Yesterday

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007 This is a little old but it is a very well written article about the financial obligations that are following this transfer of funds regardless of the reasoning.

This is an interesting article http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2008/11/the-reckoning---from-midwest-to-mta-pain-from-global-gamble---series---nytimescom.html I have to wonder if Canada's supposed lack of exposure has more to do with non-transparency than involvement. Along side of interpretation. Navigating through the miriad of possibilities can be daunting in determining what a person views as the truth. I thank every one for taking the time to explain yourselves and your views. I am learning so much.

I have to agree with both of you and Dre, press on with the transparency and governments stop whining about it. Makes me think of 'The Blank Slate' by Steven Pinker, the modern denial of human nature.

Like law, reality is open to personal interpretation? Bail-out, gift, future stability investment....

Hi, yes this is what I meant, the money is gone, canceled. No I didn't like to find this out. This whole banking fiasco is just a huge creation/cancellation policy gone awry. I just wasn't sure whether I got it, however rudimentary my understanding. Thanks.

The object would be to amass the figures related to bank profits/losses in the private first time mortgage sector. If the combined amount of both columns generates a figure that fits within the total loss column of the entire private mortgage sector, would it stand to reason that a separation of private first time mortgages could happen without reducing bank profits? Would it also stand to reason that any money a government creates if accompanied with a proper cancellation policy could ultimately have no effect on inflation? example: Let in a first time mortgage with no down payment and no interest, the repayment is a perfect cancellation policy. Money goes out clean, money comes back clean. The way I view the risk is this...since there is no borrowing to lend as in the banks situation the risk is low. In terms of default, banks lose because they are forced to sell off the default at whatever price they can get because they have credit deadlines to meet thus incurring substantial loss. The mortgage center on the other hand, has no loss and no credit/payment deadlines to meet. I wonder if the amount of money not canceled out of circulation by default within this fist time mortgage concept would be a small enough figure to not itself cause inflation. Perhaps a cap of 200,00-230,00(very flexible figure) thousand per mortgage, anything above let at 1% interest to help offset defaults if needed. I wonder if the not canceled money through default would just simply be a small but honest contribution to stabilizing us as a country internally, socially. As long as it did not effect inflation. Basically if you can get a first time mortgage from a bank you would be eligible for a government first time mortgage. I do not have a political or financial background and would like to know if this could make sense. Your opinions, challenges and expansions of this concept are extremely welcome.

Thank-you for the link Myata, very interesting. I am so far behind the times....this is a wonderful place to get caught up!

IMO because to try and take care of the public with borrowed fractionated, monster interest attached money get us no where. It is not so much the need to care for the people that is the NDP's problem. If it wasn't borrowed money no one would care(or tax dollars). Give me a party that is willing to fight monetary policy....please. Or at least remove enough of the money creating from the banks to allow enough to run social/health and educational costs of the country without incurring interest or fractional debt. I am not a Social Credit person, I do not see many of the long term benefits that the Michaeljournal's speak off and the dividend is not solid as it is based on GDP (which they want to lessen for environmental reasons). However, I do see the glaring problems with our current system, no political party with a much needed valid alternative approach. Yes, instead of fighting hard working people, they should be creating monetary policies for the countries operational needs with solid cancellation policies separate from the banks. This would be a legit fight, but, give me a party that doesn't try and snowball the public with silly senseless distracting issues like middle class taxation instead of giving us the real fight to fight. Shame on all of them!

Wow, yes I agree with you. Just the other day I found some interesting articles on a website called mondaq.com, of particular interest is one named Global Settlements written by a UK firm Peters and Peters which covers the realities of dealing with this global banking and stock fraud and the various different juristictions and laws from country to country, not easy at all to negotiate with so many factions wanting their own version of justice. Quite enlightening. PIGS?

Hi, this system does not show a balance except perhaps in theory? I do not see it myself, even in theory. I am inclined to see the glaring faults like Jerry J. Fortin and this message from Allen which I thank you for re-posting. For instance the 170 million dollar a day interest bill we Canadians pay with our tax money. I am saddened to think maybe I do understand. How about taxes, could they if far removed from interest payments and fractional banking be considered effective cancellation policies? First time mortgages could be effective, putting too much money to count into the economy but allowing for cancellation through repayment without interest if government issued versus bank issued. Perhaps a Canadian mortgage center for first time buyers. Dollar for dollar, what is a reasonable ratio of cancellation. Would 100% of all dollars created need to be cancelled or is there a comfortable margin of expansion not from fractional banking and interest but from savings and foreign investment/movement.

Could you rephrase "present debt-driven system" with "cancellation policy". Does debt provide the cancellation vehicle? Thus perhaps the value is in the cancellation not the debt?

Hi, thanks for answering me... I was under the impression that as dollars are collected at the bank for loan re-payment they are in effect canceled. Since all dollars are released/collected solely from banks fractionated and with interest. 100 dollars goes out, 1200 dollars comes back with interest, only 100 was actually created. A bank borrows (sort of) the right to lend an amount of money, it then disburses multiple times this amount of money out in loans at interest. As each dollar comes back, it is levied against the banks original lending total thus achieving the needed cancellation which perhaps in itself is not an issue until the fractional scenario and interest are applied? How important is it to have proper cancellation policies regarding the creation and circulation of dollars? Perhaps to avoid the scenario of wheelbarrows full of money to simply buy a loaf of bread? I know this is complicated, I appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions.

A little adjustment, definitely a giggle....Demockrashy

Hi, I have a question...I am trying to understand the effect of fractional banking when the interest is applied on every fraction. Ie: the bank can multiply the collateral backed money created for loans to a multiple of 10-12 I believe (somewhere in there anyway) and charge interest on every level too. So does this mean for every say 100 dollars created they get 12 times the interest plus 12 100 dollars, all removed from circulation? Do I understand this even reasonably? Didn't Mulroney remove the need for banks to have any collateral backed money other than debt? If this is true, our problems regarding all funding, taxes and the like will never be resolved. I welcome all explanations with great appreciation.