Bank of Canada Lawsuit

[GostHacked]

Banks earn the money to pay the interest on GICs by lending the money.

If no one wanted borrow you would not be able to get interest.

Bonds are a case where you directly loan your savings to someone taking on debt and paying you interest.

If no one issued bonds you could not save money that way.

If you own stock in a car company that company only makes a profit if enough consumers take on debt in order to buy new cars.

If a company does not make a profit you can't money from stocks.

Perpetual debt.

[TimG]

Perpetual debt.

And perpetually increasing assets. Debt cannot exist without assets. Assets can exist without debt but there are simply not enough assets (like gold) to go around without using debt as a multiplier. Debt is a oil that allows wealth to be distributed through society.

[nerve]

It makes perfect sense to print before taxing, it actually makes sense to print and not tax. People who are rich like their money to hold value though, so they prefer unequal dilution of wealth to favour their own monetary strength.

The other side is that capital as well as currency are taxable so some measure of capital taxation might still be required.

Bottom line is corporatism and selling out egalitarianism so money retains value over time, this really isn't the case with Canada as a petrodollar anyway.

It all boils down to who government wants to rape, and it is far easier to take defensless disempowered lumpen than elites and affluents.

Savers want mobility, they don't want to dream how banal and pointless their life will be by prepurchasing their future now.

Yes it his selling out the public to the wealthy, surprise surprise.

The idea is to reward capable managers. Neo liberalism is only as bad as the poor ethical values as the elites who control ownership of global capital. We all die.

If we are rewarding capable managers it makes perfect sense the government is in perpetual debt.

Edited March 10, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

It makes perfect sense to print before taxing, it actually makes sense to print and not tax. People who are rich like their money to hold value though, so they prefer unequal dilution of wealth to favour their own monetary strength.

Fundamental rule of the universe: you can't get something for nothing.

Fiat currencies are useful for many reasons but only if people trust the entity in charge of the currency. If trust is lost the currency can no longer be used for trade because people will not accept it. Printing money without any limit undermines that trust and in the worst case leads to hyper-inflation like has occurred numerous countries over the years.

That said, the Fed, the ECB and the Japanese central bank are all printing money because the risk of deflation is a bigger concern than inflation. This is sustainable as long as as inflation remains low. The trouble is this money printing keeps the economy afloat but it also benefits the rich more than the poor because assets grow faster than wages. It is naive to say that this policy is better for the poor than a currency with stable values.

Edited March 10, 2015 by TimG

[nerve]

I disagree everything in my life has been God's gift and I again give thanks for a wonderful day, that could have been much worse.

Wealth is a relative value. Is gold a more effective provider than 3000 calories a day or a gun to your head?

It is all voodoo it is just what it does to you, it could be anything.

Printing money and giving it to non earners is better monetary policy for the poor.

At the end of the day money or gold dont matter though.

It is relative.

Edited March 10, 2015 by nerve

[GostHacked]

Fundamental rule of the universe: you can't get something for nothing.

Fractional Reserve Banking?

[TimG]

Printing money and giving it to non earners is better monetary policy for the poor.

You print enough money and give it to the poor you create an incentive to be poor. This leads to more and more people foregoing work to get the free money. This, in turn, leads to problems supplying the goods that people want to buy which leads to inflation. Eventually, costs rise to the point where the poor are no better off than they were before unless you print even more money. Governments that get on this treadmill end up with hyper-inflation like in Zimbabwe. This is the worse for the poor that cannot move their assets to other countries.

[TimG]

Fractional Reserve Banking?

You don't get something for nothing. Every loan is matched by an asset. If banks create loans that cannot be paid back they go under because the assets do not go away.

[nerve]

You print enough money and give it to the poor you create an incentive to be poor. This leads to more and more people foregoing work to get the free money. This, in turn, leads to problems supplying the goods that people want to buy which leads to inflation. Eventually, costs rise to the point where the poor are no better off than they were before unless you print even more money. Governments that get on this treadmill end up with hyper-inflation like in Zimbabwe. This is the worse for the poor that cannot move their assets to other countries.

No. You are wrong.

People want to work if they have a fair wage.

Creating poverty to make people work is a scumbags position.

People want a better life than just out of poverty

Edited March 10, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

People want to work if they have a fair wage.

The point you miss is "fair" is a relative term. If people can make more money going on welfare that raises the definition of "fair".

It is also mathematically impossible for everyone to get a "fair" wage because incomes follow a statistical distribution and there will always be people below the average who feel their wages are not "fair".

[GostHacked]

You don't get something for nothing. Every loan is matched by an asset. If banks create loans that cannot be paid back they go under because the assets do not go away.

You talk about printing money but push aside the notion of fractional reserve banking practices? Both allow, the money for nothing and your chicks for free.

Edited March 11, 2015 by GostHacked

[DFCaper]

I found this article interesting about the subject:

http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/why-doesn-t-the-bank-of-canada-just-print-money-to-pay-off-our-national-debt

"During the 1920s, the governments of Germany, Austria, Poland and Hungary all required their central banks purchase government bonds. In each case the central bank paid for these bonds by printing money. In each case the result was what is known as “hyperinflation;” rates of inflation exceeding 50% per month. If you wonder why in 2012 the German government was so hesitant to allow the European Central Bank to buy up Greek debt, you need only remember Germany’s history with hyperinflation."

I'm not sure why people are advocating for hyper inflation over increasing taxes on the rich. Excessive borrowing is just increasing burden on the poor.

I personally would like to see policies that do not promote borrowing by people and governments but saving. I have turn myself financially around from being in debt to debt free, and as awesome as it is to be able to relax in life, current conditions do not provide great opportunities for saving.

[Dgill]

Greetings,

Any news on this court case? I read there was a date in court for another round of appeals on December 7th, 2016 in Toronto. Not even a day in court for a trial after 5 years? I'm a patient person but come on!! I like to think it speaks volumes for the relevancy of the claim, the fact that the defendant is tie-ing up the case in appeals.

The giant hydro-power dam project at Site C in BC might be a good project to fund with a zero interest loan from the Bank of Canada, I read an article today that if the dam is constructed, the cost necessary through "contemporary financing" would be repaid in 2076. When would it be able to be repaid if the loan was zero interest?

from Surrey, BC,

David

[cannuck]

The Bank of Canada is not a commercial bank, it is a central bank - with NO interface with consumers or business whatsoever, just banks.  Central banks are there to use the power and credibility of government to execute monetary policy and provide a backstop to stabilize and facilitate the cyclic needs of the retail banking system.

Fraction reserve banking is just what it's name states:  regulated institutions are required to maintain a reserve of equity as allowed by their license.   As has already been mentioned, every loan (asset to the bank) must have a deposit base (liability to the bank) to have the money to lend.  There is no "money from nothing" in that arrangement.  The need for reserves is to cover withdrawl of more cash than on hand or the failure of loans beyond security realized (YOU may not get to borrow beyond the security provided, by a lot of very privileged bank customers sure as hell do just that).   If depositors demand cash, not many of the banks assets (loans) can be called to cover the demand, so the bank must either use its reserves, or more likely use its reserve of retained equity to borrow either from the Central bank (at the "bank rate")  or other commercial banks (LIBOR = London Interbank Borrowing Rate) to cover (sometimes daily) shortfalls.  This is why banks PANIC when a loan goes bad over 90 days - the reporting system that determines that banks are within the reserve limits moves that asset (loan) from one side of the ledger to the other (liability, as bank must now financially allow for it to fail).  That double whammy kicks them right in the crotch.

The real "money for nothing" is done at the central bank/government level.   In a sane economy, the money printed and issued would be equal to the approximate value of the country in real terms.  HOWEVER:  we now have a Casino Capitalist economy in which the value of an asset (real estate a good example) is allowed to inflate due to "market" conditions.   Similarly, equities are issued for xx$$, and that money then goes to the company and remains the book value from which the capital in place is used to add value to resources, creating wealth.   Where that to happen, the Central Bank would then issue new money to match the wealth created, as that would all balance in the book value plus retained and/or distributed profits.  Problem is: the value of that equity is then traded in the Casino to some multiple (even THOUSANDS of times book value) requiring cash to be printed (money supply increased) where no wealth has been created.   This is a purely inflationary force the increases the money supply with no increase in the book value of the assets of the company, individuals or nation behind it.   This "money for nothing" is unfortunately a debt on the taxpayer - as fiat currency is no longer redeemed for some other artificial store of wealth (gold, silver, etc.) but simply backed by the value of what the taxpayer/country is actually worth when called upon to redeem said currency.  If you want to see some REALLY whackie numbers, take a look not at the asset backed instruments out there (mortgages, loans, equities, etc.) but the purely synthetic instruments (derivatives) where literally TRILLIONS in wealth is re-distributed annually by institutions executing transactions backed by nothing at all.   AND, the bill for every one of those dollars is passed back to the host country by means of an increase in the money supply to cover the redistribution - literally money for nothing.   EXCEPT, it is not "nothing", it is a pent up inflationary force and a liability to the taxpayer that cost the financial institution nearly nothing (i.e. they might have a tax liability they couldn't figure how to duck).

 

[Dgill]

Hi Cannuck,

You interested in this court case too?

On the Toronto Courts' website, the clerks updated some data on this case on Dec.27th, but nothing too telling.

So looks like new highways will have tolls on them, and pay parking at hospitals for the foresee-able future .

Cheers

 

[taxme]

Get a grip on yourself people. We are getting screwed by our politicians and the banksters. Nothing more, nothing less to say on this topic. 

[Dgill]

Hello  Maple Leaf Web Forum!

An update on this lawsuit....

A layman's abbreviation:

The highest level of court, The Supreme, has chosen not to hear the claim.

This issue has international popularity , I think we haven't heard the last of it?

Cheers