1 vote(s)
25.0%

Change Your Vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Thomas Robert Malthus FRS (/ˈmælθəs/; 13/14 February 1766 – 29 December 1834)[1] was an English economist, cleric, and scholar influential in the fields of political economy and demography.[2]

In his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus observed that an increase in a nation's food production improved the well-being of the population, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level. In other words, humans had a propensity to use abundance for population growth rather than for maintaining a high standard of living, a view that has become known as the "Malthusian trap" or the "Malthusian spectre". Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want and greater susceptibility to war, famine, and disease, a pessimistic view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe. Malthus wrote in opposition to the popular view in 18th-century Europe that saw society as improving and in principle as perfectible.[3]

Malthus considered population growth as inevitable whenever conditions improved, thereby precluding real progress towards a utopian society: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man."[4] As an Anglican cleric, he saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behavior.[5] Malthus wrote that "the increase of population is necessarily limited by subsistence", "population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase", and "the superior power of population repress by moral restraint, vice, and misery
Click to expand...

[/quote][/quote]

Log in or Sign up

My plan to pay off the deficit at the rate of twenty billion dollars per month?

Will and Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income pay down the deficit and national debt?

Yes

No

This is a rather intriguing idea I must admit?????? I do hope so????!!!

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

My plan to pay off the deficit at the rate of twenty billion dollars per month?

Will and Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income pay down the deficit and national debt?

Yes

No

This is a rather intriguing idea I must admit?????? I do hope so????!!!

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches