Can the Trump Tariffs work out to be a good thing for the world economy?

Should Canada's Bank of Canada be used to give low interest loans to pay Trump Tariffs?

  • No

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe???!!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All forty five million Canadians own the Bank of Canada, this is way to repay USA taxpayers, YES!

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Total voters
    2

DennisPTate

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2025
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
1,127
Points
163
I am of the belief that the Trump Tariffs are forcing elected officials in all nations to take a look at our history?

For example, it is theoretically possible here in Canada to loan money to Provinces, that could then turn around and make low interest loans to corporations at a low rate of interest to pay those Trump Tariffs in such a way that would be win, win, win, win, win for essentially all Canadians, but also for all Americans. We Canadians who were born here do tend to admit that the United States has been policing the world rather effectively since WWII, and this MISSION has costed American taxpayers a lot.

This would be especially true if President Trump were to use these Tariffs to finance an Income Supplement to Americans! He has discussed that option.

The Trump Tariffs could set in motion a series of events here in Canada that could be looked at as Canadians assisting American taxpayers with the mission that they have been on to "Police the World?"

Many of us Canadians are well aware that Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau may a terrible error back in 1974. The Trump Tariffs may be the catalyst that causes this error to become common knowledge by Canadians and Americans?

[Ms. Betty Krawczyk] :
"The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s 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 sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)


Why would Canada's Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau make such a terrible error?

My guess is that he feared that guy who pressured and convinced him to make that terrible decision.

The guy who convinced P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau to make that error wanted the USA national debt to go up like:


us-public-debt-graphic.jpg



In order to hide the massive increase in the national debt of the USA it was necessary to convince Canada's Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to make a colossal error so that the national debt of Canada would also look like it was spiralling out of control just like what was happening in the USA. If the national debt of Canada had been kept much lower by keeping the rather brilliant 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy in place, then it would have been impossible to deceive Americans.


canada-public-debt.jpg


My guess is that that was likely the true motive behind the decision Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau was pressured into making.




In my opinion Canada's Liberal Party has used the fact that American soldiers were policing much of the world to make cutback after cutback in our own Canadian military and also in every other part of our economy. Please notice the word "ludicrous" in the following quotation?


Economist John Hotson;
Economist Harold Chorney:
Economist Mario Seccarrecia:
....
“But money creation is money creation — whether by a private bank or the Bank of Canada. And a government in debt only to the government's own bank is not really in debt at all. If it wants to go through the rigamarole of having the Treasury «borrow» from the central bank and later pay interest, that is a minor matter of bookkeeping. As long as the central bank's profits are returned to the Treasury, the results are much the same as if the Treasury had created the money itself.

“There is no reason why the growth of Canada's money supply (averaging about $22 billion annually in recent years) could not be more substantially created by the Bank of Canada. If that policy had been followed, the federal government would not have been obliged to add to its debts to pay interest on old debts. Instead, the Bank of Canada has produced barely 2% of the money added in recent years, while the chartered banks added the rest as they made loans to households, businesses, and all levels of government. At the very least, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks should share the privilege of creating money on a 50-50 basis.

“Those who dismiss such a proposal as «inflationary» should be required to explain why it would be more inflationary for the government's bank to create $11 billion and the private banks $11 billion, rather than the present practice of having the government's bank create $0.7 billion and the private banks $21.3 billion!

“Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney-era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation.

“It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free.

 
Last edited:
Prime Minister Mark Carney could not have won this recent election if he had not capitalized on the anti-Trump sentiment all across Canada, after President Donald J. Trump proposed those tariffs on Canadian products?

Prime Minister Mark Carney would be unlikely to simply and publicly admit that there was evidence that drugs were being smuggled over the Canada - USA border, [and the Trump Tariffs were meant to scare the ruling Liberal Party into doing something about that problem]!

Prime Minister Mark Carney would be unlikely to simply and publicly admit that Canada has been used as a place for the organization of what sure looks like it could become terrorist activity against the USA.

Prime Minister Mark Carney instead capitalized on anti-Trump sentiment in Canada and won himself a minority government although the polls predicted that his Liberal Party would have been destroyed in the last Canadian federal election, but then President Trump proposed the Tariffs, and the entire situation changed instantly.

Based on my sixty six years of attempting to figure out what is really happening in Ottawa, I do believe that the present situation can be turned around and become a dump of critical information to a high percentage of Canadians and Americans.

It is obvious that Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney is going toe to toe against the President Trump relationship with ten million Israelis. His decisions show what could be termed "political courage" but in my opinion his decision to go against the President Trump Israel policy, is also rather dangerous for Israelis. If you are not aware of what Prime Minister Stephen Harper did at the G-8 in 2011 you might find this to be an interesting rewind of recent Canadian history.



 
Last edited:
look at tariffs juxtaposed to national debt /GNP ratio

30 odd years ago we had little debt, now it's to the point of the gub'mit talkin' revaluation

we've literally subsidized foreign economies since nafta

time some of that came our way

~S~
 
If I were President Trump, I'd make Canada pay their tariffs in maple syrup and Montreal smoked meat.

Yum.
 
look at tariffs juxtaposed to national debt /GNP ratio

30 odd years ago we had little debt, now it's to the point of the gub'mit talkin' revaluation

we've literally subsidized foreign economies since nafta

time some of that came our way

~S~

Yes, if President Trump uses Tariff revenue to finance some sort of "Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement" as was suggested by Economist Milton Friedman, I do believe that this could work out to be a good thing for American citizens, and soon other nations might just learn something from what is happening in the USA.

President Trump might just be a whole lot more well informed than BigMedia will give him credit for being.

It is possible that President Trump is doing things that can be compared to an opening gambit in chess, and then what he does next depends on the reaction that he gets.
 
If I were President Trump, I'd make Canada pay their tariffs in maple syrup and Montreal smoked meat.

Yum.
If elected officials in Ottawa would be intellectually honest they would not exactly laugh at that theory at all!

We could end up trading maple syrup and smoked meat for soon to be USA produced Honda vehicles, that used to be produced up here in Canada! [But of course we could not specify Honda vehicles, that would not be legal]?!
 
Back
Top Bottom