blueblood

Not if it's going to have zero value like in Zimbabwe. ThEre has to be people creating real wealth to back that money before I'd lend it out. The problem is artificially low interest rates are sending signals to people to borrow more money on things other an production causing a misallocation of capital. Had rates been higher, we wouldn't have that and savings would grow and we'd have frac. Lending of sound money instead of the fed pulling money out of their ass. By raising rates, it creates scarcity of money which in turn causes prices to fall as there isn't enough money chasing the value of goods/services.

The only thing supply management creates is a house of cards. It sends false market signals to producers which causes them to misallocate resources. It also screws with trade agreements around the world, which Canada as a major exporter is a beneficiary from.

Personal debt is still a big problem, but he goes about it all wrong. It was socialist ideals that created the environment for this personal debt debacle to begin with. Normally banks wouldn't follow suit, but the regulations made it so the banks had nothing to lose. I've been trying to say that the banks/fed can jack up the rates, reduce money supply and over time prices would fall. But we have buffoons in charge of setting this rates and now we have a problem. The gov't is essentially outsourcing socialism.

It does when them protesters are stoned half the time. It does when there is propane nearby. It does when there are flammable objects nearby. The protestors don't have to resort to violence. Do they ink we live in a banana republic where the cops take you out back and get shot. Maybe if they didn't resist arrest they wouldn't risk getting hurt in the first place. There's a place to "fight" the cops, it's this place called court, what a wonderful concept. If you did nothing wrong the judge let's you go and there is no record of what happened, if only we had this in north America, oh wait we do!

A gov't could simply print money at the treasury and not pay interest, just like 1920s Germany and Zimbabwe? How's that going? Income isn't just cash, it's a promise to pay, and accounts receivable as well. That's what many people who invested in Lehman bros. Found out the hard way. What your doing is similar to Krugman's style economists, creating models and drawing conclusions to fit your beliefs. And your once again focused on low interest rates and their effects. It does work the other way, there needs to be a fed chairman with a brain in his head.

2 rail lines and highway 16. That's why louis Dreyfus is there too. Also dead centre of canola country. Bunge has comparable ones in Manitoba.

Dp

Dp

That's what happened when Trudeau the hippie tried to copy socialism. Fire up the printing press and spend spend spend. How else was he supposed to get money for his nonsense, the money tree? Time to crack up the rates and save money, and cut spending. Private banks were the only people to borrow from because of the income they receive from loans on production. Blame th 99% for their wannabe lifestyle and living on debt and voting in politicians who spend on programs. People did better in the earlier days because they had a debt is the devil mentality and paid their bills, not because of "the system". Banking has existed for hundreds of years and gives us the standard of living we enjoy. There's no conspiracy, no shadow games, just business.

Bingo. It works like that in agriculture as well. The guys who have a solid succession plan in place that doesn't involve having the kids buy the parents out are the guys that have the ability to keep expanding. Bill gates might have morally beter kids, but he's taking his wealth with him. Those kids are starting off at a disadvantage. Even the kids who inherit all this wealth have to work at keeping it/making it grow. If they live too high on the hog and don't manage their money, they turn out like lots of NFL players- broke!

Some feel that the board can do a good job of timing the market and some can't. Then there was volume and quantity some felt could swing the market. There are studies on both sides of the issue which makes it such a fierce debate.

Shenanigans!!! It was most definately on the campaign trail. Hell he went to a farm and laid it out as a plank.

The consumer won't be affected one bit by this. The cwb had to go in the world market just like everyone else. The steamroller ad is a joke. Fearmongering at its finest. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to drink that kool-aid. Some farmers do vote liberal, those are those 50 or less people you see at cwb rallies. Not really a consensus of farmers on the issue with numbers at a rally like that.

Did you not read my prev. posts on this topic... That "vote" was a sham. Many producers didn't get a ballot mailed to them and there were people who were retired/landlords who got ballots. Remember, that when the gov't tried to put restrictions on who could vote, the cwb and their supporters threw a hissy fit. You know what that restriction is - a minimum of 40 tones of wheat produced. To put that in perspective that's 1 semi load or about 12,000 dollars worth of grain. That's below welfare, nobody lives on that let alone deal with expenses to get that gross of 12000. The farmers also gave their opinion in a gov't plebiscite a couple years back and most wanted marketing choice. The cwb and their supporters threw another hissy fit calling the vote rigged, and then there was the election when western canada was solidly tory blue.

In the birthplace of the ndp, they have been reduced to 8 seats with brad wall getting a super majority of 50 out of 58 seats and 60% of the vote. That was an ass whipping of the highest order. My link

Ah, but Turks and Caicos is already well off and is a British overseas territory. If there is a Haitian refugee problem, they would already have it along with puerto Rico and the virgin and cayman islands. I think it's the constitution and the red tape.

Again your not taking into account higher interest rates which slash money creation and boost bank reserves. Also to remember that with higher interest payments, payments to banks are larger. If the fed isn't printing money with low rates, prices eventually go down when the new loans are taken out down the road. According to this, USA annual GDP growth surpasses your magical number and this is averaged all through the years of the fed/frac. Banking My link High interest rates in the 80s are a benefit and didn't put your magic number in doubt. There's enough money, there needs to be a period of savings, and that will lead to growth as it did in 1920-21, fed and all. The only bad cycle is the fed printing money and the banks frac. Lending it out instead of consumers saving and paying off debt like they should. With frac. Banking, an increase of savings increases the banks reserves for future lending without devaluing the currency.

And occupy is like the full moon when all the nut bars come out

No, it's how you think it works. There are people out there who have no debt, it is possible. As for government, they have in perpetuity to pay it off. The problem is when the debt becomes unmanageable to the point when interest payments take a big percentage of gov't spending. The interest rates rising cuts off the borrowing and provides sound capital for frac. Banking to loan out in the future when there is too much money in savings or to bondholders the bank doesn't want to pay interest on. As a result over the long run there is economic growth. It's a two way street. Yours is a function of low interest rates and borrowing over the past 20 years. Regains debt was to obliterate the soviet union. Mission accomplished. The high interest rates helped curb 70s stagflation - buckleys tastes bad.

And that's why we have interest rate increases, to balance out all the lending going on and allow the bank to recapitalize for future loans. Problem is central bankers won't jack up the rates. Jacking up rates cuts down loans thus cutting down money created. Banks survived when interest rates were higher and will continue to do so. That commercial bank has the potential to create 900 bucks however. Your analogy only works during low interest periods and completely ignores what went on during the early 80s.

It's the potential can of worms of opening up the constitution to do so, and according to wiki has support across the political spectrum.

Probably would have thought it civilized being as in his time stuff like that would have caused great many people to be shishliki.

Considering their unemployment rate was 5.4% in 06, they wouldn't even be a burden to us.

And where does that seed start, some bozo at the central bank decides to implement a cheap money policy and engages in open market operations and then frac. Lending takes care of the rest. That's bad. If somebody deposits hard money from production in the bank, and the bank has to be careful who it lends out to because money is tight in the first place, that's good. You aren't taking into consideration that interest rates can rise and that most debtors do pay their bills. Also you fail to take into account that prices decrease when the supply of money is tight. Also you fail to take into account that many loans are taken out for the production of goods, not just the consumption. If bob stuck 100 bucks in a commercial bank, wouldn't the bank print up 900 bucks if were doing frac reserve banking? If that's the case, there is enough money. Also you are assuming frank and bill work for free and their production means nothing. The economy is far more complex than your little analogy, and that's why it has worked. Just needs competent people providing the environment for it to function.

Don't they actually want to join up?