If Canada elects Ms. Heather McPherson as Prime Minister could she STOP TRUMP.....

[DennisPTate]

If Canada's NDP were to elect Ms. Heather McPherson as their national leader and future Prime Minister of Canada, could she STOP TRUMP from luring Alberta into the allegorical - metaphorical sports car that Actor Richard Gere lured Ms. Julia Roberts into in the film "Pretty Woman?"

Pretty Woman (1990) Trailer #1 | Movieclips Classic Trailers​

I could be incorrect... I often am... but I saw an online image a few years ago that got my attention and I knew that this same image had many intelligent members of the USA CIA, FBI, NSA and even the "Military Industrial Complex" thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking?!

It seems to me that the P. M. Mark Carney gambit to Stop Trump and prove how much smarter he is than President Trump could well create so much unemployment and under employment across all of Canada that he could well be leading Canada's Liberal Party into a situation even worse than how well Liberal Leader Mr. Michael Ignatieff did back in 2011.

This image entitled "The Republic of Western Canada" got many of us thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking!?







www.TheyLied.ca/


My belief is that as Prime Minister Ms. Heather McPherson would need to explain the relevance of the colassal error made by Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau back in 1974 that essentially forced the "Ottawa Swamp" into passing on the bills to their initiatives TO TAXPAYERS IN ALBERTA!

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES
Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.
Trudeaumania was just gearing up when I immigrated to Canada in late 1966. I, too, was impressed with Trudeau. He was intelligent, articulate, with liberal ideas. And as Prime Minister, Trudeau repatriated the Canadian Constitution and told the morals’ police to stay out of people’s bedrooms. But then…but then. As Anthony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar reminds us… “the evil that men do live after them while the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”

But somehow this worked backward for Trudeau. Many Canadians still think highly of Pierre Trudeau, but in 1974 he did one terrible thing that changed the lives, for present and future, of all Canadians, for the worse. Trudeau gave the leading operations of the Bank of Canada over to the private banks operating in Canada.

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)

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking Syste...

bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com

Heather McPherson for Leader of Canada's NDP

Heather is running to be the next leader of Canada's NDP. Fearless, fiercely fair, and a builder – Heather leads by opening doors and making space for everyone.

www.heathermcpherson.ca

A Basic Minimum Income Supplement and the percentage of women who choose abortion?​

 

[BluesLegend]

Look, Canada and the USA were born about the same time. Look how far the USA has come and look at puny Canada, you would think they would wise up at some point.

 

[Independent thinker]

Look, Canada and the USA were born about the same time. Look how far the USA has come and look at puny Canada, you would think they would wise up at some point.

They are an offshoot of the very liberal UK and France.

 

[DennisPTate]

Look, Canada and the USA were born about the same time. Look how far the USA has come and look at puny Canada, you would think they would wise up at some point.

That is an excellent point. I believe that the only reason that the "Ottawa Swamp" could do seventy years of cutbacks in the Canadian military is due to the fact that the USA was protecting Canada, [essentially for free, just like what President Trump takes as a salary from USA taxpayers]!

 

[DennisPTate]

They are an offshoot of the very liberal UK and France.

True, Canada's political left is quite Anti-American and Anti-Trump so P. M. Mark Carney was able to capitalize on that sentiment to win in Canada's last federal level election.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre on the other hand absolutely refused to play either the anti-USA Trump card, or the anti-Trump, Trump card, and thus he lost in the last federal level election.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre is an honorable and honest political leader which is why the Ottawa Swamp hates him almost as much as the Washington Swamp hates Trump.

I had little choice but to put this discussion under "Political Satire" because I knew that most people would think that I was being sarcastic, [but I was being serious].

"Can Canada's NDP FLIRT with Pierre Poilievre in a way that will stop the Trump Tariffs?"​

Thread 'Can Canada's NDP FLIRT with Pierre Poilievre in a way that will stop the Trump Tariffs?'

Feb 17, 2026

In my opinion the Prime Minister Mark Carney gambit to take Canada out of a close relationship with the USA into a closer trading relationship with China and Europe is dangerous to say the least?

I admit that this entire topic is far above my own Security Clearance Level with The Being of Light of near death experience fame who obviously understands matters that are beyond my ability to understand, but surely it is legitimate that I am not entirely thrilled with the idea of Canada being flooded with Chinese produced electric vehicles? Will China put "Spyware" into those vehicles...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Political Satire

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Mexico is 1000 times more important economically than the Canadian wilderness Republic of China to the North.

I have to assume Canada at this point would side with Communist China in any military conflict anyway. Canada is a threat.

The US should simply remove the Canadian government and replace it with something meaningful to the West and freedom.
That would be my vote anyway. I'm fairly sure it would be the vote of many Canadians in certain Provinces as well.

Ship the leftover liberals directly to China permanently.

 

[DennisPTate]

Mexico is 1000 times more important economically than the Canadian wilderness Republic of China to the North.

I have to assume Canada at this point would side with Communist China is any conflict anyway.

The US should simply remove the Canadian government and replace it with something meaningful to the West and freedom.
That would be my vote anyway.

My wife is from Ecuador and she took me to a resort in Mexico less than two years ago. Spanish is her first language and I do believe that Canada and Mexico could get together and use "Northern Pesos" to pay off the national debt of the USA that is significantly a practical joke that I believe has been played on Americans since 1750 or so!

You are correct about the USA - Mexico economic relationship being even more important than the USA - Canada trading relationship BUT, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT ALBERTAN TAX PAYERS HAVE BEEN FINANCING ALL THAT THE OTTAWA SWAMP HAS BEEN DOING FOR decades!!!!!

NDP Leader Mr. Jack Layton was one of the very few major league Canadian political leaders who would confront the corruption of the Ottawa Swamp!

"We never should have privatized our debt and turned it over to the
private banks, we should have kept it in the hands of the Bank of Canada,
at least a major part of it, because then we would have been paying
interest back to ourselves." (NDP Leader Jack Layton)

Oh Canada Movie 6 - Banking - 5
Just after the 2:20 minute mark in this video interview:

 

[DennisPTate]

Look, Canada and the USA were born about the same time. Look how far the USA has come and look at puny Canada, you would think they would wise up at some point.

Although technically Canada did not really even exist until 1867 there is a part of USA history that we Canadians are somewhat, [ or even extremely], ashamed of.

"Should we Canadians apologize to the USA for how we acted from 1740 to 1775?"​

Post in thread 'Should we Canadians apologize to the USA for how we acted from 1740 to 1775?'

Jan 2, 2026

It is my belief that we Canadians DO DEFINITELY OWE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS AN APOLOGY FOR THE WAY THAT PRIME MINISTER PIERRE E. TRUDEAU ACTED IN 1974!

This apology that we Canadians should give to America should lead us Canadians to a genuine shift in how we behave from 2026 to 2036!

...

• DennisPTate

[Alain Pilote, The History of Banking Control in the United States] :

The happiest population​

Benjamin Franklin​

We are in 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming “New England”, a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: “Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe.” Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:
“That is simple,” Franklin replied. “In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.
“In one year,” Franklin stated, “the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”
Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:
“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War.”
The Founding Fathers of the United States, bearing all these facts in mind, and to protect themselves against the exploitation of the International Bankers, took good care to expressly declare, in the American Constitution, signed at Philadelphia, in 1787, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5:
“Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof.”​

The bank of the bankers​

​

Chapter 49 — The History of Banking Control in the United States

This fight of the International Financiers to install their fraudulent debt-money system has been particularly vicious in the United States of America since its very foundation, and historical facts show that several American statesmen were well aware of the dishonest money system the Financiers...

famguardian.org

 

[22lcidw]

The Republic of Western Canada is a vison due to the three western Commie states of the United States. Nature is pushing in a tug of war.

 

[DennisPTate]

The Republic of Western Canada is a vison due to the three western Commie states of the United States. Nature is pushing in a tug of war.

That is interesting but it is also a fact that about two percent of the population of the Canadian province of Alberta are Latter day Saints.

Latter day Saints have serious connections in the NSA!

Latter day Saints tend to be just about the LEAST 'COMMUNIST" in their beliefs on politics and economics of just about any Christian Church that I have attended.

"Why do you think that the FBI, CIA and NSA recruit Mormons?"​

Zone1 Thread 'Why do you think that the FBI, CIA and NSA recruit Mormons?'

Dec 13, 2025

Why does the FBI, CIA and NSA recruit Mormons?

Is it mainly because they tend to have a second or third language from their foreign missionary days?

Or is it because Latter day Saints tend to be a whole lot like Mr. Charlie Kirk who clearly was willing to die for his beliefs?

I heard an amazing interview a few days ago that if I can find it fits perfectly with this topic.

The CIA and the FBI have Mormon recruitment programs.​

11 Surprising Things You Didn't Know About Mormons

Uncover 11 surprising facts about Mormons that challenge common perceptions. Expand your understanding of this community.

www.businessinsider.com

...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 38
• Forum: Religion and Ethics

• 

 

[Mack The Finger]

She would stop Trump from doing what ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Canada's NDP were to elect Ms. Heather McPherson as their national leader and future Prime Minister of Canada, could she STOP TRUMP from luring Alberta into the allegorical - metaphorical sports car that Actor Richard Gere lured Ms. Julia Roberts into in the film "Pretty Woman?"

Pretty Woman (1990) Trailer #1 | Movieclips Classic Trailers​

I could be incorrect... I often am... but I saw an online image a few years ago that got my attention and I knew that this same image had many intelligent members of the USA CIA, FBI, NSA and even the "Military Industrial Complex" thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking?!

It seems to me that the P. M. Mark Carney gambit to Stop Trump and prove how much smarter he is than President Trump could well create so much unemployment and under employment across all of Canada that he could well be leading Canada's Liberal Party into a situation even worse than how well Liberal Leader Mr. Michael Ignatieff did back in 2011.

This image entitled "The Republic of Western Canada" got many of us thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking!?







www.TheyLied.ca/


My belief is that as Prime Minister Ms. Heather McPherson would need to explain the relevance of the colassal error made by Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau back in 1974 that essentially forced the "Ottawa Swamp" into passing on the bills to their initiatives TO TAXPAYERS IN ALBERTA!

Heather McPherson for Leader of Canada's NDP

Heather is running to be the next leader of Canada's NDP. Fearless, fiercely fair, and a builder – Heather leads by opening doors and making space for everyone.

www.heathermcpherson.ca

A Basic Minimum Income Supplement and the percentage of women who choose abortion?​

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked.

Printing money always works. Until it doesn't.

 

[DennisPTate]

She would stop Trump from doing what ?

Convincing the residents of the Canadian province of Alberta from leaving Canadian Confederation and joining the USA as The Fifty First State?

Convincing President Trump to NOT hit Canada with Tariffs based on a proposal that her political party comes up with, [hopefully in cooperation with Mr. Pierre Poilievre and Canada's Conservative Party]?

I will give some thought to this and come up with some more possibilities because I know that these are just two of the many examples of what P. M. Heather McPherson could perhaps accomplish if she ends up leading Canada's New Democratic Party?

 

[DennisPTate]

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked.

Printing money always works. Until it doesn't.

So you believe that Economist Harold Chorney,
Economist John Hotson and Economist Mario Seccarrecia are INCORRECT in their Thesis that they put forward in this article?

By Harold Chorney, John Hotson and Mario Seccareccia:


“Governments these days find it easy to defend cuts in services and programs. All they have to do is point to their annual deficits and their total accumulated debts. (As of March, 1994, Canada's public debt was about $546 billion.) This public debt provides the politicians with a convenient excuse for cutting spending or raising taxes. Or both. “We're broke”, they tell us plaintively. “We can't afford to increase public services, or even keep them at their present level.”


A lesson from the War


“As the deep recession dragged into 1992, Finance Minister Don Mazankowski said he couldn't do anything about it. His hands were tied, he said. The federal government was broke. The cupboard was bare. The deficit and accumulated national debt were so enormous that his first priority had to be to reduce them — even if that meant prolonging the recession and making it even worse.

“So his budget contained almost nothing to revive the sick economy. With interest payments on the debt gobbling up one-third of tax revenue, his response was to keep taxes high and axe more public services and agencies. Like Martin Luther before him, Mazankowski in effect proclaimed: «Here stand I. I cannot do otherwise.

“But it doesn't take an economist to see that in fact he could. All you have to do is imagine what the government would do if it got involved in another Gulf War — or if that war were still raging. Would the Finance Minister have brought down the same kind of budget? Would he have said, «We'd like to keep on fighting, but we're broke, so we're calling our troops back»? Not on your life!

“Did Canada surrender half way through World War II because the national debt had grown even larger than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? Of course not! Somehow the extra money was found. If it wasn't by raising taxes or borrowing from the private banks, why, the Bank of Canada simply created all the money the government needed — and at near-zero interest rates, too!

“When World War II ended, the national debt relative to the national income was more than twice as large as it is now. But was the country ruined? Did we have to declare national bankruptcy? Far from it! Instead, Canada's economy boomed and the country prospered for most of the post-war period.”


The Bank of Canada has failed in its duty


“Why isn't the same thing happening today? Why was a much larger national debt shrugged off in 1945, while today's much smaller debt (as a percentage of GDP) is being used as an excuse to let the economy stagnate?

“The answer can be found at the Bank of Canada. During the war, and for 30 years afterward, the government could borrow what it needed at low rates of interest, because the government's own bank produced up to half of all the new money. That forced the private banks to keep their interest rates low, too.

“Since the mid-1970s, however, the Bank of Canada, with government consent, has been creating less and less of the new money, while letting the private banks create more and more. Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government — and of course you and me, as well — with outrageously high interest rates. And it is these extortionate interest charges that are the principal cause of the rapid escalation of the national debt. If the federal government were paying interest at the average levels that prevailed from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, it would now be running an operating surplus of about $13 billion!”

The updated version (January, 1996) of the pamphlet expresses the same ideas:

“The Bank of Canada was established in 1935 by an Act of Parliament. In its legislative mandate, it is directed to promote economic growth and employment, as well as preserving the value of the Canadian dollar.

“Shortly after the Bank opened its doors, it was faced with the bankruptcy of provincial governments due to the Depression. Interpreting its mandate widely, as it is supposed to do, it made precedent-setting loans to restore the finances of Manitoba. Generous loans to other provinces followed.

“World War II found Canada ready and determined to act in the Allied cause. The war effort of the federal government was financed through enormous deficits and very low interest rates brought about by the Bank of Canada. At war's end, the national debt stood at about 120% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), nearly double the level of today. Yet Canada went on to enjoy the greatest period of economic growth in its history...

“(Now) the Bank of Canada has decided that any government spending not financed by taxation is inflationary, so it no longer extends credit to the government by holding bonds and Treasury bills. Its small holdings of government debt are confined to the banknotes needed by the economy for currency in circulation...” (End of 1996 updated version's excerpts.)


Interest rates and inflation

The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free Say Three Economists - Michael Journal

Three economists published a pamphlet “The Deficit Made Me Do It!” in which they affirm that the Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free.

www.michaeljournal.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you believe that Economist Harold Chorney,
Economist John Hotson and Economist Mario Seccarrecia are INCORRECT in their Thesis that they put forward in this article?

Yes, claiming the government could have just printed money, instead of borrowing, since the mid-70s
and achieved a better result is wrong. The opposite of right.

Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government — and of course you and me, as well — with outrageously high interest rates.

Claiming the private banks are gouging the government, and the people, by charging market rates is also wrong.
I'd be embarrassed to admit to believing anything these idiot economists claimed.

 

[DennisPTate]

Yes, claiming the government could have just printed money, instead of borrowing, since the mid-70s
and achieved a better result is wrong. The opposite of right.

Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government — and of course you and me, as well — with outrageously high interest rates.

Claiming the private banks are gouging the government, and the people, by charging market rates is also wrong.
I'd be embarrassed to admit to believing anything these idiot economists claimed.

But that is NOT at all what those three economists are saying. Their point is that if forty one million Canadians have their own bank, [OWN THEIR OWN BANK], "The Bank of Canada" then by borrowing from the bank that Canadian Taxpayers OWN.... the government could save Taxpayers BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INTEREST PAYMENTS!!!!!!!

By the way I truly do appreciate your quite excellent questions. Many people who have taken university level courses in Economics have been taught exactly what you have been taught as well.

[Economist Harold Chorney:
Economist Mario Seccarrecia:
Economist John Hotson:


Interest rates and inflation


“Thousands of years of sad experience with the concentration of wealth and debt slavery caused all the ancient books of wisdom — including the Bible and the Koran — to condemn the charging of immoderate rates of interest.(...) The conventional wisdom, however, is that inflation is the greatest threat to the economy and must be restrained by raising interest rates. This flies in the face of the common-sense observation that rising prices (inflation) are caused by rising costs, and that interest rates are costs. So raising them will raise prices, not lower them.

“Also raised by this policy, of course, is the income of the money-lenders, which explains why they subscribe so fervently to the perverse doctrine that high interest rates are somehow anti-inflationary. Certainly the world's bankers and other money-lenders have gained much from the nonsensical notion that, while giving workers a big raise is inflationary, giving money-lenders a big raise is not.

“Many economists rail against «wage push», and it's true that wages have risen by 2,700% over the past 50 years. But in the same period government tax revenue went up by 3,400%, and net interest by 26,000%! Yet, most of the economic textbooks that deplore rising wages don't even mention the tax and interest pushes. And it is not because they are complex ideas — rather, they are simple and obvious — but because it would be so embarrassing for economists to admit they've made a boner of such magnitude: that their theory of monetary policy violates basic principles of scientific logic."



The creation of money



“One of the most pervasive myths about the government deficit is that governments which spend more than they receive in revenue must borrow the difference, thus increasing the public debt.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.

“Business and the conservatives in politics and the media are horrified by the suggestion that the government exercise its right to create more money. They claim it would precipitate another ruinous bout of inflation.

“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.”


Banks create money


“We have to keep in mind that our monetary economy only grows when the money supply grows. Under the present debt-driven system, the only way we can increase the money supply is by borrowing it into existence from the private banks, thereby increasing our indebtedness to them.

“It can't be stressed too much that the private banks, unlike non-bank lenders, create the money they lend. They do not — as is so widely imagined, even by the bankers themselves — lend their depositors' money. The amount of new money created by a bank loan, however, is only sufficient to pay back the principal. No money is created to pay the interest, except that which is paid to the holders of bank deposits. That's why debts must continually grow faster and faster in order for each layer of additional debt and interest to be paid.

“If that strikes you as a very dumb and dangerous way to operate a monetary system, you're right. Clearly it would be much safer and more sensible to have at least a large amount of the needed new money spent into circulation debt free by the federal government — or lent by it interest free to the junior levels of government which lack the power to create money. Reform of the monetary system is therefore the key to controlling the deficit and lowering the public debt.” (End of the three economists' pamphlet.)

The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free Say Three Economists - Michael Journal

Three economists published a pamphlet “The Deficit Made Me Do It!” in which they affirm that the Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free.

www.michaeljournal.org

Please notice the following paragraph?

“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.” [Economist Harold Chorney, Economist John Hotson, Economist Mario Seccarrecia]

The Deficit Made Me Do It!​

Harold Chorney, Ed Finn, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, John H. Hotson, Mario Seccareccia. Publisher, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1992.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that is NOT at all what those three economists are saying. Their point is that if forty one million Canadians have their own bank, "The Bank of Canada" then by borrowing from the bank that Canadian Taxpayers OWN.... the government could save Taxpayers BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INTEREST PAYMENTS!!!!!!!

By the way I truly do appreciate your quite excellent questions. Many people who have taken university level courses in Economics have been taught exactly what you have been taught as well.

Yes, they are claiming that printing money, that's what it is when the central bank buys government debt, instead of government borrowing from the banks and the people, would have produced a better outcome.

They're wrong. They're idiots.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.
If you love inflation, this would be the way to go.

“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!

Because printing $11 billion is a lot more inflationary than printing $0.7 billion.

 

[DennisPTate]

Yes, they are claiming that printing money, that's what it is when the central bank buys government debt, instead of government borrowing from the banks and the people, would have produced a better outcome.

They're wrong. They're idiots.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.
If you love inflation, this would be the way to go.

“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!

Because printing $11 billion is a lot more inflationary than printing $0.7 billion.

So do you believe that President Abraham Lincoln made some sort of error in his courageous efforts that resulted in saving USA taxpayers about four billion dollars in interest payments?

Abraham Lincoln

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.


Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

"... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had -- their own paper money to pay their own debts..."

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.
Shortly after that happened, "The London Times" printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. That govern-ment must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." In retaliation

After this was published in "The London Times", the British Government, which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers, moved to support the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government which they said had to be destroyed.

The Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These ships of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy which had intended to break the blockade and help the South.

The North won the War, and the Union was preserved. America remained as one nation.

Of course, the Bankers were not going to give in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free Greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the War ended.

Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green-back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money.

Abraham Lincoln & John F.K assassination

Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy Two great presidents of the United States Assassinated for the cause of justice

www.cidpusa.org

There are some economists up here in Canada who believe that the President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment set the stage for the way that the British North American Act was worded in 1867. They believe that President Lincoln's experiment altered the way that Canadian economists think and believe.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Convincing the residents of the Canadian province of Alberta from leaving Canadian Confederation and joining the USA as The Fifty First State?

Convincing President Trump to NOT hit Canada with Tariffs based on a proposal that her political party comes up with, [hopefully in cooperation with Mr. Pierre Poilievre and Canada's Conservative Party]?

I didn't hear about this but it doesn't seem probable...no matter what or who is command.

Of what I heard the majority of Canadians are happy being Candianas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So do you believe that President Abraham Lincoln made some sort of error in his courageous efforts that resulted in saving USA taxpayers about four billion dollars in interest payments?





There are some economists up here in Canada who believe that the President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment set the stage for the way that the British North American Act was worded in 1867. They believe that President Lincoln's experiment altered the way that Canadian economists think and believe.

He had a war to fight, who was Canada fighting in the mid-1970s?

Why didn't the US keep printing greenbacks after the Civil War instead of eventually
making them convertible into gold?