"Social Investing"

[Rocky Road]

I guess I should have indicated a - World Reserve Currency, which is what the US dollar is.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess I should have indicated a - World Reserve Currency, which is what the US dollar is.

Right, but that was by agreement (Bretton Woods). The terms of that agreement were stretched by several nations, starting with West Germany. Nixon took action for the best interest of his country, and despite that, the US dollar hegemon remains.

Is the Canadian dollar backed by gold?

Edited October 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Rocky Road]

No, it is not.

I was simply pondering a what if scenario had the US developed with gold backed currency.

AND it's effect on global economies, such as Canada's.

[dre]

No, it is not.

I was simply pondering a what if scenario had the US developed with gold backed currency.

AND it's effect on global economies, such as Canada's.

Gold backed currency has the same problems that economy backed currency has. Youre money supply and the size of it is not connected to the economy, and usury is tacked on creating the mathematical impossibility of all the loans being paid back unless both the principle and interest get cycled back into pool that the borrowers have to earn from. If the economy grows the only way that new money can be issued is for either the people or government to go deeper into debt, and there can never be enough money in the money supply to repay all the debt.

When you get a loan from a bank the credit being created is really SELF ISSUED. The money does not exist until AFTER you sign your contract with the bank, and the money is written into your account by the bank. What backs that money? Your promise to pay! The new money in the economy has value simply because you have promised to produce enough goods or services to pay back the loan, with interest.

So since the bank doesnt really have the money... since the money only exists because of your willingness to borrow it and the promise to repay it... What justifies the banks taking trillions of dollars out of the system in usury?

Since they dont capitalize the loans the bank only really performs two usefull services. They keep track of credit, and keep a record of how much goods and services you are able to produce, and they administer the loan and collect payments. Both valuable and important services to society but services for which really just a modest fee should be charged. In no way does that meet the historical justification for usury since the bank isnt actually putting up the capital.

Not to mention the even larger moral hazard than some beaureaucrat arbitrarily setting interest rates, loan requirements, etc.

Banks have been around and worked for over 500 years. They work.

That moral hazard already exists. Loan requirements and interest rates for commercial banks are set by the governments financial apparatus. The real question is who has the natural right to that usury, and since the value of those dollars is not derived from real property in the banks vault, or any other function of the bank, but comes intead from the borrowers promise to produce, then the right to collect usury should go to the real credit issuer (the producers of goods and services) or there just shouldnt be any.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it is not.

I was simply pondering a what if scenario had the US developed with gold backed currency.

AND it's effect on global economies, such as Canada's.

The US developed with multiple currencies and backing by different precious metals at different times. There never was an opportunity for a single gold-backed currency. Other nations abandoned gold backing off-on as needed, as was done by Great Britain to finance WWI.

Has Canada ever had a gold backed currency?

[jacee]

You guys don't seem to understand the topic of this thread.

It's about Harper expecting the private sector to suck it up and pay the government's portion of funding for charities and nonprofits.

[bush_cheney2004]

You guys don't seem to understand the topic of this thread.

It's about Harper expecting the private sector to suck it up and pay the government's portion of funding for charities and nonprofits.

OK...why would the government pay for charities or non-profits? Didn't they try that for Residential Schools with the Roman Catholic and other churches? See...you can't escape!

[Rocky Road]

I would argue that presently most currencies are in fact petro-dollars because of the

high value fossil fuel has in the economic engine. Without energy fiat currencies

as we know them would cease to function.

[eyeball]

OK...why would the government pay for charities or non-profits? Didn't they try that for Residential Schools with the Roman Catholic and other churches? See...you can't escape!

Equating a government funded native residential school with charity is about as depraved as it gets.

Talk about a race to the bottom.

...WHAT bottom?

Edited October 31, 2011 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Equating a government funded native residential school with charity is about as depraved as it gets.

The link is clear...government complicity with private religious organizations with parochial motives. We know what happened when this was the law of the land for over 100 years.

Talk about a race to the bottom.

...WHAT bottom?

The bottom in this regard is/was guaranteed by federal and provincial funding mechanisms for religion in the Constitution Act.

[Bonam]

It's about Harper expecting the private sector to suck it up and pay the government's portion of funding for charities and nonprofits.

Well that happens to be a non-issue, since it is not the place of government to pay for charities and nonprofits. Individuals who deem a particular cause worthy should donate their own money to that cause, rather than expecting the government to force everyone to contribute tax dollars to that cause.

[Shwa]

You guys don't seem to understand the topic of this thread.

It's about Harper expecting the private sector to suck it up and pay the government's portion of funding for charities and nonprofits.

From the OP:

“Right now, we ask [charities and non-profits] to take on these jobs. We give them money to do it. They receive the money whether they achieve their objectives or not,” Diane Finley, Minister for Human Resources and Skills Development, told The Globe and Mail. “Now we’re saying, ‘All right, we still want you to do this, but you get more money if you actually achieve the objectives.’ ”

I think this is an accountability scheme that is, quite frankly, long overdue. So the government is saying that if a NFP/Charity wants funding, they are going to have to show, in a tangible way, that they are doing what they say they are doing. I have no problem with that do you?

The government is also opening up the rules with regard to how NFP/Charities can fundraise and access more money from the private sector.

Policies being considered include new tax rules to allow charities and non-profits to raise money through side businesses, and boosting personal tax credits for charitable giving. The first step will be changes to traditional grants.

Some charities - hospital foundations and such - have massive lotteries which held key fundraising for their causes. Allowing more of this sort of thing or giving incentives for creating such "side businesses" can be a real boon to NFPs/Charities. Don't you think?

There is the bit of a problem whereby the government might decide to de-fund those NFPs/Charities that do not fall in line with their goals or ideology. The government hasn't had any problem doing this thus far, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. However, such large scale de-funding is bad for business overall, but accountability rules are not.

[Shwa]

Well that happens to be a non-issue, since it is not the place of government to pay for charities and nonprofits.

Sure it is and always has been.

Individuals who deem a particular cause worthy should donate their own money to that cause, rather than expecting the government to force everyone to contribute tax dollars to that cause.

Tell me what government is forcing "everyone" to "contribute tax dollars" to a particular cause.