bradco

"The ability of banks to create money depends on their ability to only hold fractional reserves -- which, in turn, is supported by the tax-payers." Its hardly a subsidy. Dont like it then dont put your money in the bank. The whole reason the bank accepts your money is so they can make a profit on it. In exchange for this they keep your money nice and safe compared with it being stuffed under your mattress. They have found a great way to increase their profits.....so what?? Isnt it the job of private businesses to make profits???

"I am certainly not the first to say what I am saying about the banks. I'm wondering how qualified you are because I have taken economics and you and I don't seem to be dissagreeing on a lot, you think its OK for private bankers to print of governemnt money and I think governments should do it." I dominated macroeconomics "You say that if governments did it we would end up with hyperinflation, yet letting the banks do it somehow protects us." difference between printing money and creating money. "I don't see why the government couldn't manage our supply in our interest better than the way the bankers do so in their own interest." one is motivated by votes the other by profit....which would be more efficient? "If you know so much then why don't you tell me how much money can be created from $100.00 in reserves and a 10 to 1 reserve ratio. I think its around $3000.00, what do you think?" lol I was never good at math...but hey....initial deposit of $100/.1 (assuming no cash drains) would equal $1000 so thats a $900 increase in the money supply....how do you get $3000?

JSTOR is a particularly good resource in my experience. definetly the best in my opinion

Actually, the US and media's definition is more defining! Whereas this literal definition, ".....a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky), is too loose! What is international "norm" in your definition? Anyway, you said something about "abandoning" the geneva conventions. I hope you don't think you got that from me! I never said anything about abandoning! I mentioned, "revising." The Geneva Conventions was in placed to prevent atrocities from happening. And I approve of that! My question is what do we do with those who do not want to follow those rules at all, like the terrorists who had broken practically every rule. Having rules and laws is one thing...but enforcing it is another. -you want to say my definition is to loose but then argue for a definition that allows someone to claim anyone is "rogue" on the mere grounds they are an enemy?? does that sound logical to you?? -my international "norm" is the laws and customs that are well known and codified in law, widely available for anyone to know. -ok so its revising of the geneva conventions. please specify what you mean. Note, I have already explained to you that terrorists, and violators of the conventions, forfeit most rights that it offers. -seeing that you call for what many people might define as genocide, by nuking an entire city when a smaller less damaging bomb would be more than enough I would say you have actually argued for totally disregarding the geneva conventions.

OK. So lets get down to actual figures. With a $10.00 reserve and a then to one reserve ratio, how much money do you think the bankers would be able to print for nothing ? When the government borrows money from these bankers for a project, say building a bridge, here is what happens: The government borrows money from private bankers to build the bridge using the labour of the people and the natural resources of the land to create a bridge. They owe the bankers the amount of money that the bridge is worth($100.00 for arguement sake) - or with interest , reserve ratios taken into account, more. For this they do nothing but print the money. All the money the bankers create ends up in the economy - (usually) an interest payment to service the debt rather than pay it off - leaving the country in debt. The bridge is built from natural resources and labour of the people but the banker affectively owns the bridge because he is owed its worth. Every dollar from that bridge while in the economy is earning interest for private bankers. Under this scenario the bankers are effectively renting our currency to us by collecting interest on it while its still in circulation. Suppose the government printed its own money then the workers earn it into the economy and the bridge would be built with no debt. The $100.00 would be circulating in the economy as it is re earned. The country built the bridge with its own natural resources and people and does not pay interest to private bankers. In a system such as this the government prints money for its expenditures and it gets earned into the economy by gove employees. Taxation is used to control money supply, we still end up paying for our governmnt services but the money being used isn't earning interest for private bankers. In addition to that, under such a system the private bankers cannot control the conomy and the economy can be run to benefit people rather than control them as is done now through foundations, focus groups & think tanks. No one has ever shown that there is an advantage to allowing private bankers to collect seigniorage* on money that is spent by government. What do the private bankers bring to the table for the privilidge of renting us our currency ? Is this not a huge drain on the economy ? Why should we owe them so much money - what have they done for us in return ? This example is of how the USA operates exactly - all of their money in electronic and currency form in circulation is earning interest for the people who created it. In Cnada gov prints coin/bill currency. *seigniorage is the difference between the face value and cost to produce money. For $100.00 the seigiorage is about $99.25 because it costs $0.75 to print it. Again creating money is NOT the same as printing money. Using a fractional reserve system money is created..... really it just increases the money supply. If the government actually prints it off to pay for the bridge you get inflation.....now if the government was dumb and reckless enough to be doing something like this you would probably be into hyperinflation awfully quick. Go ask people who lived through hyperinflation in the 1920's in Germany how much fun that was! "What do the private bankers bring to the table for the privilidge of renting us our currency ? Is this not a huge drain on the economy ?" No in fact it is a huge plus for our economy. Without the availability of loans created by a fractional reserve system the cost of borrowing money would be much higher. You would get less investment--->less jobs. "In a system such as this the government prints money for its expenditures and it gets earned into the economy by gove employees. Taxation is used to control money supply, we still end up paying for our governmnt services but the money being used isn't earning interest for private bankers." If the government just prints money you will have inflation.... most likely hyperinflation. What they would have to do is collect tax money and then loan out the tax money on a fractional reserve system like that used by the banks. Since governments are not motivated by profit, but rather by votes, this system would be MUCH MORE inefficient than using banks. I still dont think you understand the process in which money is "created" by the banks. For the government to do the same thing they cant just make transfer payments to people. That isnt changing the money supply.....it has to be a loan to increase the money supply. "Every dollar from that bridge while in the economy is earning interest for private bankers. Under this scenario the bankers are effectively renting our currency to us by collecting interest on it while its still in circulation." The bankers earn the interest on the loans they give out because they are taking RISK. Yes it is with our money which we have deposited at their banks but if they lose our money they still have to give it back to us. "The government borrows money from private bankers to build the bridge using the labour of the people and the natural resources of the land to create a bridge. They owe the bankers the amount of money that the bridge is worth($100.00 for arguement sake) - or with interest , reserve ratios taken into account, more. For this they do nothing but print the money. All the money the bankers create ends up in the economy - (usually) an interest payment to service the debt rather than pay it off - leaving the country in debt." First of all, stop using the word "print" because I think it has got you all confused. The bankers arent doing nothing. They are getting paid rent on the money because they are taking RISK. If they lend out money and it isnt paid back they get hooped. Who is going to take the risk of losing money in the absence of any benefits??? The only option is for the government to run every bank and hand out loans on an interest free basis (or set to inflation rate). That would lead to massive inflation from overheating the economy (pre-school macroeconomics there). The other option is the government runs the system and sets the interest rate and collects the interest for the supposed public good. Here we have to trust the government in making decisions. Personally Ill leave a private institution motivated only by profit to make the efficient choices. Anyways, take some macroeconomics courses at school or something because your really lost man.

So based on the $100.00 deposit, how much actual money gets created from nothing ? Suppose your reserves from that $100.00 become $95.00 ?. Banks do create money from nothing, they just need to hold onto a small amount of deposits to do it. Its still a great deal for them and leaves the country needlessly in debt to private bankers. I dont think you really understand the issue. When the bank "creates" the money it isnt that they are actually making money that they can go spend on what they choose. They are merely increasing the money supply. In fact this creation of money doesnt needlessly harm us by putting us in debt to private bankers. By "creating" money the banks allow for us to take out loans which is beneficial for the economy. If you dont want the loan because you decide it doesnt benefit you then dont take it. The truth is most people decide to take loans becuase they decide that in the long run it benefits them. "how much actual money gets created from nothing " the money creation, or the change in the money supply, as I already said is equal to the initial deposit/reserve ratio (minus any drains such as households holding cash).

Ive always found it interesting that the US Capital is not in a state... a little humour for the board: Stephen Colbert interviews Washington congresswoman (note interview starts at 2 minute mark of video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWFTvWJwjws

As an American, I must be even more ignorant of Canadian matters than the "average Canadian". I have, unfortunately, been in the position of explaining to a Peterborough, ON school teacher who I met at a NYC Great Big Sea concert what happened on the Plains of Abraham, and who Montcalm and Wolfe were. Its sad but highschool/elementary teachers are no more educated than most people on this forum. I think thats true in both Canada and the US

So im sitting in class the other day and someone asks if they can cite wikipedia for their paper...the prof just laughs. Wikipedia is fine for looking stuff up quickly but as an academic source its a joke. I cant imagine why anyone feels the need to use google, wikipedia and other online sources that much for academic papers. Dont all schools subscribe to at least a few journal databases? (ie Academic Search Premier, Lexus, JSTOR)

"Because women don't want men looking at them when they are all sweating and grunting during a workout. Just like a group of middle aged men would be somewhat uncomfortable if they had to show their fat bellies to a group of babes. There are men's gyms. Sure the odd women will go to Gold's, for instance, but the majority are men. Women's gym equipment (for us regular gals who go to places like Curves) are not built for men. You wouldn't enjoy the workout anyway." The issue is equality. A man is legally barred from womans gyms but women are allowed in mens gyms if they please. I have no problem with one sex only gyms....but it has to go both ways. You argue why would men want to go into women gyms? Why were women getting outraged at male only clubs at golf courses. Why would a woman want to go into those places anyways, right? For me I just dont like the hyprocritical stances taking by a lot of the "feminist" groups etc.

wow this is about the most confusing thread Ive seen on this board....so much misinformation and garbage....I only made it through the first 5 pages so forgive me if I say anything that has been cleared up but I feel like a little knowledge about central banking etc is needed. The BOC is not a private instiution with the power to do anything it wants. It has day-to-day independance from cabinet but is ultimately accountable to the government, The responsiblity of the BOC is to implement government monetary policy. Currently, the sole goal of the BOC is to keep inflation between 1-3%. The BOC used to make it mandatory for chartered banks to keep reserves (in order to stop a run on the bank). This restriction was lifted because of competition from financial intermediaries and international banks who did not have to hold required reserves. Banks still keep reserves (in Canada currently 0.5% of their liabilities). They do this because if they need to borrow money in the event of a run on the bank they will have to pay interest. They keep a reserve at a level they feel the risk is ok. If the interest rate the BOC charges (the Bank Rate or "overnight" rate) goes up the chartered banks hold higher reserves because the costs of borrowing go up. If BOC reduces rate chartered bank will hold smaller reserves. The BOC can therefore induce chartered banks to increase and decrease their reserves, which affects the money supply. There has been a lot of talk about banks "printing money". This gives the impression that they have giant printing presses rolling out cash. This is not true. It isnt printing but "creating". This creating money simply increasesthe money supply, it isnt a bad thing. Ill give an example of how the banks "create" money: I deposit $1oo into my bank account at TD so the current money supply is $100, The bank takes my $100 and puts say $20 into its reserves and loans out $80. Someone else then spends that $80 and the reciever of it puts it in his account at TD.The money supply is now $180. TD takes that $80 puts $16 into reserves (same 20% into reserves as above) and loans out $64. Somone else then puts $64 into TD....Td puts $12.80 into reserves and loans out $51.20.....etc etc As you can see the money supply is being enlarged by the bank because it only hold a certain amount in reserve and then loans out the rest. This is how banks create money: by having a fractional reserve system. This is known as the Money Multiplier. The change in the money supply (or the creation of money) is equal to 1/reserve ratio. In my example.... $100 (initial deposit)/0.2(reserve ratio) equals $500...there is then a $400 increase in the money supply. Thats how banks create money! Note my example assume no cash drains (ie households will usually hold a % in cash....it can be included in the equation but lets not complicate things) EDIT: thought it is important to note that when the banks "create" this money it is not them that own it. Example: Bank loans me $80 of your $100 deposit (they will make interest on the loan), I take my $80 and buy an MP3player at Future Shop (it is therefore future shop that owns the created money) There seems to be confusion how the BOC effects money supply/interest rates. When the BOC sets its interest rate it doesnt just happen automatically. The BOC determines the interest rate they want then change the money supply in order to achieve it. I kind of covered one option earlier. 1. Bank Rate ("overnight rate"): This is the rate which the BOC charges to chartered banks when they are short on overnight reserves. Chartered banks MUST borrow from the BOC to neurtralize any daily negative reserve balances. By increasing/decreasing the Bank Rate (the rate charged to banks by the BOC) the BOC can induce changes in the reserves held by chartered banks by changing the risks of being short on money. Example: Increase the BOC bank rate --> banks increase their targeted reserves --> therefore the money supply decreases since they hold more reserves ---> as the money supply decreases there is less money available for loans and hence the interest rate rises!!! 2.Shifting: the BOC is where the government of Canada hold its money. By "shifting" this money between BOC and chartered banks the BOC can change the money supply. Example: If the BOC shifts government money into chartered banks the money supply increases which decreases interest rates. 3. Open Market Opertions: buying and selling of T-Bills 4. buyback operations: specials and reverses

For the record Geofrrey, having a currency backed by gold and the gold standard are entirely different things. -Gold originally backed up money because something needed to give the money value. Gold had intrinsic value (its rare, stable price and best of all, shiny!). That value now comes from paper money being legal tender, that is it is guaranteed to be accepted everywhere. The problem is there is not enough gold on this planet to back up all the money in circulation. One poster blame fiat currency for the fall of currencies in certain countries. I wonder how you would explain how a nation would pay back their debt with a very limited supply of gold on this planet. I think that situation wouldlead to wars lol. With understandings now of the consequences of printing off money and what it does to inflation countries will refrain from doing so to pay off debt. The US doesnt need to worry about their debt because their GDP can handle it. That being said they need to bring their deficit under control. -The Gold Standard is a system on which all currencies are tied together at a set value. That is to say that foreign currencies always sell at the same value and their prices are set to that of gold. This is compared to the current system where currencies values "float" against each other. The problem with using a gold standard or any other fixed exchange rate system is you either have to forfeit capital mobility or monetary policy. This is known as the "holy trinity" or "Mundell-Flemming constraint" which states you can only have two of: capital mobility, fixed exchange rate system, monetary policy (the economics behind it is quite easy to understand).

I think the definition I used isnt really propagandist....it just takes the literal meanings of "rogue"and "state" and combines them to form a term. The "rogue state" definition used by governments and popular media doesnt share the real meaning of the words "rogue"or "state". It just sounds a little spooky so when a leader can get up and accuse a state of being "rogue" people get all riled up. "I take it then that Chomsky's definition" -its not really "his" definition. It is used by a lot more people than just him. It is just the ordinary meaning of the word as seen in any dictionary.

hmm a discrepancy. I was referring to the useage of rogue state that I have come across in various scholarly articles. The Wikipedia article is on "rogue state" as a term constructed by the US and other governments as a propaganda tool. This term is mostly used in popular media. Note, at the top of the link you provided it has said that the "neutrality of this article is disputed" "Like many other terms of political discourse, the term "rogue state" has two uses: a propagandistic use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky, Rogue States, page 1 [2]) I refer to the literal meaning of the term

This tells me you learned more US history than Canadian at school, or was it just from watching TV? Definetly didnt learn it from highschool...dont know where though....maybe history at university? "I asked if they would be learning about recent Canadian history (FLQ Crisis in particular, as my son's interest was piqued by Romeo Dallaire's book, Shake Hands With the Devil)" Its amazing the FLQ Crisis isnt studied in highschool. I knew nothing about it at all until I wrote a research paper on it in first year. 20th century Canadian politics and history is completely ignored....it really is unbelivable. Havent read Shake Hands With the Devil yet....is it good??? I went to a lecture with Dallaire last year...very inspiring man.

"To me it also reveals the true agenda of the gay/lesbian proponents. If you cannot force your beliefs on the majority through flawed legislation and a liberal minded judiciary, why not ban the biggest opponents of the homosexual lifestyle, organized religions." One could easily make arguments that organized religion does the same thing. They try to force their beliefs on others as well as ban, for example homosexuals, and treat them as second class citizens in an attempt to create their kind of world. "Considering homosexualities links to genetics why is it not considered a disease? Genetic infertility is considered a disease and it has the same basic outcome as homosexuality." Red hair is linked to genetics as well. Is having red hair a disease? Does it really matter if its a choice or genetic?? If these people are happy with their lives and they arent hurting anyone who really cares. I am against pretty much all organized religion but banning them is ridiculous and wrong. Banning religion is no more or less wrong then trying to ban homosexuality. Everyone deserves the same rights and freedoms to believe what they wish and live how they wish as long as their actions dont harm anyone.

I just finished highschool a few years ago and can safely say there is no studying whatsoever of anything at all to do with Canadian history or politics. There really needs to be classes on Canada specifically, that are mandatory. Our current education system is too busy worshipping the studies of science and math though. Seriously I bet if you asked grade tens who the prime minister is the results would be: -Wayne Gretzky: 50% -Jean Chretien: 30% -Paul Martin: 15% -Stephen Harper: 5% "In a multiple choice quiz, only 33 per cent of those quizzed identified First World War commander Sir Arthur Currie and legendary flying ace Billy Bishop as Canadian military heroes from a list of only four." I could have named Billy Bishop...not Currie....sad, I feel failed by my highschool education lol Although I would have been able to get Currie by process of elmination in the MC question by elimintaing Ulysses S. Grant and Douglas MacArthur.

So what exactly has Harper achieved that demonstrates an effective approach? Well there was an extension I believe....I think the current plan was to have it come into effect awhile ago (which it would have if Martin was in charge). They are currently still meeting to try to come up with solutions...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes from it. The difference is they are actually meeting....trying to do something....whining and crying about it would accomplish nothign for sure. Im hoping that the American security cards are sent out to all americans or the charge is very small. What matters for our economy is that yanks come up here I dont really care if Canadians dont go down there....doesnt inconvience me either cause I already have my passport which has been mandatory for flying into each others country for awhile (I dont drive anywhere )

"Wrong. People who are put out of work pay for it too. Tax-payers paying for welfare spreads out the cost over the greatest number of people. In the case of a minimum wage, a small number of people end up subsidizing what is "conceivably" everybody's collective "social contract" obligation. That is not fair." Regardless of arguments of fairness would it not make economic sense for someone to be producing something at a minimum wage vs. sitting on welfare producing nothing? A minimum wage is just a moral value. Some people think the government should impose a level of income necessary for survival....others would rather have a fend for yourself society. I would rather see a society where we have an obligation to each other....not for exact equality but to at least make sure everyone can live. As long as the government's minimum wage is supported by the majority if you dont like it the doors always open....or you can try to get the government to change its policy (good luck) The current minimum I dont think causes any excess unemployment...$8/hr seems pretty reasonable. As far as $10/hr goes....as I said before I feel that would cause more unemployment.

Bradco, not sure I understood this. Can you put it in another way please. rogue state: a state that deviates from accepted international laws and norms. Ie: Iran and North Korea accepted current laws include Geneva Conventions if one argues that we, that is the "west", should abandon the laws (geneva conventions) that we mostly crafted following our values in favour of following the path of current rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, than we become like the rogue states by abondoing current laws and norms developed and shaped by western values, it is western values that become "rogue", as following the current laws and norms would deviate from the "new" (really just those of the current rogue states) widely accepted norms and laws.

Oh, I forgot! The UN! The laughable, pathetic, hypocritical, dithering, corrupt, biased UN! Include the UN....to the various factors that gave other rogue states like Iran and North Korea to get bolder. Iran and North Korea are encouraged to go nuclear in response to perceived threats to their security. It is the US that is viewed mainly as this threat. It has nothing to do with the UN. You can demolish the UN and the same threats to Iran and North Korea will still exist and still convince them to go nuclear. Either way the UN is nothing more than an institution. An institution is not responsible for anything...only its members are. Cant resist commenting on your calling the UN biased. You do realize it is completely biased to western interests right? Who has the veto? Not Iran thats for sure. The problem is people who have no clue as to how the UN operates and its rules get all worked up when dictators take the podium in the General Assembly. Their doing so does nothing...their being included does nothing...all the power rests with the permanent members of the SC. Geez scan the audience when these guys make their speeches...or even when Bush or Martin or Harper make theirs. Nobody is in the room besides a few interns taking notes. The real diplomacy and power is busy occuring at the fancy restaurants down the street. You better look up the definition of "rogue state" in political science discourse. What your are effectively arguing for consistantly in this thread is to make Iran and North Korea not rogue states by changing the laws and norms that they refuse to follow. You argue for changing international laws and norms to match those of terrorists and the current rogue states which results in the current rogue states being the norm and no longer rogue. What you argue for is western ideals to become "rogue"

Israel does a better job at following the Geneva Conventions than the terrorists. At least Israel recognizes them and does follow them as far as they believe they can in their own national security interests. The terrorists wipe their asses with the Geneva Convention or probably, dont even know that it exists.

Better break a few arbitrary "laws" that protect serious wrongdoers than die. hmm this rests on the notion that you would die if Saddam wasnt taken out which is false. As far as policing disorderly areas it is likely that had the US stayed the SC course and argued that Saddam needed to be taken out for humanitarian purposes he could have done so within the law. The problem is as much as Bush and his supporters argue humanitarian purposes now they played no role in their pre-war decisions. It is only after their justifications were proven false that they started singing the "humanitarian" song. Your claim of US responsibility for policing disorderly areas doesnt stand in the case of Iraq. They never made such justifications before the war. It was WMD, self protection, and vague comparisons of Saddam and terrorism. Furthermore, Iraq is more disordered now than it was pre-war. I hate to be pessimistic but I truly feel that having anything that resembles order in Iraq is years...possibly decades away. NOTE: even the Bush administration knows that the Bush Doctrine of preemptive self-defense does not stand legally and did not use it as an official legal argument within the Security Council, rather relying on an arguement of implied authorization. There is no place in international law for preemptive justifications for going to war.

"It's the best deal that they could get within the artificial deadline that they imposed on themselves. Had they waited until the US Court of International Trade ruled, as the court did last month, that all the illegal duties must be returned to Canada, the deal could very well have been better. The Cons were far too hasty in my opinion." First of all, in the long string of favourable judgements this one more would have a negligible effect on the agreement. Second, US lumber would want to appeal it so things would get prolonged. It is necessary to sooner or later say enough is enough and get a settlement. "And Conservative cabinet minister Emerson wasn't able to get a significantly better softwood lumber deal than Liberal cabinet minister Emerson." Its not really about getting a better deal but having the intelligence to get the deal and sign it. Dragging on the rhetoric, partisan politics and legal battles was not in our best interest. "What has Stephen Harper obtained from the US that demonstrates his approach has been more effective? He failed to get the U.S. to change their policy on passports" Passport issue is a sensitive issue because it has to do with national security. After 9/11 national security policies are not going to be reversed. The difference is the conservative government went to the US and were able to negoiate , get an extension and work towards better solutions, instead of whining and criticising. Dont get me wrong I dont like the Bush administration one bit but whining and criticising is not how you conduct foreign relations, if you want solutions. I attended an event with Ambassodor Wilkins who was asked if working with the new government has been better. He obviously tried to tiptoe this question but basically said that there is more willingness, mututal trust etc from both sides now which makes it possible to negoiate. The Liberals had no interest in negotaiting....they wanted to use Canadian-American relations and dislike for Bush as a partisan politics tool....which is quite clearly not in our best interest

"Consumer demand is not binary. It is a curve. Any increase in cost will be reflected in prices and will affect demand." True thats the theory but in practise a 10 cent increase in something worth $100 is not going to stop someone from purchasing it. Certain increases in prices can be passed on to consumers without effecting demand. It would also depend on the elasticity of the product in question as well. "We still haven't established how you guage what is overpaid." I know. I dont think there really is a good way to guage what is overpaid. Each person is going to have a different opinion of what amount of production from a person is sufficient for their pay. The guage I am using is whether or not the company is willing to pay or not. If the company is willing to pay a certain wage then they are of the opinion, for the most part,that they are not overpaying their employee. "In many cases that is not how monopolies work. The regulating bodies set the prices based upon the profit the company makes. Prices are set at cost plus a reasonable profit. Costs include the cost of labour, regardless of the fact that the labour is overpaid. " Still stands that the company cant overpay to the point they are losing money, unless there is a government subsidy and then that is a political not an economic decision. If the company cant find a worker to work for less than they are not overpaying. If there are agreements in place that dont allow the company complete flexibility to find cheaper labour that is because they have decided the stability of the current labour warrants an increase in labour costs. -I just dont see anything bad with having an $8hr minimum wage