We are officially in a "Depression"

[ferkel]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6aaWZ8ab8yU&refer=home

Fun times ahead.

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

-
Most of these recessions and depressions are overhyped, especially here in these cry-baby western countries, believe me buddy, in Haiti or Nicaragua nobody will feel a thing.

Booo hoooo I can't afford my $700,000 house and I will lose my $200,000/yr job.... cry me a river :rolleyes:

[Peckerwood]

IMF? seriously?

Propaganda to make the masses spend more and continue the debt cycle. "If we only just get one more loan...we'll all be fine".

Recessions are engineered...the depression-talk s more fear mongering to get people to go out and get more money through loans and increase their debt load so banks can make more currency through fractional reserve credit.

Just another scam

Want real advice??...stop borrowing money and pay off your debts...become debt free and stop fueling the banking cartels.

[manixc]

IMF? seriously?

Propaganda to make the masses spend more and continue the debt cycle. "If we only just get one more loan...we'll all be fine".

Recessions are engineered...the depression-talk s more fear mongering to get people to go out and get more money through loans and increase their debt load so banks can make more currency through fractional reserve credit.

Just another scam

Want real advice??...stop borrowing money and pay off your debts...become debt free and stop fueling the banking cartels.

hmm, what if you are already debt free?

[Frankie3s]

Can't be, what province would be stupid enough to consider increasing the tax burden through harmonization during a recession/depression, http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/584209?

On second thought, don't answer that,

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/02/0c/d2eb9f1b48e78ba52540f0e119df.jpeg

[Tijuana]

hmm, what if you are already debt free?

Then save or live comfortably

[najibs]

FIrst and foremost, I'd like to thank George W Bush for fcuking up the world over 8 years, worse than any other president ever had. Great job George....

[jdmkidd]

I still scratch my head and wonder how people can max out credit cards why spend money you don't have? My first cc my parents told me if I couldn't pay it by the next paycheque they would come and take the stuff back, I later found out it was to scare me :-0

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

A question:

The Loonie is way low against the dollar, I think it's .79, they say it's because oil prices are way down.... okay, so why was the Loonie very strong in 1991 when oil prices were even lower than what they are now? :rolleyes:

[cheapmeister]

IMF? seriously?

Propaganda to make the masses spend more and continue the debt cycle. "If we only just get one more loan...we'll all be fine".

Recessions are engineered...the depression-talk s more fear mongering to get people to go out and get more money through loans and increase their debt load so banks can make more currency through fractional reserve credit.

Just another scam

Want real advice??...stop borrowing money and pay off your debts...become debt free and stop fueling the banking cartels.

Last time I watched cnn, they told peeps to pay off your loans, not take more debt.

[PriceMatchIT]

we need massive government spending and tax cuts to get out of this

[user01]

Man, I guess I have to stop spending. This really sucks... :(:(:(

[najibs]

Man, I guess I have to stop spending. This really sucks... :(:(:(

Actually, spending is good for the economy. Your spending is what keeps businesses going. If those businesses go under, people lose their jobs, and reduces spending even further, and puts more businesses out.

The reason we are where we are is because people were spending money they didn't have...CREDIT.

We need to continue spending as consumers. Cut unnecessary expenses out, but if no one spends money we are ALL in trouble.

[Peckerwood]

Last time I watched cnn, they told peeps to pay off your loans, not take more debt.
And in the same breath I noticed them talking about lowering interest rates so new loans could be acquired to help out those already behind etc.

:|

[jdmkidd]

For people who saved in that rainy day I guess have all the buying power right now cause it pouring outside.

[N_Raged]

Actually, spending is good for the economy. Your spending is what keeps businesses going. If those businesses go under, people lose their jobs, and reduces spending even further, and puts more businesses out.

The reason we are where we are is because people were spending money they didn't have...CREDIT.

We need to continue spending as consumers. Cut unnecessary expenses out, but if no one spends money we are ALL in trouble.
Tis a vicious cycle. Money makes the world go round.

[the_fm]

A question:

The Loonie is way low against the dollar, I think it's .79, they say it's because oil prices are way down.... okay, so why was the Loonie very strong in 1991 when oil prices were even lower than what they are now? :rolleyes:

because we didn't had oil back then?

[Majinvegeta]

IMF? seriously?

Propaganda to make the masses spend more and continue the debt cycle. "If we only just get one more loan...we'll all be fine".

Recessions are engineered...the depression-talk s more fear mongering to get people to go out and get more money through loans and increase their debt load so banks can make more currency through fractional reserve credit.

Just another scam

Want real advice??...stop borrowing money and pay off your debts...become debt free and stop fueling the banking cartels.

Agreed, bankers are the problem here. In the U.S. there was a time when one of the U.S. pres was going to change the U.S. Currency because it was under control of the Federal Reserve (Although at that time it was called The First Bank of America or something) and the bank threatened that if the Gov. attempts to change the currency, they will create another depression.

It's all calculated, they can control this whole situation. They do it all the time. And depending on what they do, the situation can go back and forth. Pretty interesting and very complicated when one tries to understand it.

If people here think me and Peckerwood are just talking out of our asses, just look at some of the quotes from the past.

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies" - I never knew what the heck this meant, banks more powerful than armies? but now I realize the true meaning of this.

There are many more quotes like these.

[Clown Baby]

Will people spending money they have, improve the economy? I heard if people spend it will recover.

On the contrary, if people spend using credit cards, but don't pay off their bills and build debt (buying stuff with money they don't have), the economy will get even worse. So this kind of spending won't stimulate the economy, but actually contributes to it.

Any other ways to make it better?

[Supra_KL]

Will people spending money they have, improve the economy? I heard if people spend it will recover.

On the contrary, if people spend using credit cards, but don't pay off their bills and build debt (buying stuff with money they don't have), the economy will get even worse. So this kind of spending won't stimulate the economy, but actually contributes to it.

Any other ways to make it better?

1) stimulus packages.

but comes with side-effects.
- need to borrow money from another country or print more. increases national debt or causes inflation.
- people panic and rather than spend... save money and does nothing to help
- your point - people spend beyond their limits.

more, but too lazy to continue

2) WW3! hopefully not

3) http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/february-2-2009/#clip135657
look from 4:35

[sucka]

if the stimulus on public works and infrastructure means what i see on the 401 on a daily basis, as in 1 guy with a jackhammer who's acutally working and 9 others with a coffee in their hand chit-chatting, then we are in serious trouble ......

[vrus]

if the stimulus on public works and infrastructure means what i see on the 401 on a daily basis, as in 1 guy with a jackhammer who's acutally working and 9 others with a coffee in their hand chit-chatting, then we are in serious trouble ......

sorry, but you're lying.

[najibs]

sorry, but you're lying.

are you just the bitter one, with the coffee in your hand?

[king_george]

I was watching CP24 last week and they actually had an economic "expert" say with a straight face that the only real problem with the economy is the people who "hoard" money. :confused:

I thought saving money was a good idea and the person interviewing this dumb **** didn't ask the obvious follow-up. :mad:

Yep let's all spend our way out of a recession. If everyone is bankrupt then nobody will be..classic 1984 doublespeak.

[sucka]

sorry, but you're lying.

yeah, my bad. Usually it's 9 others supervising one guy with the jackhammer ........ .

[snider]

I like the stuff that Peter Schiff says. If you think that we're in a depression now, this is only the tip of the iceberg because it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. This is why I've been drastically cutting down on my expenditures paying off all debts except for my mortgage.

Basically he thinks that the U.S. gov't are making things much worse with all the bailouts and the stimulus plans. He tells them to stop interfering with the free market system, let the incompetent companies fail so that capitilism can play it's course. The competent companies can prosper as they should, why bail out companies with bad business models, so that they pay themselves hefty bonuses, screw up again and waste everybody's hard earned money? Look what happened when the Japanese tampered with the free market back in the early 90's they still haven't fully recovered from that.

He also largely blames the Federal Reserve for tampering with interest rates after the dot com crash, allowing everybody to buy houses that they can't afford with 0 down, and thus causing the sub-prime crisis that we see now. People making nominal wages such as you or I were buying $500k houses with little down, banking on the fact that the value will keep rising but when it stopped or dropped, nobody could afford to pay back including the fact that the interest rates go up drastically after a few years under this scheme.

Schiff accurately predicted the real estate bubble burst of last year, way back in 2006 and is predicting for the U.S. dollar to crumble sometime this year due to hyper-inflation. Foreign countries such as China are starting to smarten up and stop loaning money to the U.S., now the only way the U.S will be able to pay back huge debts is by printing more money, something the Federal Reserve has full control over and will not hesitate to do. This will cause hyper-inflation, devaluing their dollar.

Schiff doesn't buy into all the NWO theories of how the global elite have been controlling the world leaders, however his analysis happen to line up to these assertions. He also compares Bush and Obama to Hoover and Rooselvelt of the first depression. Says that everyone will blame Bush for this one as they did with Hoover, however it's not like Obama is doing anything differently, he's pushing for bailout and stimulus plans just as or even more aggressively than Bush.

Pretty interesting but scary at the same time. Time will tell.

[cheapmeister]

Where will the replacement jobs come from when everything is going abroad?

[snider]

I was watching CP24 last week and they actually had an economic "expert" say with a straight face that the only real problem with the economy is the people who "hoard" money. :confused:

I thought saving money was a good idea and the person interviewing this dumb **** didn't ask the obvious follow-up. :mad:

Yep let's all spend our way out of a recession. If everyone is bankrupt then nobody will be..classic 1984 doublespeak.

I think that we are in this mess because people have been spending money that they don't have, just look at the sub-prime crisis, everyone was buying houses which they could not afford. We've become a credit card society, it's acceptable to be buying houses, cars, LCD tvs and such on credit, amassing a huge debt.

Yes in principle it's not good for the economy if people hoard money but look around, do you think that this is the situation with the majority? Clearly not. It's silly to encourage people to continue to spend when they are already in debt. It's like digging a deeper hole to get out of a ditch.

[Jucius Maximus]

I think that we are in this mess because people have been spending money that they don't have, just look at the sub-prime crisis, everyone was buying houses which they could not afford. We've become a credit card society, it's acceptable to be buying houses, cars, LCD tvs and such on credit, amassing a huge debt.

Yes in principle it's not good for the economy if people hoard money but look around, do you think that this is the situation with the majority? Clearly not. It's silly to encourage people to continue to spend when they are already in debt. It's like digging a deeper hole to get out of a ditch.

Sadly I think you are 100% correct on this one. Our economy and industry has gotten itself addicted to quick gains made through purchases and financing on borrowed money. This is all a byproduct of our fraudulent currency system where money can be created out of nothing.

I think most of us are parties to this too. I have many investments (purchased with non-borrowed money) that float with the stock market, and were pushed upward by the irresponsible spending of others. We also capitalized on the irresponsible spending of others.

It is just greed that has driven this economy over the past decade or two, and now we are seeing the consequences. The bubble has burst. And hopefully it will result in more conservative purchasing decisions in the next 20 years so that people will largely be spending what they actually have, as opposed to taking out credit that they could never afford.

Also, banks should become more conservative, and actually assess whether or not someone is creditworthy, as opposed to whether or not they will generate a lot of money in fees and penalties. Overspending and bad debt come back to haunt you sooner or later. It's a cycle, and I hope people have learned their lesson.

[vrus]

are you just the bitter one, with the coffee in your hand?

nope, i'm the realist

yeah, my bad. Usually it's 9 others supervising one guy with the jackhammer ........ .

sorry, you're still wrong

[king_george]

I think that we are in this mess because people have been spending money that they don't have, just look at the sub-prime crisis, everyone was buying houses which they could not afford. We've become a credit card society, it's acceptable to be buying houses, cars, LCD tvs and such on credit, amassing a huge debt.

Yes in principle it's not good for the economy if people hoard money but look around, do you think that this is the situation with the majority? Clearly not. It's silly to encourage people to continue to spend when they are already in debt. It's like digging a deeper hole to get out of a ditch.

This is where the wife and I have won out. We do not have Iphones, a 60 inch TV, new cars every year or another house just for the sake of upgrading. Our cars are paid off, the mortgage is now like a personal loan, all credit cards are zero (well at least until we get back from Las Vegas :D) and we've lived in the same house for 23 years. My newest TV was made in 2001 and I've had the same cell phone for 6 years now.

Even if we both lost our jobs (no chance of that) we could live for several years on what we have hoarded.

I will admit to buying too much computer stuff, but that's a large part of my profession.

Our parents were depression kids and they taught us all about saving for a rainy day. Too bad a lot of economists these days are such dickweeds telling people to spend spend spend. Like I said, if you listen to a lot of them bankrupcy is a good thing. *******s.

[whampoa]

http://www.cagle.com/working/090202/nease.jpg

[KorruptioN]

nope, i'm the realist

sorry, you're still wrong

What kind of lame rebuttal is this supposed to be? Realists can also be ignorant too...

Having said that, I think it's important for people to pay off their most expensive debts - credit cards. Pay that stuff off, pronto. People also need to continue spending money, because that's what keeps the economy going. Hoarding all your cash and spending zilch does not help anybody.

[BornRuff]

A question:

The Loonie is way low against the dollar, I think it's .79, they say it's because oil prices are way down.... okay, so why was the Loonie very strong in 1991 when oil prices were even lower than what they are now? :rolleyes:

The price of our dollar is determined by the demand for our dollar. This is influenced by many many different things.

Recently, demand for our dollar was pushed up because of the high price of oil and other commodities like potash. People needed to buy more Canadian dollars to buy oil from us because the price had gone up.

If enough people wanted to buy anything in Canadian dollars, it would push our dollar up. It could be anything. An especially powerful force is investment. If enough people want to invest in Canadian assets, from bonds to purchasing companies, they need to buy Canadian dollars, and our dollar goes up. Even when Canadians decide to take US dollars in a deal, they need to use that to buy Canadian dollars if they want to use any of that money here.

I don't know the exact reason from the early 90's, but from that info, you might be able to figure it out yourself.

[BornRuff]

Will people spending money they have, improve the economy? I heard if people spend it will recover.

On the contrary, if people spend using credit cards, but don't pay off their bills and build debt (buying stuff with money they don't have), the economy will get even worse. So this kind of spending won't stimulate the economy, but actually contributes to it.

Any other ways to make it better?

It's a very complicated issue.

On one hand, the only real way that we can achieve long term economic growth is by increasing our savings. This is because most savings get reinvested into the economy, through banks handing our loans or investing the money you have saved with them, or you investing your savings yourself.

On the other hand, when we save, we spend less. Our economy relies on money constantly changing hands. Everyone's job is based on someone spending money. If you want to know what it looks like when people start cutting back their spending, look at what is happening right now. People cutting back more will just make things worse.

So we need to save more, but if we all start saving at the same time, or save to much, we run into huge problems in the short run. Right now, there is no easy way out because people need to pay off some debt, and to do so, they will inevitably need to cut back on spending. The problem is, people right now are spending less than they could, because they are afraid of what might happen in the near future. If we could get people to be less afraid, we would be in better shape.

[zoolander]

This is long, see a take on why it happened, if you have the time, or split screen while you're doing other stuff online...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

[Frankie3s]

It's a very complicated issue.

On one hand, the only real way that we can achieve long term economic growth is by increasing our savings. This is because most savings get reinvested into the economy, through banks handing our loans or investing the money you have saved with them, or you investing your savings yourself.

On the other hand, when we save, we spend less. Our economy relies on money constantly changing hands. Everyone's job is based on someone spending money. If you want to know what it looks like when people start cutting back their spending, look at what is happening right now. People cutting back more will just make things worse.

So we need to save more, but if we all start saving at the same time, or save to much, we run into huge problems in the short run. Right now, there is no easy way out because people need to pay off some debt, and to do so, they will inevitably need to cut back on spending. The problem is, people right now are spending less than they could, because they are afraid of what might happen in the near future. If we could get people to be less afraid, we would be in better shape.

Agreed. And if labor and retail were not so selfish pushing wages and costs ever so higher. When times are good, everyone strikes for more money and the costs of goods keep going up and less and less service is being provided.

[BornRuff]

This is long, see a take on why it happened, if you have the time, or split screen while you're doing other stuff online...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

If it's anything like the original "Zeitgeist: the movie" then I would waste my time with this. This movie is a work of fear mongering and fiction, with a few facts thrown in.

[syn3rgetic]

hmm, what if you are already debt free?

+1

[BornRuff]

Agreed, bankers are the problem here. In the U.S. there was a time when one of the U.S. pres was going to change the U.S. Currency because it was under control of the Federal Reserve (Although at that time it was called The First Bank of America or something) and the bank threatened that if the Gov. attempts to change the currency, they will create another depression.

It's all calculated, they can control this whole situation. They do it all the time. And depending on what they do, the situation can go back and forth. Pretty interesting and very complicated when one tries to understand it.

If people here think me and Peckerwood are just talking out of our asses, just look at some of the quotes from the past.

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies" - I never knew what the heck this meant, banks more powerful than armies? but now I realize the true meaning of this.

There are many more quotes like these.

Quoting other paranoid people doesn't substantiate anything. A cool sounding quote is just that, something that sounds cool. Just because someone said it doesn't meant it's right. People have said many things that simply are not true.

[Peckerwood]

Quoting other paranoid people doesn't substantiate anything. A cool sounding quote is just that, something that sounds cool. Just because someone said it doesn't meant it's right. People have said many things that simply are not true.
The two people he quoted were Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

Here is Andrew Jackson referring to the 2nd National Bank:

"Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence .... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy." -- Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson had appointed three secretaries of the treasury in 1832...the first two of which refused to withdraw all of the Nations wealth from the 2nd Bank, the third secretary finally doing so and begin transferring it to the States banks. the head of the 2nd Bank publicly uttered this threat to Jackson:

"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress....Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the recharter of the Bank." -- Nicholas Biddle

Biddle was publicly threatening to crash the American economy, to which the Senate voted 26 to 20 in favour of censuring the President. But finally the Congress came around, with the backing of the Governor of Pennsylvania, voting 134 to 82 against rechartering the Bank.

During this time Jackson survived two assassination attempts, both of which he had taken down the assassins by hand and beaten them to the ground(one of which had his two pistols misfiring giving Jackson the chance).

Andrew Jackson was the only president of the US to successfully eliminate the National Debt

[stealth]

Actually, spending is good for the economy. Your spending is what keeps businesses going. If those businesses go under, people lose their jobs, and reduces spending even further, and puts more businesses out.

The reason we are where we are is because people were spending money they didn't have...CREDIT.

We need to continue spending as consumers. Cut unnecessary expenses out, but if no one spends money we are ALL in trouble.

Only true with one major proviso: Provided that the goods being purchased have a strong domestic content.
Unfortunately, as it stands, most of what we buy is from foreign sources, so other than the retailers and some transportation, the spending we do is going to another country, and not benefitting our economy very much.
I dont see this changing very much in the future, in fact only getting worst.

[Peckerwood]

Only true with one major proviso: Provided that the goods being purchased have a strong domestic content.
100% agreed

We need to move from a consuming economy to a producing economy

[BornRuff]

The two people he quoted were Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

Here is Andrew Jackson referring to the 2nd National Bank:

"Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence .... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy." -- Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson had appointed three secretaries of the treasury in 1832...the first two of which refused to withdraw all of the Nations wealth from the 2nd Bank, the third secretary finally doing so and begin transferring it to the States banks. the head of the 2nd Bank publicly uttered this threat to Jackson:

"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress....Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the recharter of the Bank." -- Nicholas Biddle

Biddle was publicly threatening to crash the American economy, to which the Senate voted 26 to 20 in favour of censuring the President. But finally the Congress came around, with the backing of the Governor of Pennsylvania, voting 134 to 82 against rechartering the Bank.

During this time Jackson survived two assassination attempts, both of which he had taken down the assassins by hand and beaten them to the ground(one of which had his two pistols misfiring giving Jackson the chance).

Andrew Jackson was the only president of the US to successfully eliminate the National Debt

That's a nice story.

The central bank controls monetary policy. There is no question that monetary policy is a powerful tool. To play your game and quote spider man "With great power comes great responsibility".

Abandoning monetary policy gets rid of a tool that can do a lot of good for our society. Monetary policy needs to be separate from elected government though, since it can't be subjected to every whim of the people who make uneducated/emotional decisions, or the whim of politicians who might want to manipulate the economy to their benefit. Monetary policy needs to be carried out by a very well educated team that has the ability to make tough decisions.

This is how central banks are run in just about every country I can think of. They are at arms length from the government. This may give the appearance of impropriety to some, but it is how it has to be.

[vrus]

What kind of lame rebuttal is this supposed to be? Realists can also be ignorant too...


Lame rebuttal's for their lame arguments.

[NG]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6aaWZ8ab8yU&refer=home


Imho nobody here is asking the important question:

“The worst cannot be ruled out,” (from the article above).

What's the worst case scenario? The complete collapse of Western society?

[slowtyper]

Lame rebuttal's for their lame arguments.

Holy crap, if you have something to say just SAY it. Three coy posts in one thread is a really douche move.

[NG]

FIrst and foremost, I'd like to thank George W Bush for fcuking up the world over 8 years, worse than any other president ever had. Great job George....

Tell me about it. People may have thought I went over the top in the old politics forum (and perhaps they were right) however how could one sit silent with such incompetence combined with such power (not that I thought he could f*ck things up this much) :-0

[whampoa]

That's a nice story.

The central bank controls monetary policy. There is no question that monetary policy is a powerful tool. To play your game and quote spider man "With great power comes great responsibility".

Abandoning monetary policy gets rid of a tool that can do a lot of good for our society. Monetary policy needs to be separate from elected government though, since it can't be subjected to every whim of the people who make uneducated/emotional decisions, or the whim of politicians who might want to manipulate the economy to their benefit. Monetary policy needs to be carried out by a very well educated team that has the ability to make tough decisions.

This is how central banks are run in just about every country I can think of. They are at arms length from the government. This may give the appearance of impropriety to some, but it is how it has to be.

What story? It's historical truth you can't made this stuff up.

Your point about central bank at arms length from the government. Yeah right, this whole worldwide economic bailout throw your theory out the windows.

And beside, [monetary policy needs to be carried out by a very well educated team that has the ability to make tough decisions] is what got us into this whole mess in the first place.

[ppcuser]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6aaWZ8ab8yU&refer=home

Fun times ahead.

Why do people listen to this garbage. The media is one of the biggest reasons this so called 'recession' is over hyped. That title alone is enough to scare people from spending.

[Clown Baby]

It's like digging a deeper hole to get out of a ditch.

I know this isn't really related to the topic on hand, but this reminded me of that episode from the Simpsons where Homer, and a few others were underground.

Homer: unghh *digs infront of him*

Chief Wiggum: Dig up, stupid!

[Peckerwood]

That's a nice story.

The central bank controls monetary policy. There is no question that monetary policy is a powerful tool. To play your game and quote spider man "With great power comes great responsibility".

Abandoning monetary policy gets rid of a tool that can do a lot of good for our society. Monetary policy needs to be separate from elected government though, since it can't be subjected to every whim of the people who make uneducated/emotional decisions, or the whim of politicians who might want to manipulate the economy to their benefit. Monetary policy needs to be carried out by a very well educated team that has the ability to make tough decisions.

This is how central banks are run in just about every country I can think of. They are at arms length from the government. This may give the appearance of impropriety to some, but it is how it has to be.
The issue with such central banks is that they are lending us our own currency at interest. Think about that for a second.

A good example is the Federal Reserve Bank, which is about as Federal as FedEx. It produces Federal Reserve Notes, at 6 cents per note...it then loans this money to the US Federal Government who trades the only thing they are constitutionally allowed to trade for the currency...Federal Bonds.

The Currency is now backed by the debt created through the trade of those Federal Bonds. Literally the money's value is now debt...money = debt.

That is just the beginning

By law the bank must retain 10% of all it's holdings as a reserve. So if you deposited 10 billion dollars in the bank, the bank must keep 10% of that as surety on the total...but the other 9 billion they can lend out as credit loans(which means that the 9 billion doesn't actually leave the bank), and the new debt created by the credit loans gets added to the original total. So now 9 Billion in new money has just been created as credit...and the bank now has 19 billion in total.

Of that new 9 billion, 8.1 billion can be handed out in new loans with the 10% of that amount (900 million) being held n reserve and as such is taken from the original total. So of the original 10 billion, 1 billion is held in reserve for the first set of credit loans, and another 900 million is held for the next set of credit loans on the added credit already ensued by the original amount.

Confused yet?

Basically the entire amount of the 10 billion is used up in reserve to create about 120 billion in credit loans thereby inflating the amount of money in the system and thusly devaluing the currency.

Out of all the money in the US, less than 5% is actual physical currency...the rest is taken up as credit in the form of loans and loan sureties. The majority of these loans are directly taken up by the US Federal Government.

Now I get to the best part

The entire US Income Tax...all the income taxes taken in...are used to pay ONLY the interest on the total debt. Income Tax in the US is not used for anything else...just paying off the interest on the debt. An unconstitutional tax used to prop up the profits of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank

The Canadian system and the International systems are no different from the US banking model...excluding the actual percentage of reserve mandated to be kept in holdings as surety, and in some cases the legality of maintaining a central private bank.

The "Monetary Policy" as you call it, is part of a larger scam and racketeering ploy to maintain profits for those that serve no actual benefit to the Nation as a whole.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." -- President James Madison

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

[BornRuff]

People shouldn't get their info from online videos. This is why economics should be a mandatory high school class so people don't end up believing this stuff.

Since you love quotes, here is one from the globe and mail. It was written about "Zeitigeist: the movie", but it applies to "money as debt" and pretty much all the online movies.

"all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement - much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense"

The issue with such central banks is that they are lending us our own currency at interest. Think about that for a second.

A good example is the Federal Reserve Bank, which is about as Federal as FedEx. It produces Federal Reserve Notes, at 6 cents per note...it then loans this money to the US Federal Government who trades the only thing they are constitutionally allowed to trade for the currency...Federal Bonds.

The Currency is now backed by the debt created through the trade of those Federal Bonds. Literally the money's value is now debt...money = debt.[/QUOTE]

The federal reserve controls the money supply by either buying or selling T-Bills. To increase the money supply, they purchase T-bills, with money that they essentially created. When they want to decrease the money supply, they sell T-bills.

That is just the beginning

By law the bank must retain 10% of all it's holdings as a reserve. So if you deposited 10 billion dollars in the bank, the bank must keep 10% of that as surety on the total...but the other 9 billion they can lend out as credit loans(which means that the 9 billion doesn't actually leave the bank), and the new debt created by the credit loans gets added to the original total. So now 9 Billion in new money has just been created as credit...and the bank now has 19 billion in total.

Of that new 9 billion, 8.1 billion can be handed out in new loans with the 10% of that amount (900 million) being held n reserve and as such is taken from the original total. So of the original 10 billion, 1 billion is held in reserve for the first set of credit loans, and another 900 million is held for the next set of credit loans on the added credit already ensued by the original amount.

Confused yet?

Basically the entire amount of the 10 billion is used up in reserve to create about 120 billion in credit loans thereby inflating the amount of money in the system and thusly devaluing the currency.

Out of all the money in the US, less than 5% is actual physical currency...the rest is taken up as credit in the form of loans and loan sureties. The majority of these loans are directly taken up by the US Federal Government.

The deposit multiplier effect is very well known. All monetary policy decisions take that into affect, so it doesn't cause inflation or devaluing of currency.

It really doesn't matter that 5% is physical currency. Our society doesn't use physical currency very much anymore.

My paycheck is deposited into my bank account. I pay my rent by check, I pay my bills online. All of that money is money I have, it just isn't physical money.

Now I get to the best part

The entire US Income Tax...all the income taxes taken in...are used to pay ONLY the interest on the total debt. Income Tax in the US is not used for anything else...just paying off the interest on the debt. An unconstitutional tax used to prop up the profits of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank

The Canadian system and the International systems are no different from the US banking model...excluding the actual percentage of reserve mandated to be kept in holdings as surety, and in some cases the legality of maintaining a central private bank.

That is just flat wrong. The US does spend a lot of money on their national debt, but they spend a lot on other things as well.

Also, all the crap about Taxes being unconstitutional or central banks being unconstitutional is flat wrong as well. People love to claim that kind of stuff, but it never holds up to scrutiny.

[Peckerwood]

People shouldn't get their info from online videos. This is why economics should be a mandatory high school class so people don't end up believing this stuff.

Since you love quotes, here is one from the globe and mail. It was written about "Zeitigeist: the movie", but it applies to "money as debt" and pretty much all the online movies.

"all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement - much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense"
I don't disagree...which is why I prefer my information to come from legitimately sourced information...such as the The Constitution, the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and US Title Code.
The federal reserve controls the money supply by either buying or selling T-Bills. To increase the money supply, they purchase T-bills, with money that they essentially created. When they want to decrease the money supply, they sell T-bills.
They purchase it with money they printed out of thin air...essentially the money's worth is based on debt. That debt is on the backs of the People to pay off.
The deposit multiplier effect is very well known. All monetary policy decisions take that into affect, so it doesn't cause inflation or devaluing of currency.
Really?

There is demonstrably more credit in the system than currency, which devalues the currency's worth through inflation of the credit, which is traded in the same value association as the currency. Hence if the credit total increases and it's value is traded in the same fashion as currency then they are equal...to which the value of the currency drops as more credit is applied to the market

Therefore the fractional reserve design is meant to devalue currency as a hidden tax thereby making previous currency and credit worth even less with each multiplication

Hence the nature of inflation with each increase in monies borrowed and credit lines increased. The money isn't based on a specific valued entity any longer(such as it was with gold), rather it's value is no more than the paper it is written on.
It really doesn't matter that 5% is physical currency. Our society doesn't use physical currency very much anymore.
Hence the scam
My paycheck is deposited into my bank account. I pay my rent by check, I pay my bills online. All of that money is money I have, it just isn't physical money.
That money itself does not exist.

I will tell you why...if that money existed, then everyone should be able to withdraw their money from the banks at once. This is why a bank can easily go insolvent should the clients decide to withdraw all of their account ledgers at once. There is only 10% actual surety for all of the bank's total ledgers.
That is just flat wrong. The US does spend a lot of money on their national debt, but they spend a lot on other things as well.
Again...ALL the money collected from Income Tax only goes to paying the interest on the debt.
Also, all the crap about Taxes being unconstitutional or central banks being unconstitutional is flat wrong as well. People love to claim that kind of stuff, but it never holds up to scrutiny.
Really?

Then you should have no problem backing up your claim and providing me the exact statute in the US code that makes a citizen liable for not paying taxes.

Seriously...I will wait here while you look for it.

And before you bring up the 16th, the Supreme Court of the US in 1913 upheld that the 16th amendment transfers "no new powers of taxation to the Federal Government"

Taken from the 1920 SCOTUS ruling of Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. :

"But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."

Income is defined as Profit...and labor is specifically classed as direct trade, and not as profit. Therefore as the Judge conceded, labor cannot be taxed.

The ruling is still valid and has never been challenged. All court decisions where a person is sent to jail for tax evasion were lower court decisions that were not in line with the Supreme Court, which by law they have to be. They are illegally incarcerating people.

As for the Federal Reserve, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the creation of a central bank...none. The Federal government has the right to print and issue currency on it's own...but without a central bank it couldn't scam the populace of their wealth now could they.

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin

[cheapmeister]

I hear that banks in the us won't re-finance home mortages because the house values have dropped below their initial financed value.

[user01]

Actually, spending is good for the economy. Your spending is what keeps businesses going. If those businesses go under, people lose their jobs, and reduces spending even further, and puts more businesses out.

The reason we are where we are is because people were spending money they didn't have...CREDIT.

We need to continue spending as consumers. Cut unnecessary expenses out, but if no one spends money we are ALL in trouble.

LOL. Your so right on that part but you only explained the output of the other half-cycle. What about the input of the half-of-a-cycle? I'm sure if I keep spending, I will be in debt as money don't fall from the sky... :razz::razz::razz:

[KorruptioN]

Lame rebuttal's for their lame arguments.

You have no argument. Be gone, troll.

[BornRuff]

I don't disagree...which is why I prefer my information to come from legitimately sourced information...such as the The Constitution, the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and US Title Code.

None of this crap is in any of those documents. The "Money=Debt" line in blatantly from that online movie. Seriously man, you don't want to take credit for that kind of stupidity anyways.

They purchase it with money they printed out of thin air...essentially the money's worth is based on debt. That debt is on the backs of the People to pay off.

The monies worth is based on the amount of goods or services you can purchase with that money. For example, with my one Canadian dollar, I can buy something like 80cents US, or I can buy a small coffee, etc etc.

It is subjective, but so is every form of exchange. A gold standard wouldn't change that. Gold is exactly the same, it is only worth what people are willing to give you for it.

Really?

There is demonstrably more credit in the system than currency, which devalues the currency's worth through inflation of the credit, which is traded in the same value association as the currency. Hence if the credit total increases and it's value is traded in the same fashion as currency then they are equal...to which the value of the currency drops as more credit is applied to the market

Therefore the fractional reserve design is meant to devalue currency as a hidden tax thereby making previous currency and credit worth even less with each multiplication

Hence the nature of inflation with each increase in monies borrowed and credit lines increased. The money isn't based on a specific valued entity any longer(such as it was with gold), rather it's value is no more than the paper it is written on.

Hence the scam

You have to think things through. If you know about the multiplier affect, it is highly likely that the central bankers know about it too. They know that every dollar that they put into the economy will multiply approximately 6-8 times. Hence, if they want to inject 7 billion dollars into the economy, they will purchase about 1 billion worth of T-bills from banks.

That money itself does not exist.

I will tell you why...if that money existed, then everyone should be able to withdraw their money from the banks at once. This is why a bank can easily go insolvent should the clients decide to withdraw all of their account ledgers at once. There is only 10% actual surety for all of the bank's total ledgers.

Like I said, exchange is very subjective. The fractional reserve system works great as long as people have confidence in the system. It provides lots of liquidity to the economy. It allows money that might normally just be sitting in a bank for years, to be invested back into the economy.

Maintaining confidence isn't really an issue since both Canada and the US has deposit insurance. The only reasons everyone would pull all of their money out of the bank at once would be if they thought the bank would fail and they would loose all their money. Since they know that even if the bank fails, they are protected, they wont rush to pull all their money out. It is very very rare for a chartered bank to fail.

Again...ALL the money collected from Income Tax only goes to paying the interest on the debt.

Prove it.

From my quick check, I found this site.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Interest on debt is a large part of their budget, but not nearly the entire budget. They spend more on health care, and defense according to these numbers.

Really?

Then you should have no problem backing up your claim and providing me the exact statute in the US code that makes a citizen liable for not paying taxes.

Seriously...I will wait here while you look for it.

And before you bring up the 16th, the Supreme Court of the US in 1913 upheld that the 16th amendment transfers "no new powers of taxation to the Federal Government"

Taken from the 1920 SCOTUS ruling of Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. :

"But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."

Income is defined as Profit...and labor is specifically classed as direct trade, and not as profit. Therefore as the Judge conceded, labor cannot be taxed.

The ruling is still valid and has never been challenged. All court decisions where a person is sent to jail for tax evasion were lower court decisions that were not in line with the Supreme Court, which by law they have to be. They are illegally incarcerating people.

The internal revenue code of 1986 has been upheld in the supreme court.

In the case of Cheek vs. The United States, the supreme court determined that a belief that the tax laws are not valid is not a valid defense to tax evasion charges.

You have to think this through logically. Even if it wasn't constitutional, they would have just amended the constitution to make it constitutional. No intelligent person thinks that a country can run without taxes.

As for the Federal Reserve, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the creation of a central bank...none. The Federal government has the right to print and issue currency on it's own...but without a central bank it couldn't scam the populace of their wealth now could they.

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin

Where in the constitution, US title code, or any supreme court ruling does it say that the federal reserve is scamming the populace? Gold standards or anything like that are simply not practical. With a Fiat currency though, we need to have a body to maintain this currency, and it can't be in the hands of the elected officials who could all too easily manipulate it for their own gains, or listen to misinformed people like you and make stupid decisions.

[firefly767]

boo for IMF !!! they are the evil ones!!!! and of course the organization behind that organization :mad:

i hate all this propaganda. i mean, why make it worse by making EVERYONE know that we are in recession/depression? whats with all the news about everything crashing? now everything has a depression tone to it. i am not saying we should avoid the problem, i just think the media is snowballing this problem and not helping at all (intentionally).

whoever is controlling the media (*cough* *power* *cough*) want to get the government to bail out banks and **** by making people think that bailing out is "good" for them. SUCH BULLSH*T. i dont know where that bail out money is REALLY going, but its not going where it should be going for sure. for all i know and care, i smell WWIII within the next decade or so.

[BornRuff]

boo for IMF !!! they are the evil ones!!!! and of course the organization behind that organization :mad:

i hate all this propaganda. i mean, why make it worse by making EVERYONE know that we are in recession/depression? whats with all the news about everything crashing? now everything has a depression tone to it. i am not saying we should avoid the problem, i just think the media is snowballing this problem and not helping at all (intentionally).

whoever is controlling the media (*cough* *power* *cough*) want to get the government to bail out banks and **** by making people think that bailing out is "good" for them. SUCH BULLSH*T. i dont know where that bail out money is REALLY going, but its not going where it should be going for sure. for all i know and care, i smell WWIII within the next decade or so.

It's a double edged sword. When our government kept saying that everything would be alright and not to worry, people criticized them for being wrong when things ended up worse than they projected.

These organizations want to get ahead of this. They don't want to look like idiots. Even though their projections might end up making things worse overall, at least they can say "I told you so" when it happens.

[CeoOfKFC]

we need massive government spending and tax cuts to get out of this

We also need to balance the budget and cut programs that do not work.

You forgot Production. It was production that got us out of the depression prior to WW2 and after the 'New Deal'.

[cheapmeister]

They need to bring back jobs from india and china.

[asdfvcx]

Again...ALL the money collected from Income Tax only goes to paying the interest on the debt.


Prove it.

From my quick check, I found this site.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Interest on debt is a large part of their budget, but not nearly the entire budget. They spend more on health care, and defense according to these numbers.


And just to add to what BornRuff mentioned:

2008 interest of federal debt: $451 B
2008 personal income tax raised by the federal government: $1246 B
2008 corporate income tax raised by the federal government: $314 B

Sources: 2008 US federal budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html), US treasury department (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm)

Sorry Peckerwood, but repeatedly saying something without providing any evidence doesn't make it true.

[porphyra]

They need to bring back jobs from india and china.

Oh yea, and will Joe Sixpack be willing to work at an Indian's wage rate? On top of which there is already a credit crunch!

Oh why didn't anyone else think of this elegant solution.

[Sepiraph]

None of this crap is in any of those documents. The "Money=Debt" line in blatantly from that online movie. Seriously man, you don't want to take credit for that kind of stupidity anyways.



The monies worth is based on the amount of goods or services you can purchase with that money. For example, with my one Canadian dollar, I can buy something like 80cents US, or I can buy a small coffee, etc etc.

It is subjective, but so is every form of exchange. A gold standard wouldn't change that. Gold is exactly the same, it is only worth what people are willing to give you for it.



You have to think things through. If you know about the multiplier affect, it is highly likely that the central bankers know about it too. They know that every dollar that they put into the economy will multiply approximately 6-8 times. Hence, if they want to inject 7 billion dollars into the economy, they will purchase about 1 billion worth of T-bills from banks.



Like I said, exchange is very subjective. The fractional reserve system works great as long as people have confidence in the system. It provides lots of liquidity to the economy. It allows money that might normally just be sitting in a bank for years, to be invested back into the economy.

Maintaining confidence isn't really an issue since both Canada and the US has deposit insurance. The only reasons everyone would pull all of their money out of the bank at once would be if they thought the bank would fail and they would loose all their money. Since they know that even if the bank fails, they are protected, they wont rush to pull all their money out. It is very very rare for a chartered bank to fail.



Prove it.

From my quick check, I found this site.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Interest on debt is a large part of their budget, but not nearly the entire budget. They spend more on health care, and defense according to these numbers.



The internal revenue code of 1986 has been upheld in the supreme court.

In the case of Cheek vs. The United States, the supreme court determined that a belief that the tax laws are not valid is not a valid defense to tax evasion charges.

You have to think this through logically. Even if it wasn't constitutional, they would have just amended the constitution to make it constitutional. No intelligent person thinks that a country can run without taxes.



Where in the constitution, US title code, or any supreme court ruling does it say that the federal reserve is scamming the populace? Gold standards or anything like that are simply not practical. With a Fiat currency though, we need to have a body to maintain this currency, and it can't be in the hands of the elected officials who could all too easily manipulate it for their own gains, or listen to misinformed people like you and make stupid decisions.

+1 Someone that actually know their stuffs in economics. Not the typical armchair crap I see on the internet.

[cheapmeister]

They need to bring back jobs from india and china.

Oh yea, and will Joe Sixpack be willing to work at an Indian's wage rate? On top of which there is already a credit crunch!

Oh why didn't anyone else think of this elegant solution.

Well the jobs started out here and then the business owners took them over there. I've seen this with my own eyes. Go buy the same product in the store and the savings aren't necessarily passed onto us. Where did the profits go? For example running shoes. They cost like $50-$150 for brand name and they are made overseas. Production cost is a few bucks but the shoes cost $$$ to buy them.
I say put more restrictions on free trade. Wait till Cuba is allowed to trade with us. They can work for like a few dollars a day, now who can compete with that?

[NG]

Go buy the same product in the store and the savings aren't necessarily passed onto us. Where did the profits go? For example running shoes. They cost like $50-$150 for brand name and they are made overseas. Production cost is a few bucks but the shoes cost $$$ to buy them.

That's the key - the profit margin. We need to demand the capitalists lower their profit margin (obstinately what we're all on RFD for).

Then it won't really matter if someone makes $1 an hour if running shoes cost $5 or if they make $10 an hour and sneakers cost $50.

[najibs]

They need to bring back jobs from india and china.

Yeah, it's funny how Americans blame immigrants for 'taking' their jobs, yet they forget to blame their own greedy corporations, who got rid of the jobs in their own country and exported them elsewhere, in the first place.

It's as hypocritical as those auto workers who see me driving a Toyota, and have the nerve to say 'buy domestic' yet they fail to realize that my Toyota was built in Cambridge, Ontario by hard working Canadians. Who is to say that the jobs of those guys who built my car are any less important than those lazy CAW GM workers in the Oshawa plant, or the Ford workers in the Oakville plant....again...HYPOCRITS!

[BornRuff]

Yeah, it's funny how Americans blame immigrants for 'taking' their jobs, yet they forget to blame their own greedy corporations, who got rid of the jobs in their own country and exported them elsewhere, in the first place.

It's as hypocritical as those auto workers who see me driving a Toyota, and have the nerve to say 'buy domestic' yet they fail to realize that my Toyota was built in Cambridge, Ontario by hard working Canadians. Who is to say that the jobs of those guys who built my car are any less important than those lazy CAW GM workers in the Oshawa plant, or the Ford workers in the Oakville plant....again...HYPOCRITS!

This downturn really has very little to do with outsourcing.

A year ago, we were at a record low for unemployment, and we had been outsourcing jobs for decades before that.

[Tijuana]

Can anyone point be to a link that shows how recessions.depressions are created by the banks? Maybe not fully, but partially?

[NG]

This downturn really has very little to do with outsourcing.

A year ago, we were at a record low for unemployment, and we had been outsourcing jobs for decades before that.

The deregulation of the banking and financial sectors started under Reagen in the '80's which many are blaming for this mess.

Often cause and effect don't occur in the matter of a few months.

[CeoOfKFC]

Yeah, it's funny how Americans blame immigrants for 'taking' their jobs, yet they forget to blame their own greedy corporations, who got rid of the jobs in their own country and exported them elsewhere, in the first place.

It's as hypocritical as those auto workers who see me driving a Toyota, and have the nerve to say 'buy domestic' yet they fail to realize that my Toyota was built in Cambridge, Ontario by hard working Canadians. Who is to say that the jobs of those guys who built my car are any less important than those lazy CAW GM workers in the Oshawa plant, or the Ford workers in the Oakville plant....again...HYPOCRITS!

Im working here in the US and have noticed a few things to add to your point. The greed from corporations comes from their abuse of using immigrants taking jobs away from Americans. Forget about outsourcing jobs abroad. The problem is the loopholes of bringing in foreigners to the US on H1B visas and paying them the bare minimum and locking them (they won't ask for raises etc in fear of being sent back to India).

I've been on 4 major implementation projects here and the teams have always been 80-90% indian. Most of them being brought over on the IRS requirement bare minimum. I've heard some interesting stories.

Corporations and desi firms just love taking advantage of these guys. They purposely disqualify Americans so they can go abroad.

An interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

[ferkel]

I've been on 4 major implementation projects here and the teams have always been 80-90% indian. Most of them being brought over on the IRS requirement bare minimum. I've heard some interesting stories.
[/url]

Even worse up here in Canada. The last 4 major projects in Toronto I've worked in are also predominantly Indian. Wipro, Tata, Infosys, worked with them all. All the Big Banks and Insurance companies are using them.. for the price of one Canadian worker, we can get 2 to 4 Indian workers that will work 7 days a week/12-14 hours day locally in our downtown offices. These guys don't spend a penny of their income.. don't pay any taxes. All the money goes back to India.

The current project I'm on has more than 200 Wipro resources from India that are half way through a 5 year project working on it in Toronto. At RBC we were mandated by the executives to outsource at least 80% of our projects/workload to India.

[nano]

They need to bring back jobs from india and china.

your right and that's what is going to end up happening. I went to a lecture while on vacation, John Ralston Saul was speaking (is wife is our former govenor General Adrain Clarkson) his message was we need to shift from globalization.

[sleepyguy]

did they really say that? what an idiot... you earned you're damn money you can spend it on whatever the fvck you like and whenever you like. idiot.

pretty weird but i have yet to bump into anyone who has lost there jobs yet, mind you i don't know many in manufacturing/automotive (hit the hardest). -sg

I was watching CP24 last week and they actually had an economic "expert" say with a straight face that the only real problem with the economy is the people who "hoard" money. :confused:

I thought saving money was a good idea and the person interviewing this dumb **** didn't ask the obvious follow-up. :mad:

Yep let's all spend our way out of a recession. If everyone is bankrupt then nobody will be..classic 1984 doublespeak.

[yucksta]

I think the element that played the largest role in this economic downturn was how huge the financial industry became relative to the productive economic activities it was supposed to finance.

That is to say, the financial industry became a game in it of itself, less interested in being a vehicle to support "real" economic activity and more interested in promoting financial instruments, no matter how ridiculous, to put money in their coffers through service & mgmt fees.

The end result was over-leveraging w/r/t mortgages and a business environment where corporations are driven to meet short-term market speculative expectations (as evidenced by the incentives for CEOs to maximize stock price at any cost to the corporation's long term health) ...

It was all a horse and pony show...

Effectively, the American economy turned from one of producers into one of financiers chasing deals, and Canada like the rest of the world is caught in the tailspin.

[CeoOfKFC]

I think the element that played the largest role in this economic downturn was how huge the financial industry became relative to the productive economic activities it was supposed to finance.

That is to say, the financial industry became a game in it of itself, less interested in being a vehicle to support "real" economic activity and more interested in promoting financial instruments, no matter how ridiculous, to put money in their coffers through service & mgmt fees.

The end result was over-leveraging w/r/t mortgages and a business environment where corporations are driven to meet short-term market speculative expectations (as evidenced by the incentives for CEOs to maximize stock price at any cost to the corporation's long term health) ...

It was all a horse and pony show...

Effectively, the American economy turned from one of producers into one ohttp://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8238917
RedFlagDeals.com Forums - Reply to Topicf financiers chasing deals, and Canada like the rest of the world is caught in the tailspin.

Peter Schiff explains the US Economy pretty well:
Americans spent alot of money they didn't have, to buy foreign products they could not afford, run up an enormous debt to the rest of the world and nothing to show for it (no production). Its analagous to an individual who loses his job, and instead of getting a new job he buys everything on his credit card and goes to shows his wife the credit card bill and says "Look honey, look how great we're doing"

Even worse up here in Canada. The last 4 major projects in Toronto I've worked in are also predominantly Indian. Wipro, Tata, Infosys, worked with them all. All the Big Banks and Insurance companies are using them.. for the price of one Canadian worker, we can get 2 to 4 Indian workers that will work 7 days a week/12-14 hours day locally in our downtown offices. These guys don't spend a penny of their income.. don't pay any taxes. All the money goes back to India.

The current project I'm on has more than 200 Wipro resources from India that are half way through a 5 year project working on it in Toronto. At RBC we were mandated by the executives to outsource at least 80% of our projects/workload to India.


You hit it dead on. Wipro, Infosys etc will pay their workers $10 an hr. Charge the client only $40 an hr for work that is worth or that the competition charges $100 an hr +. I've had colleagues work with them on US projects as well. They overwork their workers with no OT and also have like 5 of them share a 1 bedroom apartment. Talk about cost savings.

Your right, for the cost of 1 local ERP consultant you can get an entire team of Wi-Pro desi workers.

[time space]

For people who saved in that rainy day I guess have all the buying power right now cause it pouring outside.

Didn't they lose 30% in 3 months like everybody else?


(BTW, stay tuned for next week's thread: We are officially in an "Apocalypse"...)

[BornRuff]

+1 Someone that actually know their stuffs in economics. Not the typical armchair crap I see on the internet.

It's funny how fast people like Peckerwood turtle when they are presented with real information about these subjects.

Online conspiracy groups can make some pretty convincing arguments to people who don't understand the subject matter to begin with. Thing is, they learn to recite these stories, but they still don't have an understand of the subject. Once you start poking holes in their stories, they normally just restate the same thing over and over again, or stop responding.

[Fookmi]

It's not a depression until you bump Into rich people like Bill Gates at a salvation army or food bank.

[Peckerwood]

The "Money=Debt" line in blatantly from that online movie.
Yes I have seen the documentary, and the phrase is factually correct.

Or would you rather I put together something inherently more complicated and specific in order to placate your desire to direct the conversation outside of the bounds of simplicity for other readers.

I am not here to stroke your ego.
Seriously man, you don't want to take credit for that kind of stupidity anyways.
Veiled personal attack in that should I dare utter anything that might resound as correct, but perhaps be similar in nature to something in some video you find disfavor with, I therefore must be stupid.
The monies worth is based on the amount of goods or services you can purchase with that money.
The money's worth is the same as the debt associated to it. It's value is based on the promissory note given to pay it back. What is beyond me is why we as the citizens of this country must borrow our own currency from private banks who have nothing to back it's value with, other than our promise to pay it back with interest all at the behest of a government that could just as easily manufacture the notes themselves and issue them directly without the use of the bank in the first place.

The currency has value associated to it only because the government mandates it's use as valid by edict. Without that edict the money is just paper...hence the elected officials are right in there like a dirty shirt.
A gold standard wouldn't change that. Gold is exactly the same, it is only worth what people are willing to give you for it
Excepting the fact that gold is a usable commodity, in that it is actually mined from the ground for use in numerous machines, equipment, jewelry, adornments, electronics, etc. As it is used up the supply restricts, and as such it's value increases. Money can do the same, but it isn't used for anything outside of trade.
They know that every dollar that they put into the economy will multiply approximately 6-8 times. Hence, if they want to inject 7 billion dollars into the economy, they will purchase about 1 billion worth of T-bills from banks.
Such increases in supply devalue the currency itself, and as such more people will seek to get loans to offset their lack of capital during previous deflationary periods. When the currency is not being put out, the money becomes more scarce and people get less of it in order to pay off said loans due to the increased value of that currency. These hidden taxes are how such banks generate their wealth. When they want more wealth they simply restrict the flow of capital by raising interest rates on loans to offset any profits from retaining within the populace hands. And to repeat the cycle they then lower interest rates to further inflate the amount of currency thereby encouraging those to go and get more loans to incur more debt.

But for it to be really effective it requires that the nation's governing officials allow them to increase and decrease currency levels at their own behest. Such an alliance between the bank and the leadership is required to do this. This is where the fractional reserve system comes into play. If there was no favorable alliance then the reserve itself would be set at 100% and the bank owners would thusly not be able to manipulate the currency to such a degree to increase their wealth.

You cannot possibly believe that banks aren't in this to generate enormous amounts of wealth for themselves?
Like I said, exchange is very subjective. The fractional reserve system works great as long as people have confidence in the system. It provides lots of liquidity to the economy. It allows money that might normally just be sitting in a bank for years, to be invested back into the economy.
The fractional reserve system is designed specifically to favor the banks by allowing them the ability to create currency out of thin air and thusly manipulate the wealth of the nation through such inflationary and deflationary directives as I explained above.

Granted, that with more money sitting in the banks, and less in circulation, all it would actually affect is the price of things, to the point that even pennies would again become valuable in trade.
Maintaining confidence isn't really an issue since both Canada and the US has deposit insurance. The only reasons everyone would pull all of their money out of the bank at once would be if they thought the bank would fail and they would loose all their money. Since they know that even if the bank fails, they are protected, they wont rush to pull all their money out. It is very very rare for a chartered bank to fail.
I agree that it is very rare for a bank to fail, but the only reason that deposit insurance exists in the case of bank failure is because the banks are directly allowed to engage in the issuance of currency. If the banks fail then economies can be ruined due to a complete collapse of the issuing power of currency by the banks. The problem with this scenario is that the bank can manipulate the economy to it's own benefit, whereas it can increase or decrease the wealth of others simply through the generation of said currency. Take the banks out of the line of creating currency and instead the currency is now reliant upon the economy to be of any value.
Prove it.
I concede this point...in 2008 1.4 trillion in income taxes was taken in...to which almost 500 billion was used to pay interest on the debt in the US, and the rest being used for the running of the federal government. However, I can find no spending of the income tax directly on anything else other than interest and federal government operation and infrastructure.
They spend more on health care, and defense according to these numbers.
Not one cent from the income Tax goes to health care or defense. Corporate taxes pay for defense spending and is repeatedly equal to such amounts.
The internal revenue code of 1986 has been upheld in the supreme court.

In the case of Cheek vs. The United States, the supreme court determined that a belief that the tax laws are not valid is not a valid defense to tax evasion charges.
Incorrect, the Cheek case only upheld the nature of Ignorantia juris non excusat, in that Cheek was attempting to create a ruling in his favour in that he held a belief that the law was too complicated to make sense of and that it would absolve him from any liability as a result.

The Cheek case did not center in any way on the constitutionality of the Federal Income Tax or the 16th amendment, nor did the case overrule the Stanton Case...which still stands as valid.

Income itself is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue code. Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert (1913) defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". It also stated that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly.

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920):

"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. . . .taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property (labor) were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, . . . that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states"

The income tax ,as it stands, is a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional.
You have to think this through logically.
Assumptive personal attack...I am not logical
Even if it wasn't constitutional, they would have just amended the constitution to make it constitutional.
Which they obviously haven't...which therefore it isn't
No intelligent person thinks that a country can run without taxes.
The country runs on the back of the economy, not taxes.

Where in the constitution, US title code, or any supreme court ruling does it say that the federal reserve is scamming the populace?
If you cannot ask a question without resorting to condescendance, then perhaps you need to sit back and reflect a bit on what your purpose is here in this discussion.

Gold standards or anything like that are simply not practical.
I am not in disagreement. i am not looking for a return to the gold standard. Rather I am simply looking for the issuance of currency to be placed into the hands of those whom it properly belongs...the People.

With a Fiat currency though, we need to have a body to maintain this currency, and it can't be in the hands of the elected officials who could all too easily manipulate it for their own gains,
It isn't the nature of Fiat currency I have direct issue with, but rather how it is issued, and by whom. If the elected officials are relegated to a specific constituional restriction that regualtes the exact nature of how they can issue the currency and by how much, then through that constitution the issuing power relents back to the people through a direct check on the governing body they elect to do so.

Allowing the banks to determine how the money is produced takes the issuance of the nation's currency out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the very few.

or listen to misinformed people like you and make stupid decisions.
Relationary personal attack. Anyone who listens to my advice is stupid therefore on par with myself thusly making me stupid by default. If the norm of your arguments are going to be the sum of ad hominem attacks then one has to ask...what are you doing here?

[Peckerwood]

It's funny how fast people like Peckerwood turtle when they are presented with real information about these subjects.

Online conspiracy groups can make some pretty convincing arguments to people who don't understand the subject matter to begin with. Thing is, they learn to recite these stories, but they still don't have an understand of the subject. Once you start poking holes in their stories, they normally just restate the same thing over and over again, or stop responding.
A close friend of mind has just suffered a heart attack, and as such I have not had the direct time to respond to your post(nor anyone else's for that matter). I have been exceedingly busy dealing with their family matters and assisting with other chores while waiting for the family member to come back from Edmonton after being medivac'd out. I have barely had much time to myself over the last few days to even read your post, let alone spend the time to reply to it. Right now I am taking time out of my sleep schedule to post here.

[brunes]

Can't be, what province would be stupid enough to consider increasing the tax burden through harmonization during a recession/depression, http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/584209?

On second thought, don't answer that,

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/02/0c/d2eb9f1b48e78ba52540f0e119df.jpeg

Actually, harmonizing the tax decreases the overall burden. It iwll increase it for some sure, but decrease it for others. You have to take it on a case by case basis, depending on if the item or service in question previously had both taxes applied or not, and if it is now exampt or not.

Overall on the aggregate the tax revenue coming in should be nearly the same, but administration costs to both the province and to companies is greatly reduced, thus a net benefit for the economy. It's the same idea behind people advocating for a flat consumption tax instead of the income tax - reducing the gargantuan cost overhead that is incurred with the bookeeping and collecting of so many different taxes.

Our tax in the Maritimes has been harmonized for 17 years now. Frankly I find it an enormous pain in the ass when I travel to Ont. and have to do math on two different compounding taxes to figure out the actual cost of something.

[ferkel]

Even Wal-Mart thinks times are bad.. laying off 800 head office people in Bentonville.

[BornRuff]

Yes I have seen the documentary, and the phrase is factually correct.........

etc

etc

etc




You are still missing the big difference between a chartered bank and a central bank. Chartered banks don't have the power to create currency. Central banks do.

In Canada, or central bank is a crown corporation. It doesn't operate to make a profit, it operates to keep inflation between 1% and 3%.

All chartered banks, like TD, CIBC, etc, do is hand out loans based on strict guidelines set out by the government. They can not give out a billion dollar loan if they don't have the funds to back it up.

Your views are right when you talk about how it is very very possible to do a lot of harm to a country and profit quite a bit by controlling the economy and currency. As I already said, monetary policy is a very power full tool. Anything powerful can be utilized both in positive and negative ways.

The fact that you can do bad things doesn't mean people are doing them though. Every conspiracy nut and their grandma are jumping on this down turn and using it as "proof" of all their ideas. If hypothetically, I did something, and that thing would make the economy tank, and suppose the economy also happens to be in the crapper at this moment, does that mean I did that thing? No! To many people think this way. You have to prove a causal link.

[NG]

Can't be, what province would be stupid enough to consider increasing the tax burden through harmonization during a recession/depression, http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/584209?

On second thought, don't answer that,



No politics. Reported.

[BornRuff]

It's the same idea behind people advocating for a flat consumption tax instead of the income tax - reducing the gargantuan cost overhead that is incurred with the bookeeping and collecting of so many different taxes.

Our tax in the Maritimes has been harmonized for 17 years now. Frankly I find it an enormous pain in the ass when I travel to Ont. and have to do math on two different compounding taxes to figure out the actual cost of something.

It really is a non issue for consumers as far as calculating it. 5%+8% is 13%. Nobody really considers the taxes individually, you just know it's 13%, won't really affect us either way from that standpoint.

If it can produce some savings for the businesses, and they happen to pass it on to us, then that might help us, but I don't see it being a huge savings for them, and I don't anticipate it changing prices for us much.