End of debt based money system?...

TickersPlaysPop

Hi all, this is a quote from UK Column

I thought this might be relief from the continuous tit for tat over housing market...

This fundamental court case is a story being suppressed in the media....

A landmark Canadian federal appellate-court ruling could conceivably lead to the cancellation of Canada’s debt-based money system, and its repercussions are expected to be felt by central banks around the world.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/amid-media-blackout-canada-lawsuit-challenges-banker-rule

Loughton_Monkey

The concept of a conspiracy within the Canadian banking system, or indeed any bank in the Western World is surely so unthinkable to be believed?

The boy Carney looks so honest!

lvader

Germany has gone one better, you have to pay the government to take on loans.

Generali

Hmm. The BoC thinks that they charged interest during the period in question. I believe the article is what we economists call, "rubbish" and you are being "credulous".

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122552.pdf

TickersPlaysPop

To be fair your data goes to 1958, so it doesn't go back as far as 1938, and also, why are you so sure that the government was given money on the same terms as those on your data?

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

To be fair your data goes to 1958, so it doesn't go back as far as 1938, and also, why are you so sure that the government was given money on the same terms as those on your data?

Canadian Government bond yields from 1949:

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122558.pdf

As the BoC was nationalised in 1938 and so wholly owned by the Canadian Government. This covers the majority of this supposed 'debt free money' period and we can clearly see that the Canadian Government was paying interest on long term debt.

Alternatively, below are T-Bill rates from 1934 onwards:

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122541.pdf

T-Bills are instruments used for short-term financing to smooth out irregular tax receipts. As you can see, for the period 1934-1952 the yields quoted are 'at tender'. T-Bills are generally sold in an auction. The 'at tender' figure is the average interest rate concluded by the auction process.

Also 6 month yields from 1959 onwards:

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122552.pdf

The Canadian Government pays interest on her debt and always has. It certainly has verifiably for the period of the existence of the BoC.

purch

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

This fundamental court case is a story being suppressed in the media....

No it's not.

It's not being covered by the media, because it is a couple of insignificant zealots taking a ridiculous case to court and therefore not newsworthy.

Whatever the outcome is, it will not be significant for anything or anyone.

According to American monetary-reform author and filmmaker Bill Still—

According to Bill Still :rotfl::rotfl:

BTW how does sitting down at a desk, not even looking at the camera and stumbling over the words make you a "filmmaker" ?

TickersPlaysPop

To be fair Generali, the court case is about money issued to lift Canada out of the Great Depression. So, the money issued at zero interest in the few years after 1938 could have been issued at zero interest.

It's also in the current bank of Canada's commercial interest to make sure the zero interest data isn't easily available.

You are still assuming that the money issued to the government was connected to your data.


The real proof of this story is not in the data you have very kindly put forward. We need to see the documents directly linked to the money issued by the bank to the government in the years after 1938. Those document would state what interest rate, whether it was a fixed rate, and how long the term.... which could have been many many years...

Dear Purch....
Are you seriously suggesting that 2 very well educated and wealthy individuals would go to all the trouble of pursuing this court case for no reason? Do you seriously think they are stupid?

TickersPlaysPop

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The concept of a conspiracy within the Canadian banking system, or indeed any bank in the Western World is surely so unthinkable to be believed?

The boy Carney looks so honest!

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you.... But The debt money system is the UK's and most of the western worlds money system!

The debt money system is not a conspiracy! LoL but a system that has many negatives.

Leaving private companies (aka banks) to literally create money from nothing, and control and issue that money to commerce and government is very risky. The banks serve themselves and their share holders... not the poeple using the banking service... the banks have become too powerful and now have significant control over government.

antrobus

purch wrote: »

No it's not.

It's not being covered by the media, because it is a couple of insignificant zealots taking a ridiculous case to court and therefore not newsworthy.

Whatever the outcome is, it will not be significant for anything or anyone.....

It's just your standard FMOTL nonsense. There is always a court case that is about to produce some landmark ruling, and news of this case is always being surpressed by the 'mainstream media.

purch wrote: »

...

According to Bill Still :rotfl::rotfl:

BTW how does sitting down at a desk, not even looking at the camera and stumbling over the words make you a "filmmaker" ?

Now be fair. William T 'Bill' Still does have an entry on IMDB.:)

Mind you, he does apparently believe that the world is really being run by the Illuminati.

purch

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Do you seriously think they are stupid?

No. They will be proving a point, and can afford the associated costs to do so.

Now, Bill Still and the fools who take any notice of him.................now stupid doesn't even start to describe them.

What amazes me, is these people are continuously wrong about everything yet they still retain a merry band of acolytes :eek:.