Conspiracy Theory

[Bonam]

Debt is slavery.

Have you ever experienced slavery? Do you have any clue what it is? Sorry but the few bucks of interest I pay every month on my car loan, compared to being someone's chattel, are two very different things.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

[Yesterday]

He signed executive order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, which gave the treasuring the power to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury. He issued $4 billion of this debt free, interest free money which allowed the country to conduct its business without having to go threw the private Federal Reserve system.

This is interesting...thanks for the example I will look for it and read it.

Loosely put, you could use the term slavery as a description of our current system in its entirety perhaps especially when considering the enforced debt of under-developed nations and our own issues with federal debt but in a more personal less general way the use of a term like unbridled usury might better apply. Interest itself, as a means to profit off a transaction which deals with the transfer of money on loan, is not a bad thing and no different than the mark-up on goods at a store. Lending money is a service and should be paid for. It is the magnitude of interest and how it is abused that is the real issue.

[Yesterday]

Hi Pliny, I am beginning to understand a bit about velocity. One argument states that velocity is not affected by the rise and fall of interest alone as shown in various years where production was high but consumerism wasn't for example. I am also beginning to get a bigger picture of devaluation and revaluation. Am I getting it right? That no matter whether the US dollar returns to an asset backed position, it's value will decline (devaluation)over the next few months and then could/should revalue by the end of 2010? And that China's adopting a floating rate is what is allowing the US to keep its valuation low? That everyone else's devaluing is keeping the US dollar relatively stable, as much as it can in this situation?

I think of the article that says the currency in circulation in the US dropped by 9%. Is that a velocity measurement or simply a number of bills measurement? Perhaps this is not a good example of this possible coming reset to gold standard as so coveted by some. That this reduction has nothing to do with a reset but is simply a sign of the times and subject to reversal at a whim.

So Zirping keeps the valuation low (do I understand this right?), is the US Zirping on purpose to force devaluation/revaluation (depending on individual circumstances) across the board to return the foreign exchanges to a more realistic volume?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

Mmmmm, would keeping the value of the US dollar low allow for more effective use of foreign currency by the US for foreign debt repayment? As in using the stores of the Yuan, or any other, owned by the US to repay instead of using it's own dollars? Lower value on the US dollar means less foreign money to equal a dollar.

I think that in the case of the Yuan, it needs to be revalued versus devalued. This makes me think of the rumour about how much the US owes China. If true, the revaluation while helping to level out the foreign exchange might not bode so well for repayment of this alleged debt.

[Pliny]

We make them grow cotton for corporations which destroys the soil, instead of growing food for the people.

Nobody makes them grow cotton for corporations instead of food for the people. Slavery has been outlawed.

As for what they grow, I really don't care what they grow. I would assume they would grow food that is common in their area.

It seems you do care whether or not they grow cotton.

I'm not trying to tell people how they should live, I am throwing out ideas that aren't perfect nor are they set in stone. I just don't want the suffering to go on anymore and I'm looking for solutions to solve the problems.

Allow others to look for solutions, too. We are all different we all have different levels of intelligence and responsibility we wish to assume. Now here is the problem.

The western do-gooder looks at the African village and sees poor hygiene, no education, no plumbing, no modern conveniences, flies and mosquitos, no money, little or no agriculture - essentially squalor, inconvenience and poverty.

The person living there sees a roof that gives him comfort and shelter, neighbours to interact with, to go hunting or fishing with scrounging the forest for food while he learns about his surroundings and the dangers in it, such as wild animals or poisonous insects and reptiles.

If you notice all the bleeding heart videos about the hardships that little Mnbambo faces you will see that he is mostly deprived of western modern convenience, western opportunity due to lack of a western education. Certainly, in comparison to our standards they live a less comfortable and even shorter life.

It is a totally different culture and a totally different mindset but they do understand when they are being belittled.

Westerners assume they are ignorant and will bring them out of the hell they live in.

In being that presumptuous it places the Western do-gooder in, what he feels, is a superior position. The villager feels ignorant and stupid, and he will until he drives the western do-gooder from the land, which is the invariable end.

If a corporation wants to grow cotton on the land he has to offer some form of return or benefit to either the land owner or the government. Often it is the government that benefits and not the people, so where governments are corrupt (most are) or tyrannical I can see your point of view - the people don't benefit. The corporations only see an opportunity. But, in their defense, they are not the ones oppressing the people and people that work for them will become more wealthy and educated over time thus learning about the evils of politicians and do-good glad-handers.

If you are attempting to solve the problems you see from the veiwpoint of what is for the common good then you have joined the ranks of the collective because only collective or socialist concepts seek to resolve social problems from the viewpoint of what is best for the common good and you place the power of deciding the policy of what the central planner deems is for the collective good. You will eventually no longer matter to that process unless you are the central planner.

That is true, force doesn't work, all we can do is set a good example and if they like it they would emulate us. I never advocated force.

You will or someone will when it is found you don't understand their resistance and decide you must use force for their own common good.

We try to shape how people live their lives now by force. We war to spread freedom and democracy and we ban people from using drugs because people find it morally wrong.

I agree government is too big and interferes too much in the lives of it's citizens. But they are acting for the "common good".

So why don't we, because of money, it is cheaper not too. Just one of the reasons why I do not support this monetary based economy that we use.

Humans may have conquered the planet but money has conquered humans.

Since governments have taken over the monopoly of making money they have turned it into tokens. But it is for the common good.

I understand money and I do understand what you are saying, I just don't like money, I think it holds us back from achieving our true potential.

All cultures develop a system of money eventually, mainly for convenience and it is workable. It is only when money becomes debased and not more than a token that it becomes a problem.

And that is why I don't believe youunderstand what money means or is, you call today's tokens - money. These tokens have only one of the four properties that honest money requires in order to be called money. The one property the tokens have lies in the stability and confidence of the government which translates into confidence in the tokens to be used as currency.

He signed executive order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, which gave the treasuring the power to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury. He issued $4 billion of this debt free, interest free money which allowed the country to conduct its business without having to go threw the private Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve creates money out of debt and charges interest on it. Debt is slavery.

Actually. Here is the truth. The US treasury printed silver certificates up to 1962. In 1963, they removed the redeemable pay to the bearer on demand phrase and the label of it being a silver certificate.

I have a photograph copy of a 1963 US two dollar bill and no where does it say it is a silver certificate.

Now I am not saying that JFK wouldn't get into trouble for removing the redeemable phrase. Doing that would mean that the US Treasury would be in direct competition with the Federal Reserve.

The US treasury department would no longer have it's hands tied by the amount of silver it held in it's vault and could now, just like the Federal Reserve print money when it needed it. That would have made the Federal Reserve redundant and totally unnecessary.

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile".- William Lyon Mackenzie King, 10th prime minister of Canada.

He is advocating a government monopoly on currency and credit manufacture but what does he say about money?

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of America

Thus Lincoln justified the printing of the "Greenback" Dollar to pay for the North's costs in the civil war.

Are we today saving immense sums of interest?

Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.... And when you realize the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate- James Garfield, 20th President of America

There is a conspiracy.

Hmmm....the volume of "money" does create inflation and depressions. It seems though that it would be harder for someone to own all the gold than for someone to just own the rights to print paper currencies and call them money, doncha think?

I guess governments are the master of industry and commerce. Of course Mackenzie King and Lincoln were advocates of government being in charge of the volume of "money". So they wished to be master of all industry and commerce - not really. They wanted to do what was best for the common good.

What is best for the common good means someone must have the power to decide what is best for the common good and carry it beyond any opposition.

Men of goodwill want what is best for the common good and will achieve it whatever way they can because they believe the end justifies the means. Those with the largest egos and poorest concept of the masses and their stupidity will also do what is for the common good whether anyone likes it or not.

There is no conspiracy. There is only a will to act in the common interest that will contribute to a consolidation of power, and the resultant presumption by those few men who feel they should be the ones determining what acts and policies are in the common interest, which inevitably includes them as the central planners - so really it is all about their interests for society.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Have you ever experienced slavery? Do you have any clue what it is? Sorry but the few bucks of interest I pay every month on my car loan, compared to being someone's chattel, are two very different things.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

You chose your debt,Bonam. The next generation does not, nor should they have to assume our debts that the government incurs in our name and not theirs.

If I buy I car and you are required to pay the interest on my loan would you then feel more like you were a slave.

[Pliny]

This is interesting...thanks for the example I will look for it and read it.

I hope the information I supplied has corrected that.

Loosely put, you could use the term slavery as a description of our current system in its entirety perhaps especially when considering the enforced debt of under-developed nations and our own issues with federal debt but in a more personal less general way the use of a term like unbridled usury might better apply. Interest itself, as a means to profit off a transaction which deals with the transfer of money on loan, is not a bad thing and no different than the mark-up on goods at a store. Lending money is a service and should be paid for. It is the magnitude of interest and how it is abused that is the real issue.

Correct, in my view.

[Bonam]

You chose your debt,Bonam. The next generation does not, nor should they have to assume our debts that the government incurs in our name and not theirs.

Our (or my anyway) generation inherited government debts from previous generations as well. Anyway that's an issue with excessive government spending, rather than debt in principle. In any case, citizens are not slaves of their government, even if they must pay taxes, part of which are used to pay off prior debts. For one, we have the option of emigrating.

[Pliny]

Mmmmm, would keeping the value of the US dollar low allow for more effective use of foreign currency by the US for foreign debt repayment?

Short answer, yes.

As in using the stores of the Yuan, or any other, owned by the US to repay instead of using it's own dollars? Lower value on the US dollar means less foreign money to equal a dollar.

The US would have to create money to keep the value low. In other words inflate the currency. It is one way to steal money from holders of a certain currency. Buy when it is high in value and pay when it is low in value.

I think that in the case of the Yuan, it needs to be revalued versus devalued. This makes me think of the rumour about how much the US owes China. If true, the revaluation while helping to level out the foreign exchange might not bode so well for repayment of this alleged debt.

China can avoid US foreign currency losses by inflating the Yuan itself. It gets to be quite a game but eventually the people are the losers.

[Pliny]

Our (or my anyway) generation inherited government debts from previous generations as well. Anyway that's an issue with excessive government spending, rather than debt in principle. In any case, citizens are not slaves of their government, even if they must pay taxes, part of which are used to pay off prior debts. For one, we have the option of emigrating.

Well, maple leaf sees paying off the interest on debts without paying the principal on the debt, which he did not incur in the first place, as a form of slavery. I agree.

You can feel it is your obligation to continually pay interest and for those payments to continue for generations on if you like. You thus free yourself by accepting your prison walls as necessary inconveniences.

As for emigration is there any nation without a national debt?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Pliny

[maple_leafs182]

Nobody makes them grow cotton for corporations instead of food for the people. Slavery has been outlawed.

Physical slavery maybe, economic slavery hasn't.

It seems you do care whether or not they grow cotton.

If growing cotton will benefit the people and it is something they want, let them grow it. But even now that cotton isn't used for the people.

Allow others to look for solutions, too. We are all different we all have different levels of intelligence and responsibility we wish to assume. Now here is the problem.

The western do-gooder looks at the African village and sees poor hygiene, no education, no plumbing, no modern conveniences, flies and mosquitos, no money, little or no agriculture - essentially squalor, inconvenience and poverty.

The person living there sees a roof that gives him comfort and shelter, neighbours to interact with, to go hunting or fishing with scrounging the forest for food while he learns about his surroundings and the dangers in it, such as wild animals or poisonous insects and reptiles.

If you notice all the bleeding heart videos about the hardships that little Mnbambo faces you will see that he is mostly deprived of western modern convenience, western opportunity due to lack of a western education. Certainly, in comparison to our standards they live a less comfortable and even shorter life.

It is a totally different culture and a totally different mindset but they do understand when they are being belittled.

Westerners assume they are ignorant and will bring them out of the hell they live in.

In being that presumptuous it places the Western do-gooder in, what he feels, is a superior position. The villager feels ignorant and stupid, and he will until he drives the western do-gooder from the land, which is the invariable end.

I understand that, I don't think they all live in hell just because the don't have the comforts of western society, just the ones starving are living in hell.

If you are attempting to solve the problems you see from the veiwpoint of what is for the common good then you have joined the ranks of the collective because only collective or socialist concepts seek to resolve social problems from the viewpoint of what is best for the common good and you place the power of deciding the policy of what the central planner deems is for the collective good. You will eventually no longer matter to that process unless you are the central planner.

So lets have everyone who wishes to participate in central planning be involved in the central planning.

We can have a democracy of ideas, a true democracy.

You will or someone will when it is found you don't understand their resistance and decide you must use force for their own common good.

I am a libertarian, I wouldn't force someone to do something against there will. If they don't want help or maybe they don't see it as help, either way I wouldn't force it on them.

I agree government is too big and interferes too much in the lives of it's citizens. But they are acting for the "common good".

I don't think they are acting for the common good, if they were they would understand how important liberties are and how destructive wars are.

Since governments have taken over the monopoly of making money they have turned it into tokens. But it is for the common good.

Governments don't make money, in Canada private banks make 90% of the money or currency in circulation.

All cultures develop a system of money eventually, mainly for convenience and it is workable. It is only when money becomes debased and not more than a token that it becomes a problem.

Inflation is a hidden tax on the people.

And I think money was a somewhat useful tool up until maybe 30 or 40 years ago. Now that we have the knowledge and technology to relieve humans from much of the labour or jobs we have today, I don't think money is needed anymore. We can't have completely automatized farms right now because that takes jobs away from the people and hurts the economy.

And that is why I don't believe youunderstand what money means or is, you call today's tokens - money. These tokens have only one of the four properties that honest money requires in order to be called money. The one property the tokens have lies in the stability and confidence of the government which translates into confidence in the tokens to be used as currency.

Currency is money in todays society, there are no gold backed currencies.

Actually. Here is the truth. The US treasury printed silver certificates up to 1962. In 1963, they removed the redeemable pay to the bearer on demand phrase and the label of it being a silver certificate.

I have a photograph copy of a 1963 US two dollar bill and no where does it say it is a silver certificate.

Now I am not saying that JFK wouldn't get into trouble for removing the redeemable phrase. Doing that would mean that the US Treasury would be in direct competition with the Federal Reserve.

The US treasury department would no longer have it's hands tied by the amount of silver it held in it's vault and could now, just like the Federal Reserve print money when it needed it. That would have made the Federal Reserve redundant and totally unnecessary.

The authority vested in the President by paragraph ( of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and ( By revoking subparagraphs ( and © of paragraph 2 thereof.

He didn't remove the silver standard.

Are we today saving immense sums of interest?

No because money isn't created by government, it is created by private banks.

From 1867 to 1992, our federal debt was $423 billion. Only $37 billion was actually spent on goods and services, the other $386 billion comes from compounded interest. Look at all that interest we are stuck paying.

Wait wait wait, it gets better, how much interest do you think we pay in total everyday, we spend on interest if we combine all the federal and provincial debt, $160 million a day.

What could Canada do with $160 million more a day.

Got to love compounded interest. If you were loaned $1 from the day Christ was born to now, with regular interest you would owe about $120, with compounded interest you would owe just over 69,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Hmmm....the volume of "money" does create inflation and depressions. It seems though that it would be harder for someone to own all the gold than for someone to just own the rights to print paper currencies and call them money, doncha think?

Yes is do.

There is no conspiracy. There is only a will to act in the common interest that will contribute to a consolidation of power, and the resultant presumption by those few men who feel they should be the ones determining what acts and policies are in the common interest, which inevitably includes them as the central planners - so really it is all about their interests for society.

that sounds like a conspiracy to me, you can say it is more of a conspiracy of ideas but a conspiracy none the less.

[Yesterday]

Short answer, yes.

The US would have to create money to keep the value low. In other words inflate the currency. It is one way to steal money from holders of a certain currency. Buy when it is high in value and pay when it is low in value.

I had read that yes, creating medium to circulate does indeed reduce the value of any pre-existing medium in circulation, from what I understand it takes a lot. Perhaps volumes as large as the totality of the recent US budgets. Which makes me think of a youtube movie I watched once that explained how in the US, upon the creation of a budget the Federal Reserve can print money equal to the budget immediately for use relying on tax collection to fund the budget itself, the double dip. This would give the volumes to make the difference. I have not substantiated this, have no idea if it is true, but it was an interesting watch just the same. This makes me think again of that 9% reduction mentioned earlier. If indeed it was referring to currency medium in circulation then I don't think we can look to printing excess volumes of currency medium to circulate as the means to the end for this 'keeping the value low' for the US dollar. Although, there is so much I don't understand yet....I will pull the article that I was reading about interest and the effect on value tonight.

China can avoid US foreign currency losses by inflating the Yuan itself. It gets to be quite a game but eventually the people are the losers.

OK, these are the 2 conclusions I keep coming too, 1. If the US is paying China back (supposing they are) in US dollars and the price of the Yuan goes up then there can be less US dollars exchanged to clean up the debt? 2. That if the US is paying China back in Yuan's then a higher value for that would equal less of them exchanged to clean up the debt. Either way the benefit seems to come for the US.

I have not substantiated this debt other than through alternative media but they say it is roughly 47 trillion dollars (foreign debt). Keeping the double dip in mind and the 9% reduction in circulating medium...the budgets, unprecedented, equal almost 40 trillion dollars....8-9 trillion of government spending in 2009 unaccounted for...mmm....

I know I have a lot to learn...

Edited August 6, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

Physical slavery maybe, economic slavery hasn't.

Well said Mapleleaf, this is true.

Wait wait wait, it gets better, how much interest do you think we pay in total everyday, we spend on interest if we combine all the federal and provincial debt, $160 million a day.

A conclusion that I am coming too is that for the government to lose the debt that furnishes 160-170 million dollar a day collection of taxes, well that day will never come unless we as Canadian citizens figure out an effective way to fight/re-write this. Something is fishy about this regarding where that collected revenue goes. I am not naive enough to think this actually goes to the banks. Yeah right. I would imagine that somehow, someway, there is an agreement between the banks and our government that allows for (I'm guessing at least a large %) a portion of this collected revenue to be used for government spending of some sort.

Governments don't make money, in Canada private banks make 90% of the money or currency in circulation.

It seems to be more of a joint effort between the government and the banks to determine how much printing should go on in any given fiscal year.

[Pliny]

Physical slavery maybe, economic slavery hasn't.

It is very difficult to get ahead. You lose wealth through inflation and taxes take half your income.

I hope you aren't thinking that corporations are keeping people in economic slavery. As Bonam says, and I agree, you have a choice. You do not have a choice about paying taxes or losing part of your earnings through inflation. If it is governments you are blaming for economic slavery then I can agree with you.

If growing cotton will benefit the people and it is something they want, let them grow it. But even now that cotton isn't used for the people.

That's how the division of labour works. Everybody could be producing cotton and they have more cotton than they can use themselves so they trade it for other goods.

In saying, "that cotton isn't used for the people", by "the people", do you mean the "common good"?

Unfortunately, you perceive what you believe are other people's problems and you wish to resolve them. Of course you have come to the conclusion that a conspiracy is to blame for this situation.

The conspiracy consists of governments trying to govern and failing miserably at it but being unwilling to give up any authority to govern. Instead complaining that they haven't enough resources or powers to act, so they usurp more power and resources and continue to blunder along planning everyone's life for the common good.

I understand that, I don't think they all live in hell just because the don't have the comforts of western society, just the ones starving are living in hell.

What is your plan then? Feed them? What happened to teach them how to feed themselves.

An interesting discussion I had with another person was that they claimed that a woman would not bring a child into the world in an unsafe environment. I took the opposite side and said that it was important to overproduce in a hostile environment with the hope some would survive. A dozen or so children was not unusual in rural families in Canada a century ago. Some died early, some left for other interests but at least there was a few that would take over the family farm, look after their parents and start their own families.

There is no doubt that starving children is a sad sight, especially when you compare it with the plenty that exists in first world countries.

The solution that the Red Cross and WHO has is to attempt to reduce propagation, to reduce reproduction. It makes sense in the west to have smaller families, i.e., reproduce less, that way there is more wealth to spread around and we, hopefully, provide for our old age ourselves and, hopefully, have security of person and property. We don't need large families. Most of our children will live longer lives and find local work - but it wasn't always that way - we atone time needed large families.

Those families starving in third world countries know only one way to keep the species going and that is to reproduce so that, although many will die, some will survive. That's how we thought only a century ago. We were lucky though, there wasn't a WHO telling us to use condoms because we wouldn't be able to feed ourselves properly if we had too many children.

So as sad as it appears and the exaggeration of that sadness by comparing it to first world nations it is the only way for a culture or nation to survive until they can catch up and if it means growing cotton to produce some ability to trade with other countries they should do that.

We all at once didn't have things handed to us to bring us out of poverty. Our forefathers worked for it. That they granted too much credit to governments and made them too large is a fault of ignorance.

But governments and many people will tell you today that not having a strong central government with central planning and social engineering is the position of the ignorant.

It is best individuals run their own lives and government is, in the age of information, less relevant than when our forefathers were planning society.

So lets have everyone who wishes to participate in central planning be involved in the central planning.

We can have a democracy of ideas, a true democracy.

It is ok to bandy about ideas but nothing will get down unless there is a means to come to agreement.

Should the means be a government that has the ability to force what is determined by one or a few men to be in the best interests of the common? Should planning be on a more localized level, a provincial or even municipal level?

I think the further removed from the populace the less responsibility for planning or engineering society a government should have. A federal government should then have very little to do with planning society and it's mandate should be to remove threats to the stability of society.

Not many people are interested or have the time necessary to participate in central planning especially planning for a nation or in our future planning for the world.

I am a libertarian, I wouldn't force someone to do something against there will. If they don't want help or maybe they don't see it as help, either way I wouldn't force it on them.

If you are a libertarian then quit deciding what you are going to do about other people's problems.

As a libertarian you wouldn't force them but there are those that would and you might even agree with them that it is for the common good.

I don't think they are acting for the common good, if they were they would understand how important liberties are and how destructive wars are.

They have to believe what they are doing is for the common good otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their wars to the public.

The "common good" is just a rationalization for inflicting harm on some individuals in the interest of other individuals. Who would be marginalized by your concept of the common good? Someone would be - the rich, perhaps?

Governments don't make money, in Canada private banks make 90% of the money or currency in circulation.

Currency is only allowed to be printed by the Bank of Canada, as decreed by government in the Banking Act. Are you saying the Bank of Canada is privately owned?

Inflation is a hidden tax on the people.

Yes, it is.

And I think money was a somewhat useful tool up until maybe 30 or 40 years ago. Now that we have the knowledge and technology to relieve humans from much of the labour or jobs we have today, I don't think money is needed anymore. We can't have completely automatized farms right now because that takes jobs away from the people and hurts the economy.

WE don't have money anymore! We did forty years ago. Now we have electronic transfers of debits and credits and "money" that can be created out of thin air, something that has always destroyed the currency or the honest money.

So your complaint about money as being unnecessary perplexes me. It has already been eliminated.

Currency is money in todays society, there are no gold backed currencies.

Fiat currency tokens have replaced money - money has been eliminated.

The authority vested in the President by paragraph ( of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and ( By revoking subparagraphs ( and © of paragraph 2 thereof.

He didn't remove the silver standard.

When you look at the bills it appears he did, much to the consternation of the Federal Reserve.

No because money isn't created by government, it is created by private banks.

There is no money. Your argument then is that it is the banks who are governing and not the government.

From 1867 to 1992, our federal debt was $423 billion. Only $37 billion was actually spent on goods and services, the other $386 billion comes from compounded interest. Look at all that interest we are stuck paying.

Wait wait wait, it gets better, how much interest do you think we pay in total everyday, we spend on interest if we combine all the federal and provincial debt, $160 million a day.

What could Canada do with $160 million more a day.

Got to love compounded interest. If you were loaned $1 from the day Christ was born to now, with regular interest you would owe about $120, with compounded interest you would owe just over 69,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

that sounds like a conspiracy to me, you can say it is more of a conspiracy of ideas but a conspiracy none the less.

It is all in the interests of the common good. If you feel slighted or enslaved then you are one of the casualties that must necessarily occur when considering only the common good. It is after all impossible that every individuals concerns are addressed under one plan and even loss and damage may occur to certain individuals under a single plan for the collective good. To those marginalized by such a plan it may appear there is a conspiracy. But it would only be a conspiracy to be the central planner as opposed to someone else, not a conspiracy to enslave the populace of the earth - although obeyance is a necessary condition to the existence of a central planner. It would be impossible to say he could get 100% agreement and complete cooperation for his plan - some one generally has a better idea that includes himself being the central planner who knows what's best for everyone.

The current leadership isn't doing too bad a job but they are trying to further concentrate power to a global level - A mistake in my mind.

[Bonam]

Well, maple leaf sees paying off the interest on debts without paying the principal on the debt, which he did not incur in the first place, as a form of slavery. I agree.

Look, I agree, paying taxes sucks, especially when a big chunk of those taxes is going to paying off old debts that did not benefit you in any way. But slavery? No. To call this slavery is to dilute the term until it loses all meaning.

[maple_leafs182]

I hope you aren't thinking that corporations are keeping people in economic slavery. As Bonam says, and I agree, you have a choice. You do not have a choice about paying taxes or losing part of your earnings through inflation. If it is governments you are blaming for economic slavery then I can agree with you.

I blame a little bit of both, I think big banks and organizations like the IMF and World Bank are also responsible.

That's how the division of labour works. Everybody could be producing cotton and they have more cotton than they can use themselves so they trade it for other goods.

In saying, "that cotton isn't used for the people", by "the people", do you mean the "common good"?

I'm saying that most people over there and this is an assumption, they probably don't need cotton in their everyday life and if they do need it would probably be a small amount.

I understand that having jobs creates money for the people, I just think that growing food for the people would benefit more people then just the few workers that are getting paid.

What is your plan then? Feed them? What happened to teach them how to feed themselves.

Teaching seems like a pretty solid idea to me.

An interesting discussion I had with another person was that they claimed that a woman would not bring a child into the world in an unsafe environment. I took the opposite side and said that it was important to overproduce in a hostile environment with the hope some would survive. A dozen or so children was not unusual in rural families in Canada a century ago. Some died early, some left for other interests but at least there was a few that would take over the family farm, look after their parents and start their own families.

There is no doubt that starving children is a sad sight, especially when you compare it with the plenty that exists in first world countries.

The solution that the Red Cross and WHO has is to attempt to reduce propagation, to reduce reproduction. It makes sense in the west to have smaller families, i.e., reproduce less, that way there is more wealth to spread around and we, hopefully, provide for our old age ourselves and, hopefully, have security of person and property. We don't need large families. Most of our children will live longer lives and find local work - but it wasn't always that way - we atone time needed large families.

Those families starving in third world countries know only one way to keep the species going and that is to reproduce so that, although many will die, some will survive. That's how we thought only a century ago. We were lucky though, there wasn't a WHO telling us to use condoms because we wouldn't be able to feed ourselves properly if we had too many children.

So as sad as it appears and the exaggeration of that sadness by comparing it to first world nations it is the only way for a culture or nation to survive until they can catch up and if it means growing cotton to produce some ability to trade with other countries they should do that.

I don't think the WHO are Red Cross are really working to solve the problem. Having less people born into poverty does lower the amount of people in poverty but it does not really solve the problem of poverty itself. If we continue the approach they are taking, poverty will still be around for hundreds of years. We have to look into what creates poverty.

If you are a libertarian then quit deciding what you are going to do about other people's problems.

I don't see it as other people's problems, I see it as being our problem, humanities problem as a whole, I see us as one people.

They have to believe what they are doing is for the common good otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their wars to the public.

If they believe it is for the common good, which I do believe they do, then who sold them that idea.

The "common good" is just a rationalization for inflicting harm on some individuals in the interest of other individuals. Who would be marginalized by your concept of the common good? Someone would be - the rich, perhaps?

I hope so, no one deserves to fly in private jet and have huge mansions while there are others living in poverty. As for my concept of the common good, I think the only problems facing us are problems that are common to all of man. Now the question is what problems are common to all of us. We all need food and water, we all need a home to live in, provide us with the necessities of life and I can guarantee we would live in a more peaceful world with a lot less crime.

Currency is only allowed to be printed by the Bank of Canada, as decreed by government in the Banking Act. Are you saying the Bank of Canada is privately owned?

No, the Bank of Canada isn't private but private banks give bank notes out when they give a loan. These bank notes are considered to be as good as dollars then when the loan gets paid back with hard earned money, new money is created. Private banks create money.

WE don't have money anymore! We did forty years ago. Now we have electronic transfers of debits and credits and "money" that can be created out of thin air, something that has always destroyed the currency or the honest money.

So your complaint about money as being unnecessary perplexes me. It has already been eliminated.

Fiat currency tokens have replaced money - money has been eliminated.

When you ask how much money does that cost, you don't say "how many fiat currency tokens does that cost". I know currencies are fiat but i still refer to them as money because in todays society they are accepted as money.

There is no money. Your argument then is that it is the banks who are governing and not the government.

That is my argument, international bankers control the world by manipulating economies and the economy as a whole.

[Yesterday]

This is an interesting article about the BoC and who controls/owns what...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/theultimatescam/The%20Bank%20of%20Canada.htm

[Oleg Bach]

Lighten up Francis....we kill more people today with motor vehicle "accidents". Next you'll be claiming that the insurance companies are in on it as indirect profiteers of "mass murder".

You said it I did not..Insurance companies depend on us being frightened that something bad will happen and giving them money just in case - and nothing bad ever happens if you have your mental and spiritual shit together..and call be Francis - Mr..sex is not bianary....sometime I wonder if you are some wack job liberal that does the dirty work for conservative ---all for a pay check and a pat on the head.

[Pliny]

This is an interesting article about the BoC and who controls/owns what...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/theultimatescam/The%20Bank%20of%20Canada.htm

The official website of the Bank of Canada states it is owned by the government. There is one share that is held in trust by the Minister of Finance. Who owns the share?

Well, it is a Crown corporation if that tells you anything.

I liked that article.

The Crown is the corporation that represents the Queen.

Our government represents the Crown for Canada.

The central banks and governments are proxies for the Crown and others that have divided the world up among themselves. I don't know who all the players are but governments work to keep the societies stable and the central banks provide the tools to economically keep things stabilized.

The UN and the Bank of International Settlements tells me that a further consolidation of power is in the process. That means, if plans are successful, that perhaps there is some jockeying for position but maybe not.

Is it a conspiracy? It is a plan and if the central planners don't want to be hung, if/when things go sour, they must remain anonymous and the governments must ultimately be the responsible agencies.

It isn't good to point to the Queen or any owners as members of a Cabal and label them conspirators.

[Yesterday]

Hi, that is a good read isn't it. I made the mistake of saving the research paper about currency velocity and interest and value as a pdf instead of bookmarking it...now I have to try and find a link. Research papers seem to be kind of hard at times to find by title. As soon as I get it I will post it.

[Yesterday]

The official website of the Bank of Canada states it is owned by the government. There is one share that is held in trust by the Minister of Finance. Who owns the share?

Well, it is a Crown corporation if that tells you anything.

I liked that article.

The Crown is the corporation that represents the Queen.

Our government represents the Crown for Canada.

It isn't good to point to the Queen or any owners as members of a Cabal and label them conspirators.

My sons generation seems to have no problem questioning her or the governments motives and practices. Thankfully to them, titles are no sanctity, at least no means of sanctuary. Times are changing really fast...I wonder sometimes if the general public is quite ready to try a new type of banking. Could be that the only way to stop this is to make different choices and design different business concepts to achieve the means. Really, if we could borrow and save with entities that did not create money and invest in markets we could decide to give our business to the new entities and slowly drive the biggies out. Really, the only threat the biggies could be to the newbies would be on the stock market. So we would have to give up the piddly interest made on savings...be a holding versus investment entity. There are many ways to achieve this and being a holding company of sorts is just part of it.

[Pliny]

My sons generation seems to have no problem questioning her or the governments motives and practices. Thankfully to them, titles are no sanctity, at least no means of sanctuary.

Did they not get a public education?

Most graduates of the public system seem to know how to make demands on government and vote for more benefits or not cutting benefits and beyond that they find a job that hopefully has benefits so it can become a career.

Times are changing really fast...I wonder sometimes if the general public is quite ready to try a new type of banking. Could be that the only way to stop this is to make different choices and design different business concepts to achieve the means. Really, if we could borrow and save with entities that did not create money and invest in markets we could decide to give our business to the new entities and slowly drive the biggies out. Really, the only threat the biggies could be to the newbies would be on the stock market. So we would have to give up the piddly interest made on savings...be a holding versus investment entity. There are many ways to achieve this and being a holding company of sorts is just part of it.

The real problem is that banks should tell you what they are doing with your money. They tell you they will pay you interest on a savings account but they don't tell you that they will use your money to make 10% and keep 8% for themselves while you are smiling with 2%.

[Bonam]

Did they not get a public education?

Most graduates of the public system seem to know how to make demands on government and vote for more benefits or not cutting benefits and beyond that they find a job that hopefully has benefits so it can become a career.

It's not as hopeless as that. Though many people certainly do learn that, there are also people coming out of our education systems who prefer smaller government. Quite a few of my friends and acquaintances in university (mostly engineering and science students) happened to fall into this category.

The real problem is that banks should tell you what they are doing with your money. They tell you they will pay you interest on a savings account but they don't tell you that they will use your money to make 10% and keep 8% for themselves while you are smiling with 2%.

Most of the investment vehicles available to banks are also available to individuals. When banks take your money and invest it into something that they hope will give a "10%" return, they are taking a risk. Your 2% savings account is risk free and insured. If you want to gamble and invest in the same type of portfolio that a bank does, there are certainly institutions that will provide you with that opportunity. The only difference is that banks can sometimes get better deals since they can invest much larger quantities of money than most individuals can, and that gives them some negotiating power. However, banks are also subject to a lot of overhead costs that individuals are not.

For example, most of my money is happily sitting and earning a ~7% return right now (that's last year's performance), through a varied portfolio of stable dividend paying stocks. That's not including the underlying value of the stocks, which has more than doubled since I bought them at the bottom of the "recession".

Edited August 8, 2010 by Bonam

[capricorn]

That's not including the underlying value of the stocks, which has more than doubled since I bought them at the bottom of the "recession".

Pray tell. Were you influenced into buying stock at recession prices by your forward thinking broker or by our insensitive PM?

[Bonam]

Pray tell. Were you influenced into buying stock at recession prices by your forward thinking broker or by our insensitive PM?

Actually I performed an analysis of the stocks of several companies and researched the nature of their business and formed an estimate of their future prospects. Based on this valuation, I selected a variety of stocks that seemed promising. Not quite all of them did, but most, yielding a favorable return. I did not seek the advice of any broker in the process. Just did a lot of reading and learning and internet research.

That being said, our PM was definitely right that the recession was a great time to buy.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Bonam