Funding government projects through public pension plans a terrible idea

[Locutus]

it's how gerry butts rolls kids.

The federal government, it is well known, is determined to spend $120 billion on infrastructure over the next 10 years. If traditional definitions of infrastructure are insufficient to get it to that sum, then by God it will come up with whole new definitions.


Ah, but whose money? From what source? The government would appear to have three alternatives. One, it can pay for it out of each year’s taxes. Two, it can borrow on private credit markets. Or three, it can finance capital projects like roads and bridges by charging the people who use them. Once these would have been known as user fees or road tolls; in the language of today’s technocrats, it’s called “asset monetization” or “asset recycling.”


here


Andrew Coyne: Funding government projects through public pension plans a terrible idea

 

[taxslave]

Previous liberal governments raped EI to "balance" the budget. Now this one wants to destroy our pension plan to buy votes. The left is always full of good ideas for OPM. If politicians want to use pension money to build monuments to themselves they should use their own pension money or government employees pension money but not CPP. That belongs to all of us.
The one consolation to this is that the demographic that voted liberal will be due to retire about the time CPP is all gone.The rest of us will be long gone.

 

[Walter]

That's what happens when you find your policy in the chamber pot.

 

[Danbones]

um...
option four:
Canada has its own NOT PRIVATELY OWNED central bank which is supposed to fund these types of things interest free for the benefit of all the Canadians who technically own it:

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and Comer (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: COMER — Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act.
The Case to "Reinstate" the Bank of Canada
from the above link:
"This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. "

Any elected LIEBARREL or CONASSWERATIVE party not utilizing this attribute of our PUBLICLY owned Central bank has been PaWNED
Ever see any recent (fed)govt (of Canada) use the bank as it was supposed to be used?
Nope.
At least they agree on something on both sides of the aisle:
effe the tax payer and pass the loot

That's what happens when you find your policy in the chamber pot.

so...
since this also applies to the currently elected out of orifice party you support...
....................

and wait there's more!
"Pension Bill Seen as Model for Further Cuts
Measure Permits Multiemployer Funds to Reduce Benefits, Which Could Open Door to Moves in Other Troubled Programs"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pension-change-seen-as-setting-a-precedent-1418586647

LOL
wait till all the NATO countries widebutt government empolyees experience this coming trend in government cost cutting...
coming soon to a theater near you!

 

[Angstrom]

um...
option four:
Canada has its own NOT PRIVATELY OWNED central bank which is supposed to fund these types of things interest free for the benefit of all the Canadians who technically own it:

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and Comer (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: COMER — Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act.
The Case to "Reinstate" the Bank of Canada
from the above link:
"This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. "

Any elected LIEBARREL or CONASSWERATIVE party not utilizing this attribute of our PUBLICLY owned Central bank has been PaWNED
Ever see any recent (fed)govt (of Canada) use the bank as it was supposed to be used?
Nope.
At least they agree on something on both sides of the aisle:
effe the tax payer and pass the loot



so...
since this also applies to the currently elected out of orifice party you support...
....................

and wait there's more!
"Pension Bill Seen as Model for Further Cuts
Measure Permits Multiemployer Funds to Reduce Benefits, Which Could Open Door to Moves in Other Troubled Programs"
Pension Bill Seen as Model for Further Cuts - WSJ

LOL
wait till all the NATO countries widebutt government empolyees experience this coming trend in government cost cutting...
coming soon to a theater near you!

There is a reason why no countries use their own banks to borrow money from themselves Dan :lol: It's call a lack of self accountability leading to inflation of currency right to its distruction. :lol:

This played out in the 1800 when country after country self destroyed their currency from self borrowing.

It's why we have the privet model we have today in a effort to have some form of self accountability

Imagine, we have a hard time being self accountable with privet banks :lol: and you want to borrow from ourselves? :lol:

Borrowing money from ourselves is the fastest way for a currency to loose all credibility on the international bond and treasury exchange market.

Value of a currency has some of its value attributable to the level of international holding of its bonds and treasury, as a proof of credibility that the currency has real value.

 

[EagleSmack]

Just like the Mafia!

 

[Danbones]

There is a reason why no countries use their own banks to borrow money from themselves Dan :lol: It's call a lack of self accountability leading to inflation of currency right to its distruction. :lol:

This played out in the 1800 when country after country self destroyed their currency from self borrowing.

It's why we have the privet model we have today in a effort to have some form of self accountability

Imagine, we have a hard time being self accountable with privet banks :lol: and you want to borrow from ourselves? :lol:

Borrowing money from ourselves is the fastest way for a currency to loose all credibility on the international bond and treasury exchange market.

Value of a currency has some of its value attributable to the level of international holding of its bonds and treasury, as a proof of credibility that the currency has real value.

Mais Non!
You provide a good rebuttal

Lets examine how this works in the real world:

Do you see inflation in the US after TRILLIONS in bail outs?
NOPE!!!

Did we have this inflation up to 1974?
nope!!!
You actually have DEFLATION! ( look at house prices for example)

We have natural resources, and the infrastructure and capitol investments have their own value, and allow for increased tax generation through efficient use of resources that are properly maintained.
It SAVES money in the long run, and generates revenue...like say the building of a canal does *(has done!).
or
Like working on your own house with wood you cut from your own property
Bad idea?
nope!
good idea!
Now for the final proof you have it all wrong
(not meant to be personal here)

"Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention
Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention."
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal

Canada committed GENOCIDE ( to our eternal shame) for paper bankers
proving I am correct I'm afraid

 

[Angstrom]

Mais Non!
You provide a good rebuttal

Lets examine how this works in the real world:

Do you see inflation in the US after TRILLIONS in bail outs?
NOPE!!!

Did we have this inflation up to 1974?
nope!!!
You actually have DEFLATION! ( look at house prices for example)

We have natural resources, and the infrastructure and capitol investments have their own value, and allow for increased tax generation through efficient use of resources that are properly maintained.
It SAVES money in the long run, and generates revenue...like say the building of a canal does *(has done!).
or
Like working on your own house with wood you cut from your own property
Bad idea?
nope!
good idea!
Now for the final proof you have it all wrong
(not meant to be personal here)

"Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention
Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention."
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal

Canada committed GENOCIDE ( to our eternal shame) for paper bankers
proving I am correct I'm afraid

You don't understand, it's too complicated for you. It's why most don't understand. I used to think exactly like you, until I understood how it works.

 

[Danbones]

No, it is not even complicated at all, I do understand how it works
here are the facts:

part 2
Here is the final nail in your well written arguement Angstrom:
the panic you cited was actually caused by privately owned banks
not a federal one, and so kinda kills your argument from the gitgo

"The Panic of 1819 was the first major peacetime financial crisis in the United States[1] followed by a general collapse of the American economy persisting through 1821.[2][3] The Panic announced the transition of the nation from its colonial commercial status with Europe[4] toward a dynamic economy, increasingly characterized by the financial and industrial imperatives of laissez-faire capitalism.[5] - and susceptible to boom and bust cycles.[6][7]

Though driven by global market adjustments in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars,[8] the severity of the downturn was compounded by excessive speculation in public lands,[9] fueled by the unrestrained issue of paper money from banks and business concerns.[10]

*****The Second Bank of the United States***** (BUS), itself deeply enmeshed in these inflationary practices,[11] sought to compensate for its laxness in regulating the state bank credit market by initiating a sharp curtailment in loans by its western branches, beginning in 1818.[12] Failing to provide metallic currency when presented with their own bank notes by the BUS, the state-chartered banks began foreclosing on the heavily mortgaged farms and business properties they had financed.[13] The ensuing financial panic, in conjunction with a sudden recovery in European agricultural production in 1817[14] led to widespread bankruptcies and mass unemployment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819


"The Second Bank of the United States, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was the second federally authorized Hamiltonian national bank[3] in the United States during its 20-year charter from February 1816[4] to January 1836.[5] The bank's formal name, according to section 9 of its charter as passed by Congress, was "The President, Directors, and Company, of the Bank of the United States."[6]

*****A private corporation**** with public duties, the bank handled all fiscal transactions for the U.S. Government, and was accountable to Congress and the U.S. Treasury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

note: a private lender caused your collapse not a federally owned bank

Also WW2 was fought because like LibYa, Germany did the same thing and were kicking all the paper banks ( ESPECIALLY BRITAIN's!!!) butts world wide

the Danger is that if we did what was right, those that are doing what is wrong would have to result in bullying to get their way

 

[Angstrom]

Ok I'll try to explain it one last time for you.

Currency is not real.

It's value only existe on its perception that it has value.
It's why corporations where created, with the singular goal of collecting paper money.
The creation of these identity who have the same rights as humans, and soul purpose is to give paper money, it's value.

Now that we have corporations out of the way.

Banks have loaned to themselves throughout history, with many very bad self destructive consequences. It has been considered bad practice because of the lack of personal accountability it has.

So if Canada would lend to itself, This would be viewed as high risk internationally, and would soon be followed by international holders of Canadian treasuries selling off assets, resulting with our currency's value dropping like a rock.

We use to back money with real value, like coins made out of minerals, or paper money backed by real gold bullions. This was to give the currency real credibility, so that people would have confidence in its value.

Corporations and privet lenders have replace that. Corporations give the currency so much demand, and creat value because of that demand.
Banks is the other side. They are the supply. But you can't loan to yourself because you lose all credibility. That the banks are privately owned gives the system credibility.

And then there is the international bonds and treasury market, where investors can buy into these private banks.

If all of our assets were backed by gold bullion, sure go right ahead and borrow from yourself. Even then it wouldn't be viewed by others in a credible way. But at least then you would have gold bullion to back it all up.

Money is only real based on the majority of the planet deciding it has value. Borrowing from ourselves is a good way to lose the public perception that our currency has value.

That's why you don't see many countries doing it. It makes you lose all credibility.

It's ok for the bank of Canada to loan money to other countries.

Because it removes self bias, and the none accountability it could have based on that bias towards itself.

The trillion the USA owes are borrowed privately. It's why it's even possible.

Kadafi wanted to make the United Stated of Africa. With its own currency. and private loaning banks. Our banks would have lost all that business.

It's why Barack doesn't want Great Briton backing out of the EURO. Guess who owns those privat owner

As long as the private banks are American backed, and the whole world borrows through them. Guess who can print money indefinitely?

Most wars are about keeping economic control. Not oil. Wars are about making sure you use our currency to buy and sell all goods. Oil happens to be one of those things you buy and sell.

Every action, the Americans and their allies take is to maintain the value of the currency. It's credibility that it's valuable.

That's why you'll never see them borrowing from themselves.

It would be a very good way to have our allies attaque us.

Like Kadafi

 

[EagleSmack]

Just like the Teamsters and the Mob

 

[Angstrom]

Just like the Teamsters and the Mob

Essentially our control rests on our ability to keep countries in line and using our currency.

If we print trillions but remain at the top of the pyramid as the pyramid free fall because we print trillions. There is no consequence because everyone below us free falls at the same speed with us at the top of the pyramid.

Anyone trying to make their own pyramid. Like Kadafi will not survive very long.

One thing that's happened from over printing, is lost of some confidence in the American greenback. So you will see more frequent military enforcement of our world currency as countries try to move away from trading with American money.

China and Russia trading oil for Chines yuan is a good example.

 

[petros]

If all of our assets were backed by gold bullion, sure go right ahead and borrow from yourself. Even then it wouldn't be viewed by others in a credible way. But at least then you would have gold bullion to back it all up.

When gold had a set value it worked but now the price of gold is set market the risk is far too high.

 

[Angstrom]

When gold had a set value it worked but now the price of gold is set market the risk is far too high.

So, the world market exchange, acts as a independent body to help set values of commodities and world currency value.

Sets value for everything.

 

[petros]

Your labour is worth more than gold.

 

[Angstrom]

By selling and buying every perceived valuable thing.

Your labour is worth more than gold.

How so?