Jerry J. Fortin

Look at it this way folks, something like 90 % of the money supply in Canada was brought into existence as interest bearing debt. It was not created by the government in a mint, that form of currency represents only 10% of the money supply. Therefore a vast majority of the money in this country is in control of private interests. In other words the government does not control its own monetary system. It can and does regulate the financial sector but it does not have the means of actually controlling it without legislative effort. Knowing this it is easy to understand how we, the unwashed masses of humanity, can formulate questions about monetary policy. Banks have no limits to their ability to create money, yet the government claims to control money supply through the efforts of a central bank which determines interest rates. The only thing that interest rates really do is determine the level of profit for the industry. During boom times the central bank claims to fight inflation by raising rates, during a bust they lower the rates. All the while the entire effort means profit for the banks. The bean counters will tell you that interest rates reflect risks and returns on investments. In reality if you were to run your home like a business you would suffer immediately. That is because there are two sets of laws, one for individuals and one for business. The individual is the one actually creating wealth through effort, the business is making profit on those efforts through creative accounting. Business uses people for their own ends, people are second class economic citizens. The current system as it stands in this and for that matter every other nation in the western world is designed to take money from citizens to feed a government. Taxes, that is the big game. Nations and taxation. The taxes are levied on citizens to provide services or so we are lead to believe. The truth is that the individuals that rise to power find clever ways to spend tax dollars to the extent that they usually don't have enough of them. So they borrow money from the banks. In Canada a huge amount of money disappears every year to pay government debt. That represents a net transfer of wealth from the citizens to private interests. The point I am getting at is that the systems we have designed are using us. That is own problem, it is our fault. We need to change the systems to do what we want them to do. Its not such a big deal when you think about it. The problem is that there is a perception that when the government acts to do anything besides transfer wealth into corporate hands that it is acting against the interests of business. We need a leader to stand up and tell the truth about this crap and take the definitive action that needs to betaken in order to turn things around and make the citizen the first concern of government.

Gee folks, it seems that a lot of posts indicate a great reluctance to see the wage slaves get a break. Lets look at some simple facts. For starters there are a hell of a lot of people in this country who are not by their own definition affluent. Second of all this is a democracy. So what makes you folks think that the majority of citizens would not best be served by an increase in their disposable income? Can any nation on earth compete with China's less than $2.00 an hour factory wages? Where are corporations investing in manufacturing plants.....hmmm lets see... China! So those companies who used to employ our citizens are gravitating to less expensive labour markets to produce goods to import into our nations. In the corporate mindset bean counters rule. Do you think for a second that your employer wouldn't leap at the chance to reduce your wages by 20%, well guess what.... they can hire 10 Chinese to work for everyone of us! How long do you think it will take to get rid of us? Just as fast as the corporation can afford to invest in those labour markets is the answer. Just think about it people. Greed and the quest for profit has a far higher profile in business than the mere concerns of employees. So what do we do? We can't turn back the clock and put the genie back in the bottle so we need a solution that comes from out of the regular box. We need to take a few steps back from the cliff and notice the horizon. There are definite lines that cannot be crossed or confused. When the effects of business and commerce directly and adversely impact the needs of the citizens the government must e compelled to act on behalf of the people, they simply have no choice. The point of no return is rapidly approaching. Corporate governance is making vast inroads within our political system and we need to be aware of the consequences of this type of action. I do not advocate a communistic approach, or even a radical socialistic approach. I do advocate monetary reforms and tax reforms. The ultimate goal of government being to improve the human condition directs policy toward systems that benefit the citizen. So governmental reforms must be inserted into the equation in order to eliminate corruption and waste. The Robin Hood means of wealth transfer in Canada, namely the "Equalization Formulas" do little to actually prevent the economic pressures of the global marketplace on citizens. In fact the program actually rewards incompetence and penalizes productivity. Given this basic tenant of Canadian internal politics we are hard pressed to address the concerns of citizens with respect to emerging economies of immense scale. We are not even capable of directing our own economy to our own benefit! What Canada needs is a fundamental change in economic policy and reforms in our monetary system.

Minimum wages don't hurt business! They simple pass on the cost to the consumers of the products and services they provide! So the end result is an employee making a few more dollars a week is that they spend more dollars within their local economies. We need to consider where the real dollars are made in this nation. It is not a few multi-million dollar sales that bring in big profits but instead the millions upon millions of one dollar sales of all kinds of consumable products that yield immense profit. So providing for an increase in the disposable income of citizens is actually beneficial to the economy. If you take that a step or two further, look at the tax burden that drains disposable income from citizens and prevents them from purchasing products and services that create the wealth of the nation. The issue that truely needs to be addressed is devising a means to retain that earned profit within the nation. Our government should be working on ways to improve our internal economy and decrease the dependence on products and services that are i9mported from outside the nation. In order to gain any reasonable measure of economic security we must first create and then develop internal markets for domestic products and services. Excessive productive capacity can be earmarked for export. This is a no brainer decision for economic policy. The question is why have we not followed this policy?

Fortress North America is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination. If you think about it for a minute or two it make good sense in economic terms. Canada has the resources, America has the industrial capacity and Mexico has the labour force. When you take into consideration the economic threat of the Asian land mass there are few options available for us to utilize to our advantage. Granted there is great political differences between the three countries but it seems that there has been effort made to nullify the impact of politics within the proposed concept. It needs to be said that capitalism is attempting to make a stand here. Without this type of economic cooperation there is a distinct possibility that our western society in North America will suffer in competition and trade to the extent that our standards of living will be adversely impacted.

Few politicians are. Their entire effort is spin related, attempting to make themselves look good while making others look bad. Now that kind of behaviour is not tolerated by me of my children in my own home. I certainly will not accept it as a common trait of my elected representatives.

Look people, we signed off on Kyoto a long time ago. It was and is an international agreement, and we have an obligation to live up to our agreement with the proposal. Cleaning up the environment is rather key to our continued survival. We simply need clean air and water and require land to grow food free of pollutants. So lets get of the dime and figure out how to clean up the place without going broke doing it. Forget the international agreements and the attending political storms that are inevitable. We need to focus on the problem at hand. Our energy production methods are harmful to the environment. Our food production methods are harmful to the environment. Our industrial capacity is built upon a system that is harmful to the environment. These are the true problems we face, our means of sustaining ourselves is detrimental to the environment and the accumulated affects of human efforts to do so are becoming counterproductive. The equation that we need to solve is one in which we can modify the variables to reflect a positive solution.

Our politicians are really smart. They blame everybody for everything and accept no responsibility for their actions. From my little soap box, I don't give a rats behind about who did what when they were in power. What I want is to see the people in power NOW get off their behinds and do something. Kyoto or not, there is a freaking problem to be dealt with. The way I see it is that the government in power at the time signed onto an international agreement in our names. We therefore have some responsibility to live up to our word as given by our elected officials. The time for pointing fingers and posturing is over, and it is time to get our collective act together and do something.

The US needs to shift its focus from international to domestic politics. The need to lower their profile and work on their own backyard. Its getting a little hot in the kitchen.............

Legalize and tax. Use the funds to improve society in the manner desired by public consent. This is supposed to be a democracy, put the question to the test, a referendum. Allow citizens to see the cost of pursuing the current policy, let them see the cost benefit research into the alternative and let them decide a course of action.

If it was my call, I would take about 75% of the budget surplus and build some nuclear reactors. Stop talking about the problems and start acting on them. Energy production causes a fair chunck of the problem and needs to be rethought. The other 25% should be dumped into government research and development of other alternative energy production methods and means.

I think the thing to remember is that politicians are by and large media junkies. Wherever the spotlights are is where you can find the little fellas. When a majority of the press gets behind something the public gets all juiced up and then the politicians climb to the top of the pile to pontificate about the facts of the matter. So what it boils down to is how the media gets played and by whom. For my own beliefs on the weather, I look outside. Has the weather changed since I was a child, short answer is yes. I will trust my own memory and use it to gauge what others say. I think we are in the midst of some trend that is bringing more extreme weather to my home. Winters are getting warmer, summers are getting hotter. Not exactly scientific, yet completely realistic.

I will be long dead before this confrontation is over. You see I am of the belief that an attack on Iran is an attack on the strategic energy resources of China. Given that China gets a vast amount of oil from Iran I can see them getting a little miffed at a threat to their energy supply chain. This could lead to the Chinese letting go of the lease on their dog in Korea. Instead of involving themselves in a war, I think the Chinese would rather utilize influence and alliances to preserve their infrastructure while achieving political objectives. This little brush war in Iraq, is nothing more than the smoldering ember that may ignite a world wide war. The middle east may be in the spot light now, but there is Korea to worry about and China as well. Not to mention the threat of resource retaliation from other places in South America. The American Empire is in danger.

All this talk about fund raising can only mean that preparations are underway for the next election. I find that entertaining, because I don't think there will be any significant change in the composition of government.

My prediction, we'll never see an attack on Iran in the next decade, or even the next 50 years. I will predict an attack on Iran within the next ten to fifty days.........

The C17 is needed badly, it is a must buy item. I think we need to consider getting a few C130 gunships, the new ones are something else. With our changing role in terms of international military alliances we need a greater degree of force deployment flexibility. The C17 does that nicely, but we need to consider force composition as well.

Choice#2...if they take their share of the national debt. Alberta has already paid for its share of the debt several times over, but I agree with your intent.

Shareholders do NOT punish the companies they invest in, they DO make a profit on their own investment. As long as the share price remains high and the company remains profitable and declares dividends to shareholders they can do as they please. The gap between the rich and the poor will always exist, partly for reasons Argus has described. On the other hand, this nation needs to recognize that corporate governance is a direct threat to democracy. That threat has the potential to further widen the already growing gap between the rich and the poor. Our society needs to evolve beyond the grubbing for money that currently describes our economic situation. There is sufficient wealth in this nation to provide for the care of its citizens to the extent that no citizen should want for any basic necessity of life. That applies from food to shelter. Without forcing communism or radical socialism down the throats of citizens, simply reforming the taxation system and applying some carefully thought out economic and monetary reforms it is possible to gain our independence from both the political and economic thugs who currently run the show.

That question is loaded. An affirmative answer would preclude the existence of any military presence in a nation, or law enforcement for that matter. I think the question should be rethought to some extent.

You might want to look into some other parts of the world about that thought. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&...&d=5&m=6&y=2003

Really? What part? So you are suggesting what? That we have sold our souls for mere gold and riches, and are now beholding to a foreign power because of economic inferiority? Obviously you worship a capitalistic God. I could guess that you have a mortgage on your home. So why shouldn't the holder of that mortgage be able to compell you to take a lesser paying job and rewrite the terms of your loan to make you pay them higher rates of interest spread over a longer time that would see your payments lowered but stretched into the lifetimes of your children? Further to that point why should the corporations near your home, who probably employ and/or your family and friends be able to put a chemical plant in the school yard where your children attend and a hazardous waste plant in your back yard? Are you not in debt to them for your employment and therefore would it not well behoove you to grant them this small favour in return for your continued employment? Please think carefully about political obligations and international implications in terms of the responsibility of our own government to effect the will of the people through democratic process. I don't think we have shyed away from the United States at all. We are indeed involved in Afganistan, that was an act of friendship to the United States that was a direct result of the 911 terror attack. We have stood beside the United States for decades, and have helped them numerous times. I see no reason to change that. What I am suggesting is that Canada assume a role of public neutrality in international affairs. We should take no side in international conflict, outside of self defense on our own soil. I suggest that we forego aggression and begin to work towards an enlightened international agenda of peaceful coexistence. We could simply not conduct diplomatic relations with nations pursuing acts of international aggression or internal abuse of citizens. I suggest that we reject relations with countries that have agendas that are in conflict with our own.

Steve is a smart boy. He has come to the conclusion that Frenchy Stevie is an actual political threat. The Conservatives aready jumped on the green band wagon, what will they do next? I will tell you, they will piggyback to death any issue with a little public support. These guys know how the game is played and are playing it well. If you do nothing at all you can't be made out to have screwed anything up can you?

We are indeed identified with the western Angloshere. We always will be JBG. What I am suggesting is that our citizens need to become more informed and more active in their political lives. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We had no active role in Vietman, or Panama, Grenada or even Cuba.

I think not. For my money it is the moralistic and judgemental capitalistic society that acts on behalf of corporate interests instead of the will of the people. You want to deal with gangs, then create legislation to deal with them. Empower the police to act against them. Its organized crime and should be dealt with as such. Young offenders are no less guilty than those who have reqached the age of majority. Boot camp them when caught until they are legal adults then charge them and convict them, and put them away for good.

The real problem here is one of public safety. The moral judgements have little impact on society and do nothing to prevent crime. Crime being defined as violating the law of the land, prostitution is not illegal. Living of the avails and public solicitation are the crimes. But these laws simply do take into consideration the reality of society. That is supply and demand. If there is a market for a product it will be sold regardless of the legal nature of the product. Guns, drugs, and sex are all regulated to a degree and even sanctioned in some cases. Yet all have grave implications to society. Tell me that a handgun has less potential threat to society than a hooker. Or that a guy smoking a joint in his garage is somehow more dangerous than a guy who got legally drunk then went for a drive down a free way. The issue is one of public safety. Does that mean that all things that can be viewed as a public safety hazard should be made illegal, no. If that is the case then close down the cigarette factories and shutdown the distilleries and breweries. While you are at it you can close about 75 percent of the energy industy and 100 percent of the chemical industries. We need a reality check. Laws pretaining to moral judgements need careful review. Given that we sanction the machinary of our modern society to create jobs through the production of goods and services deemed as necessary by the laws of supplyuy and demand, then we need to accept that literally all goods and services are subject to the same terms of existance and that our society is incapable of regulating these goods and services when they exist outside of the legal framework of our society. The means of dealing with the issue then becomes one of regulation and enforcement. The moral arguements go out the window. To leave the moral arguement in political power would demand that we stone adulterous citizens to death. Accept Islamic courts and begin to cut off the hands of thieves, accept Amish judgements and start shuning citizens. Accept the old Inuit practice of putting your parents on an iceflow instead of an old folks home. Accept the burning of witches and the simple truth of the flat earth. Last time I checked this was a more modern age than the primitive concepts of listed above. Legalize the problems and regulate them...get a freaking grip on the situation. As it stands we are mired in a convoluted moralist and judgemental society which places governments above individuals. What is truely needed is a government subservient to the will of the people.

Times change and our goverment has reflected the sentiments of its citizens. We have changed as well, because 911 really did change things. America, our greatest ally, finds itself at war and we are compelled to stand with them to a large degree. The entire world is becoming polarized and there are choices to be made by all nations. Unfortunately the citizens of Canada have not seen fit to examine the options carefully and have taken the least path of resistance. Its not an issue of us or them as we have been lead to believe by weak minded political opportunists, but instead it is a question of a much more profound implication. The problem lays buried in international political intrique surrounded by no less than the power of economics and religion. While it has been said that terrorism threatens our society the reality is that if our society threatens their society then terrorism is the tool of choice for a society much less affluent than ours. It is a tactic that can be used to leverage our own citizens against our governments in order to attain a political objective. It has and still is working in favour of the terrorists. That is why this particular tool of warfare was chosen by those in position to do so. The simple reality is that Canada has no place in this war, nor should it. Our nation has another alternative available to it should it have the fortitude to do so. We can choose the path of nuetrality and take no side in the events of violence which take the lives of citizens. The choice needs to be made by the citizens of this nation. I do not suggest that we forego our own defense, merely that we forego acts of aggression outside of our own borders.