Yesterday

Hi, could you give me a reference to something to read to understand this better? I promise to stop pestering you with questions....giggle.

What does removing the deficit really mean? We can't produce bonds this way without carrying a deficit, perhaps not a yearly budgetary deficit but we need to carry a massive debt forward from year to year based on past decisions and the needs of future growth. Does removing the deficit mean we can stop producing government bonds? Can we stop producing government bonds? Can government bonds be created on things other than taxes and production?

This is true, taxes do go up yearly. I understand this to be a main reason for being able to run a budgetary surplus. But regardless of this surplus, regardless of higher taxes, how do we reduce the deficit when it is needed to produce bonds? For instance, is there a point in reducing the amount of deficit that will effect the governments ability to produce bonds? I understand it to work that bonds are produced from credit extended on future tax collection and production. Under this scenario could one say a lot of the money used to run this year was hedged on future performance? So if we cannot run a deficit this way, if the deficit must be greatly reduced, where will the replacement federal budget money come from? More taxes?

Faulty valves, corroding pipes...nothing stands in the way of profits....that's what chapter 11 in GATT is for. (I think its the right chapter number...giggle) All foreign companies operating on US soil have the right to sue the government regarding any legislation that impedes profits. Pipes up to code? What code? This chapter to me means that even with US regulators acknowledgment of Enbridge's practices they are basically cornered from enforcement because of the likelihood of getting the government sued.

Hi, ok so what I am wondering...if our debt load is tied up with government bonds, how much can the deficit actually be reduced, can it actually be reduced? Wouldn't it mean that the Federal budget would need to collect more taxes to operate if the bonds get restricted enough to reduce that deficit? How can we reduce the deficit when we have to go into debt every year just to produce bonds? This is the part that makes me wonder. Is the problem simply a surface one where money is not being directed properly for the repayment of this debt or is more of a systemic problem in that the debt ensures our operating budget is large enough and thus so really can't be reduced to any great degree?

How true, and I don't think human nature would allow for such a non competitive type society. We need to produce, we need to be busy. Ultimately this had led to a major stabilization in the quality if life for many. It is our limits that we need to come to terms with in order to equalize globally. The over production and massive waste/surplus needs to be honestly addressed and the ensuing limits on financial growth that will need to accompany it are what need to be dealt with. Trade and currency itself can be a very simple and effective means of moving productivity forward comfortably if we allow it. It is the current ability to concentrate/monopolize/hedge that productivity that needs/begs for attention/limits.

In terms of government bonds, especially long term ones, is the payment required to honour those bonds at that later date considered part of the current debt load?

Hi, so this means that we will potentially run a budgetary surplus? This is a good thing but what does it mean to Canada's over all debt per capita ratio? Obviously not running at a deficit should have a positive effect on this number but does it? It should cause the tax coffers to be fuller. Could running a budgetary surplus create a situation where Canada's overall debt can be reduced? I am not sure of the exact amount of it but I have read paper's that suggest a 170 million/day payout in interest alone for this debt, whatever it entails. In terms of how debt is furthering GDP and things like foreign investment to such great lengths, how does reducing debt play into this picture?

Not true, not generally speaking. The only time I feel as down hearted as you seem to be feeling is when I am reading about war. Then it is my emotions more than my beliefs that dictate my words and thoughts. A lot of people do help to feed those less fortunate...wars YES are stupid and we should never stop trying to figure out better ways of resolution....the fossil fuel issue is going to be a part of our past I would say in less than 100 years...food choices are also under fire, you can always choose to buy local to avoid this crap in the meantime...I won't eat processed food to any great degree...things are on the change Maple. Not a fast track change but we are learning, as always. It was not the strong economy that gave us our quality of life...it was our ability to adapt ourselves and our customs to that which allowed for the formation of Canada by so many different nationalities, our ability to figure out how to combine, accept or let go of customs so we could function together. Those are the lessons we should share. Our economy has prospered because we could do that (in part).

What I see when looking at countries torn with human rights issues are remnants of world wide customs that every race and culture shared at one time or another at least generally. Religious law/persecution, slave labour/starvation, ethnic cleansing...there is not one person on this board who can state that their ancestors at one time or another were not subjected to any one or more human rights issues. Look at us now, here in Canada and the US. Regardless of our religion, ancestral culture, race and so on we live free from most forms of infringement on our human rights. In fact, IMO, looking back through history we here in both the US and Canada have set records for standards of living and equality, look how we have benefited. Look also at the fact that even with the major cultural adaptation that was required to create Canada we can still, some of us anyway, define ourselves as both our ancestral culture and our Canadian heritage. Ie: Canadian Scot, Irish Canadian, French Canadian...what would be wrong with Muslim Canadian or Canadian Muslim? Nothing if you ask me. It is not wrong to expect such change from any up and coming nation or immigrant. It, IMO, would be a waste if we did not both share our experience in making the adaptation and express global expectations of our desire to see the whole world as socially stable as we are. I do not agree with war as a means to an end over human rights issues but continual public pressure and trade sanctions when appropriate could go a long way. We need to intervene appropriately. These issues are no less important as it was to end black racism...witch hunts...

The social cost of labour...can be an extensive topic. Having read the Michael Journal and his take on labour and production...the cost on the family unit and the cause in part of a shrinking populace. The understanding of the cost of over production and product surplus and waste...the hard line reality of government and corporate manipulation of cost of living and tax revenue...destruction of valuable land for the now redundant resources that lie beneath it just to fuel capitalism...mm-mm. It is hard to find ways to do sustainable business without adding fuel to this fire. However, a person can still take great pleasure in the art of business without taking part in the grind. I am beginning to think that perhaps it is not so much the definition of currency that is in need of a re-write but more so the definition of capitalism. Money is not evil, it is actually a good barter medium if and when used properly. It is the capitalism and its accepted definition that are wrong. IMO. I am a capitalist at heart. Not a natural employee mentality and I love to create business concepts. I do not feel threatened by the fact that what is currently considered to be capitalist in nature is really criminal in nature on so many levels. In fact, as a business minded/capitalistic natured moral person I feel inclined to do any part I can to help rewrite the capitalist landscape into a more realistic version of itself.

It is a good point. What kind of changes would need to precipitate an ability to dole out corrective measures, beyond educating of consequences, beforehand? IMO just like the writ of basic human rights that developed nations work hard to secure...there should be a global agreement of law that explains in detail the consequences of violating those human rights that uses trade sanctions as one means. A cohesive, comprehensive writ of global undertaking and understanding that would elevate the human species globally as all humans but no borders would count. I am not a person who sees global agreements of this type as a threat to sovereignty but just the opposite. I see them as a way to solidify borders by eliminating a great many a question over who can do business with who and under what terms of legality and good business practice. A very good example of an agreement....the black ball policy just signed by most of the major banks of the world. Before this agreement banks could turn a blind eye to criminal behaviour exhibited by a counterpart and now they can not. Seems simple enough perhaps but before this agreement there was no way for one bank to extract itself from credit obligations to the corrupt party and any kind of acknowledgement that threatened exposure caused massive retaliatory actions from the corrupt party. Now, the way is paved for non-consenting banks to cut dealings off instantaneously from the corrupt party with support from all other signed banks. I'll look for a link to the document. It is one of the many global settlements going. A global settlement is a where a party has allegations levied against them across many jurisdictions/levels of court/countries and instead of having court cases for each individual faction the defendant requests a global settlement to have all factions combined into one. It reduces redundancy, court time and costs and negative media. We need a global settlement for human rights.

Oh my goodness, how simple is that. It's almost laughable I think. OK so right off the bat the market manipulation allegation could be obvious but what factors allowed them to value their money so low? Thanks for the answer.

No, I didn't explain myself well. I don't mean to restrict but I agree with the premise of removal for identity and if in the case of employment or social interaction where the covering is inappropriate to Canadian work/social expectations then they who wish to wear them here should do so without complaining about being left out. This is Canada, we expect to see faces in daily interactions and from our standpoint of personal freedom a mask/face covering is a reason to suspect. In non public spaces do what you will as long as it is Canadian law abiding. However, in daily work and general social life it is to be a Canadian citizen and fit in with the Canada perspective. One thing the Canadian perspective I think can claim is that it is open and transparent. I realize at the moment we are fighting non-transparency but we are fighting it. From bigotry to molestation, from religious deforming of genitals to scientific conformity, and so on. To me at the very least, this veil is a means of restriction of female expression, perhaps at times I can view it strongly enough to see it as outright degradation. Especially when I contemplate the punishments for women who try to remove their veils. As mentioned in other posts here, even at home the veils are coming off for this reason and that, no reason to retard the trend here. The social in-acceptance we are starting to see will go a long way towards religious/social reform with any luck. I don't think accepting it here on our turf will do any good in the long term towards helping Muslims come to terms with the need to overhaul their customs like almost every other religious culture has had to over the millennium.

Well, I was just referring to China's enormous export of useless trinkets in the original post. A subject that touches heavily on many environmental fronts such as landfill to being a situation socially where the Chinese people are pimped to create this crap because regardless of volume the quality of the products reduces the value far beyond reasonable thus the quality of the worker's wages/environment producing this stuff has been really quite dismal. This is changing thankfully, however slowly. Back to the domestic strength over export. Yes, China's resources would be better spent on producing anything more environmental including better quality daily use products with better value thus allowing for a smaller market share while still being productive and expansive. I agree with you but from a standpoint of development. I see the tools needed just not the appropriate use or widespread understanding of principle. In a twisted sort of respect, it was the advent of nuclear arms that forced, in part, the world to try and sit at the table to try and negotiate peace and acceptable behaviors amongst the countries of this world. Trade has been the single most least-explosive set of negotiations in comparison so far IMO. Not to say there has not been war and starvation caused by abuse and all forms of negative motivation regarding trade...for all of that most of the globe today works just fine within trade agreements and does so without fear of war breaking out on home soil. Of the rest of the countries on this globe, most if not all are in the birthing throws of major social change. International trade is demanding that change and will continue to do so and will continue to evolve and shed outdated and/or corrupt versions of itself. Like the potential of fine wine, give it time to age against our current global landscape. There is no reason why things can't get better. Even if it has to get a little worse first. Right? Thanks, I will. Yes, I can see how they are being used as such but I can also see other scenarios which have worthwhile potential.

Hi Maple, I can understand why you would ask that. Periodically I do too. Especially when watching news or certain documentaries too often. One thing I can tell you, which you probably already know, is that media survives on horror. Media doesn't just allow us to be informed of injustice, it pelts us with slanted views and propaganda at the same time. If you think about it, we could have the same volumes of media if it's purpose was to pass on only good news and stories of justice along side of the slanted views and propaganda. The bad can be really bad, but the good can be really good. Perhaps economic and trade policies won't fix everything but they are a help. Whatever our personal views, we live in a world where these policies are needed. It is not international co-operation with agreements coordinating behavior and expectations at the fault of these policies current inefficiency but rather the motivations behind their current use. In terms of social change, lasting social change, think in 100 year allotments of time. For the most part, I look at a 100 year segment that starts in the 1980s. This is when I personally begin to see major changes in global thought regarding market share and business. The biggest change in motion that I can see on this front is the clean-up of Wall Street and investor education both of which are forcing a shift of thought in international relationships and future economic growth for developing nations. Trade and the desire to do so has the potential to be the biggest, most effective non-sword ever wielded by man to achieve peace and prosperity. Much better than war if you ask me. We are what we are. You can see what you want to see. It is good to focus on the bad sometimes to be able to keep in mind the nature of needed change but sometimes a person should come up for air and focus solely on the beauty of this world and it's inhabitants so as to remember the importance of the realized need for said change.

from my perspective, it is an awful custom and I think I like this answer the best Hopefully a few generations after settling down here and the girls will refuse to wear it. These women who want to wear this, a lot of them anyway, come from an area were anonymity can be a lifesaver. Regardless of religion, it keeps them safer from unwanted advances of men. Not perfect but effective to a certain degree. I imagine they feel naked without them. Like a security blanket, a right to privacy, a comfort. IMO in Canada, no. Some people who leave destruction/war torn countries to achieve a bit of personal freedom and end up here seem to lose the point of moving in the first place. I've learned a bit about how I feel regarding multiculturalism from reading around on the forum and as far as I am concerned people of different origins moving here doesn't bother me at all but losing Canada to the religions and customs, especially ones that have caused such heartache and wrongness in their own countries, of these people is wrong. It does take time though to release fear, especially one driven by religion or old customs. They have had time to rationalize a million reasons for wearing them. I think back to long conversations I have had with my Grandmother and others of her age. Just look at ourselves, 5-6-7th generation Canadian's, there were some customs floating around up until the early 1900s that make me shiver. In the name of our religions/social customs...without going into detail, most peoples who ended up here had some not so pleasant customs to be rid off. Thankfully a few generations of settling/freedom and that transformation started. Generally speaking, I don't think we resemble our ancestors to any great degree, at least socially and religiously. I hope this is what happens to the Muslim and other peoples that move here. This is what Canada is. It is a place were a person can feel free to shed all religious/socially negative and constricting customs. Freedom is what we are. Not free to turn parts of Canada into little replicas of homelands that needed to be fled from but free to start again and rewrite ourselves. To me this is what being Canadian means.

This could have interesting implications regarding any political agenda with aims to prevent peaceful protesting in the future.

Hi, my understanding of China's position has nothing to do with trade sanctions or restrictions but it does have to do with equalization. As far as I know, their own position is one of wanting to strengthen its domestic position against its export. Of course they are going to trade, and of course it is a good thing they entered the global trade market. No, I don't want extreme reactions from other countries. Don't be so dramatic. Do you think we should all just keep on producing in unlimited, unrestricted volumes? Me, want war? Seriously? Absolutely, there are countries that need to increase trade, hence the need to reallocate market resources away from redundancies/excesses so there is room for everyone. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that trade offers more opportunity than almost anything else for possibilities of ending war, domestic strength is right beside it on the list. Back to the strength of a domestic position against export, well that just makes sense wouldn't you say? They just needed a bit of a push, more or less. This is not a negative but a positive. As for countries in the middle east, I have not considered their trade requirements individually so can't really comment on whether or not they require a larger market share but instinctively I think so. I have considered a bit about Iran's public acknowledgement of its substantial resource base and I am trying not to let myself get to positive regarding the potential in this for peace and domestic strength. I hope it becomes the diversion away from nuclear intentions. The use of trade sanctions to me seem to have potential in some situations. I am interested in their effectiveness and I'll look into what they are attempting with Iran. I've read a bit about Sharia law here on the forum. Like anyone who doesn't practice it by choice, I am horrified. There is no room for this on the global perspective. If only trade sanctions were effective enough to deter this kind of mentality, the world would be a better place. I am glad to see this become a hot topic. This could be the begining of the end. Global education of such practices is imperitive to change. There is imo very few benefits to international trade. One of them is that it creates a situation where everyone wants to play in the sand box. This in turn creates a situation where trade can be a tool to ensure decent behaviour. Do we use it effectively? I can't answer that but I imagine at least sometimes. I am not too nieve to realize the fact that this ability regarding trade sanctions can be a cause for war but there are many different situations and not all of them so drastic. The global landscape is changing. The desire to develope and progress has overshadowed war on the largest part of this planet. The mentalities and motivations for foreign resource development and domestic strength is changing, those outdated monoploy bottom line strategies are becoming part of the past. Colonization is also becoming a part of the past. Trade and stability will slow down immigration/emmigration globally. The middle east will catch up and clean itself up, I have no doubt just no understanding of how long or how worse it will get in the meantime. Just as we are cleaning ourselves up, meaning the market fraud clean-up across the developed nations. The curves always hurt.

If I were an Oscar Meyer wiener, then everyone would be in love with me....

I wrote this question in an earlier post and didn't finish my thought with it...given the negative interest rate, adding the premium brings it close to zero or perhaps just above so it seems that the government might not be collecting much if any premium at all and if some is collected is it considered profit/asset/collateral material or is it used strictly to offset interest charges levied against the government from the banks thus effectively removing it off the balance sheet.

I did not mean to repost this site, I meant to click edit....

This is a really good read...this article covers a few topics and instead of trying to remove some of it I've left it all in there. Enjoy the show. http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=948520

This is poetic!!!! http://seekingalpha.com/article/137009-the-federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9-trillion-in-off-balance-sheet-transactions

Hi, this is what I had heard as well but what does it mean. How does keeping the Yuan undervalued make it less expensive? How does this process work? There are more than just a few situations like this. A production tax buried in a greenhouse initiative, a nuclear arms program buried in a nuclear energy program. GE being two faced does not surprise me, weapons of destruction hidden behind a toaster add...good grief. I'm curious to watch over the next 20-30 years whether or not situations of this type become less and less. Exposure, public understanding and consumer choice are going to be the un-doing of this. I honestly want to believe that we are close to the end of The Age of The Great Wars. Perhaps not in my lifetime but for sure no more than 100 years or so down the road. I am pretty sure one can see the potential when having had spent some time going through the growing number of prosecutions and exposures of all types of tainted business practices and in-human/insane political agendas. It is truly mind boggling and inspirational.