Albert Opstad Edmonton

Thats not what resrve ratio means. A 100 % reserve ratio means they cannot create money. They must only lend money that they have. I thank you, and all others, for their input on this topic, but I feel that any further action is now up to my fellow/madam Canadians. For those Canadians who want a new money system in Canada, I believe that the one that I have proposed is the new money system that Canada needs.

You cannot elect people if you want them to be apolitical. Do you want to see supreme judges elected? How about civil servants?Typing in the following creates the text above: [quote name='Albert Opstad Edmonton' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:41 PM' post='188817']Reply: I propose that we elect our government and that we elect our BoC directors and that the government and the BoC operate independently of each other. We could elect each separately and at different times.[/quote]You cannot elect people if you want them to be apolitical. Do you want to see supreme judges elected? How about civil servants? I want/propose that the BoC and the GoC operate as separately and as independently of each other as we, the public, can elect them to be.

What message am I supposed to get here? Thank you.

You cannot elect people if you want them to be apolitical. Do you want to see supreme judges elected? How about civil servants?Typing in the following creates the text above: [quote name='Albert Opstad Edmonton' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:41 PM' post='188817']Reply: I propose that we elect our government and that we elect our BoC directors and that the government and the BoC operate independently of each other. We could elect each separately and at different times.[/quote]You cannot elect people if you want them to be apolitical. Do you want to see supreme judges elected? How about civil servants? Thank you. Perhaps tomorrow I'll try to reply differently.

Montetary policy is not an exact science. There is no way to predict the exact amount of money required and there is a considerable time lag between the time money is added or removed and the time its effects are known. This a recipe for excessive boom/bust cycles as the bank is constantly trying to compensate for past mistakes. Reply: It will be much easier to control the money supply in an acceptable way when we have only the BoC creating our money instead of the multiplicity of private creators that we have now. What happens when the BOC decides it needs to decrease the money supply? It would have to that ask everyone to pay a annual national tax instead of a dividend. I doubt this would make people happy. Reply: Do one or more of the following: (1) Decrease money creation (2) Decrease the dividend (3) Tax the people. How exactly would this 100% reserve system work? Last time I checked the reserve ratio specifies what percentage of a bank's deposits must be held in cash. If the reserve ratio is 100% then the banks cannot lend anything. This implies you want to completely kill the private sector banking industry and make everyone dependent on the money from the government. Such a system is nothing other than Communism under a different name. Reply: 100% reserves means that the private banks cannot create any money, but can loan out depositors money, but only for the time duration that the depositor has deposited his/her money. Pension fund deposits would be the obvious deposits to loan out. The purpose of the 'arms length' relationship is to ensure that the BOC is free of political influence. Having the BOC directors elected by the public will make them part of the political process. You should not bother claiming you want to have an independent BOC - you want a system where the BOC and the money supply is tool of the politicians. Every country that did that ended up with hyper inflation and serious economic crisis (Wiemar Germany and Argentina just two examples). Reply: I propose that we elect our government and that we elect our BoC directors and that the government and the BoC operate independently of each other. We could elect each separately and at different times.I would appreciate you telling me how you pull out the quotes from an email and then reply to each one in turn. Thank you. In the mean time I will reply the best way that I know how to do. I will write: Reply, after each one of your replies and then I will make my reply. Albert Opstad Edmonton T:(780)453-2011 I realize that money reform has a global aspect but this cannot stop us from installing a new money system in Canada. Albert Opstad

You can't use tax surplus to pay off the debt with our existing monetary system. Its impossible. The BOC could pay the debt and then tax us for those payments interest free. For your information, and any others, I include here my overall new money proposal for Canada. New Money System for Canada When I see that the major expenditure of the Government of Canada (GoC), is paying interest on its debt (16.2% of its total annual expenditures for Fiscal Year 2004-05[The latest fiscal year for which we have actual figures], in annual interest payments), I realize that this is a problem that all of us Canadians must tackle, and particularly realizing that the solution is so simple. All that the GoC has to do is to transfer its debt to the Bank of Canada (BoC). Had the BoC been holding 100% of the debt in Fiscal Year 2004-05, the GoC would have saved $33,800 million of the $34,100 million that it paid in interest payments. The BoC gives it profits to the GoC, while the private lenders do not. In Calendar Year 2005, while creating only 4% of Canada’s total money supply ($46,411 million. 11.2% of the GoC total funded federal debt of $415,178 million), and while issuing it all to the GoC, the BoC gave $1,732 million in profits to the GoC. Here is my overall new money system for Canada: The creation and issuance of all new money shall be by the BoC exclusively; and, the BoC shall issue it in amounts calculated to maintain a stable general price level (Inflation/deflation shall be 0% +/- 1%). The BoC shall issue all of the newly created money debt free (and interest free) to those budgeted to receive it by the GoC. Every adult citizen shall receive an annual national dividend. The time period to increase to the 100% level of money creation and issuance by the BoC, from the present 4% level, shall be 15 years. During this 15 year period, that the money creation function of the BoC is being increased to the 100% level, the GoC shall be transferring its debt to the BoC, and shall be paying off its debt, so as to be debt free at the end of this 15 year period. Also, during this 15 year period, as the money creation function of the BoC is being increased to the 100% level, the statutory reserve requirements of the private banks shall be being increased at the same time, and at the same rate, so as to attain the ultimate 100% statutory reserve banking level at the conclusion of this 15 year period. In this way, at the end of this 15 year period, the BoC will be creating all of the new money for Canada, and the GoC will be debt free. All of this will be without any inflation, or deflation, at any time during this 15 year period. The BoC now operates at “arms length” from Government, and it shall continue to operate that way, except that the present fifteen management directors, appointed by the Finance Minister, shall be replaced by fifteen management directors, elected by the public. Proposed by Albert Opstad, 10821-140 St., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T5M 1S4, Tel:(780)453-2011, Email:<[email protected]>. January 8, 2007.

I must have done something wrong here because the statement here is from Riverwind and not from me. Albert Opstad

You can't use tax surplus to pay off the debt with our existing monetary system. Its impossible. The BOC could pay the debt and then tax us for those payments interest free. I have perused all of the prior posts up to and including this one of Feb 21 2007, 01:39 PM, but my problem is that I'm not yet good at operating here, so, as yet, if you, or anyone else, would like me to answer, the best is to send me an email at: <[email protected]>. Thank you. Just as information I copied the profile of one of the BoC Governors from this website: www.mapleleafweb.com. As you can see there was some conflict between the GoC and the BoC at that time. It would appear that the BoC wanted zero inflation but the GoC rightly opposed that. I'll try to say some more as soon as I can. James Coyne Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1955 to 1961 Previous Experience * In 1938, after attending Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, Mr. Coyne joined the BOC research department * In 1944, rejoined the department after serving in World War II * Served as Deputy Governor of the BOC from 1950 to 1954 Record as BOC Governor * Pursued a monetary policy designed to lower inflation despite opposition from the Diefenbaker government through the Finance Minister * The government tried to fire him but was unable to do so, since only Parliament and not the Executive can fire the Governor. Mr. Coyne subsequently resigned as BOC Governor in 1961 * The political fallout from the incident is considered to be one of the reasons behind the Conservative’s defeat in the 1963 election

Secondly, the BOC buying back all of the existing debt would significantly increase the money supply - this would lead to inflation. To counter act the inflation created by absorbing government debt the BOC would have to raise real interest rates. This means that interest rates on private loans and mortgages would go up significantly.

First off, the interest paid by the GoC does not go into a black hole. Most of it goes back to Canadians via their pension funds and their insurance policies. Secondly, the BOC buying back all of the existing debt would significantly increase the money supply - this would lead to inflation. To counter act the inflation created by absorbing government debt the BOC would have to raise real interest rates. This means that interest rates on private loans and mortgages would go up significantly. Lastly, our currency trades on a global market. Requiring the BoC to absorb the Canadian government debt would undermine confidence in the currency and lead to a significant drop in the dollar. IOW: any 'savings' interest paid of the government debt would lost by increased real interest costs paid by Canadians and higher costs for imported goods. I don't see any benefit from such a trade off and see significant risks because inflation could spin out of control if the checks and balances that exist today are discarded. I must have made an error here to reply here without a reply. Albert Opstad Edmonton

First off, the interest paid by the GoC does not go into a black hole. Most of it goes back to Canadians via their pension funds and their insurance policies. [Reply]: I'm not certain as to how to operate in this new media but I'll reply by the best method that I know how and see how it goes. Yes! Interest paid by the GoC does not go into a black hole, but my point is that the GoC should do its borrowing from the BoC interest free, and also preferably debt free, instead of having to borrow from me, or from anywhere else on a private basis, and on an interest bearing debt basis. The last information that I have from the BoC on GoC debt is for calendar year 2004, and the holding of the Total Funded Federal Debt of 414,502 Cdn $ millions was: BoC: 11.0%, Chartered Banks: 15.9%, Residents: 58.2%, Non-Residents: 13.7%, GoC Accounts: 1.2%.Secondly, the BOC buying back all of the existing debt would significantly increase the money supply - this would lead to inflation. To counter act the inflation created by absorbing government debt the BOC would have to raise real interest rates. This means that interest rates on private loans and mortgages would go up significantly. [Reply]: As the BoC increases its money creation function, statutory reserves have to be placed on the private banks so that they create less money to keep the overall money supply in balance and at an inflation/deflation level of 0.0%. Lastly, our currency trades on a global market. Requiring the BoC to absorb the Canadian government debt would undermine confidence in the currency and lead to a significant drop in the dollar. [Reply] I don't see any big issue here. IOW: any 'savings' interest paid of the government debt would lost by increased real interest costs paid by Canadians and higher costs for imported goods. I don't see any benefit from such a trade off and see significant risks because inflation could spin out of control if the checks and balances that exist today are discarded. [Reply]: Your term: IOW is new to me, please explain what it means. Thank you. We need checks and balances, just similar to what we have today, to keep everything in balance and inflation/deflation at 0.0% +/- 1%. [Reply] Conclusion: We have to get rid of the interest charged at the money creation level because this is the inherent flaw in our existing money system. With our existing money system where interest is charged at the money creation level there are only two options: The problem of much pain and suffering to get to zero inflation/deflation, or living with the constant problem of inflation, which the BoC keeps in the range of 1% to 3% (2% +/- 1%). The BoC and the private bankers have decided that 2% inflation is the lesser of the two evils because much pain and suffering might awaken more of us to the serious flaw in our existing money system and require changes along the lines that I and the overwhelming majority of world money experts are recommending.

First off, the interest paid by the GoC does not go into a black hole. Most of it goes back to Canadians via their pension funds and their insurance policies. Secondly, the BOC buying back all of the existing debt would significantly increase the money supply - this would lead to inflation. To counter act the inflation created by absorbing government debt the BOC would have to raise real interest rates. This means that interest rates on private loans and mortgages would go up significantly. Lastly, our currency trades on a global market. Requiring the BoC to absorb the Canadian government debt would undermine confidence in the currency and lead to a significant drop in the dollar. IOW: any 'savings' interest paid of the government debt would lost by increased real interest costs paid by Canadians and higher costs for imported goods. I don't see any benefit from such a trade off and see significant risks because inflation could spin out of control if the checks and balances that exist today are discarded.

This is a good point and thats why monetary reform has to be a global effort and its why we don't have it. If North American Union did that then we would be at war with Europe. People need to be informed of the issue all over the world before we go knocking on government doors. Flaherty knows whats going on. If he cared he wouldn't be there. Its like McKay thinking he is too important to call families of dead soldiers from the Afghan drug war. I'm new to blogs which is what I presume you call this so I plan to answer the posts in chronological order starting with Post #6 by Riverwind.

Thank you for the reply. I have studied C.H. Douglas. I'll start with a few facts and we can go forwards or backwards from there. In the Government of Canada (GoC) budget plan for 2006 we see that the GoC budgets 15.0% of its 2007-08 expenditures for interest on its debt. Can we reduce this? I say yes! All that the GoC has to do is to transfer all of its debt to the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the GoC interest costs would become 0.0% because the BoC would give all of the interest charged back to the GoC as profit, except for perhaps a small cost of BoC operations service fee. If one looks at the BoC Annual Report for 2005 you can see that the GoC had borrowed 46,411.0 million dollars from the BoC and the BoC gave the GoC 1,732.4 million dollars in profits. Most of the cost to operate the BoC is to keep track of the present multiplicity of private money lenders and to keep the problem of inflation down to 2%. The BoC gives its profits to the GoC while the other lenders (private ones) do not. The major problem with our existing money system is the interest charged at the new money creation level. We have to have new money created and issued interest free. 96% of our our newly created money is created as interest bearing debt by private bankers. This new money is sometimes referred to as Bank Created Money (BCM). Money created by the BoC is interest free because it gives its profits to the GoC. This new money is sometimes referred to as Government Created Money (GCM). I offer these comments/recommendations as a place to begin and we can proceed from here. Albert Opstad, Edmonton, T:(780)453-2011, Email:<[email protected]>

I sent the British Association for Monetary Reform an email asking them for their direct email address.

PolyNewbie: I am strongly for money reform in Canada, and so I've started a new title named Money Reform for Canada and I encourage you and others to comment under that title. Thank you.

I have appreciated reading some of the comments under the title: Banker/Wall Street Governance, Wake Up Or Die, but I sensed that we should discuss Canada's money policies under what I consider to be a better title. I'm just learning how to operate on websites such as this, so don't get too critical if I don't do things in a top level way. Albert Opstad Edmonton