Should Canada discuss debt strategy at UN?

[MHz]

Who the hell ever said that?

God

Ex:22:25: If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Le:25:36: Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
Le:25:37: Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
De:23:19: Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

 

[Slim Chance]

That is the way it works when the banks are made into a 'for profit' organization when nobody has an option to use another system. Banks are supposed to be the middleman who does not take a penny more than expenses demand.

Gotta disagree with you on that. Banks are not non-profit (perhaps excepting institutions like the Bank of Canada). Factor in the component that expenses vary greatly depending on market conditions or bad debts.

Greece is a great example. They ow 100's of billions and the potential for the banks' to eat that debt will exceed the capacity for many of those banks to write-down the loss. Many would go under which in turn would cripple those individuals that had their money in any of those banks... You'll see a big domino effect from there.

The Federal Reserve was created moments before a Xmas break when most of the ones who would have voted "N0" were not there as nothing had been scheduled for voting on. Bad puppy right from birth.

This issue has morphed beyond the Federal Reserve; we've moved squarely into the realm of living far beyond our means and feeling entitled to it.

The world debt is not a creation of religion, it is an Atheist entity, they should clean that up if they insist on the Church getting it's act together in terms of actually being a benefit to the weakest of mankind. As it is neither is going to do anything along that line.

Thanks for the clarification... I just didn't get the connection initially.

 

[MHz]

Gotta disagree with you on that. Banks are not non-profit (perhaps excepting institutions like the Bank of Canada). Factor in the component that expenses vary greatly depending on market conditions or bad debts.

That is the problem, Banks are making record profits for a small number of people. The top 5 banks own 55% of the transactions that banks do. this is how much interest the shareholders in the banks take.If the world owes $60 T @ 3% interest = $1,800,000,000,000/ yr just on interest, that is not including all user fees. Don't tell me they deserve to reap that kind of reward, The top 5 banks own 55% which means their cut is $99,000,0000,000 yearly. Please don't tell me the banks deserve 1.8 trillion or that interest should be compounded.

Greece is a great example. They ow 100's of billions and the potential for the banks' to eat that debt will exceed the capacity for many of those banks to write-down the loss. Many would go under which in turn would cripple those individuals that had their money in any of those banks... You'll see a big domino effect from there.

Fold up the top 5 banks and the world dept is wiped out, you prefer to see the world wiped out so the 5 banks don't experience what poverty is. It sure doesn't bother them to see enormous death and destruction when it benefits them and the afflicted are not them. For 95% of the world population to accept suffering so 5% can hoard (out of circulation) most of the money that should never have been taken out of circulation in the first place. The money system would not fail, gambling and easy money would fail though. Wall street and all the trading house would be eliminated. The money that would save would make the whole world able to afford to be a welfare state and the few jobs that needed doing might mean a work year is 3 months long and 9 months of time to pursue other interests. That is not fanciful that is trimming the banks (and other commerce) back to a cost-plus 3% profit. The income comes from interest earned by business loans (that have no public shares) and loans to the richer people that can afford more because they make more in the time they work for themselves.
Where is the interest the bank owes for the start-up money they needed to borrow in order to have the means to print money in the first place. That payment should be able to be called as being due, ..... @ compound interest.

This issue has morphed beyond the Federal Reserve; we've moved squarely into the realm of living far beyond our means and feeling entitled to it.

It has the advantage of being the most recent event in a soap-opera that is at least a few centuries old if we just cover the owners of the current top 5 banks. The Bank of England was owned from day 1 of it's creation, the rest of England came to be literally owned by the Rothschild clan on the very day Napoleon met his Waterloo. If they use tactics like that to get what they want people are allowed to resist ..... by force since that is their favorite intimidation technique and if that doesn't work executing somebody in front of you would do the trick.

 

[AnnaG]

God

Ex:22:25: If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Le:25:36: Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
Le:25:37: Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
De:23:19: Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

You mean people that say a god said that. Either way, in case you haven't noticed, most people like secularism, especially in government and business. Get used to it.

 

[AnnaG]

That is the problem, Banks are making record profits for a small number of people.

I agree that it is a huge imbalance and it should change, but to expect businesses to be non-profit is extremely unrealistic. IOW, you'd have to get rid of capitalism entirely. And that is as feasible as getting rid of socialism entirely. There has to be a balance struck somewhere.

 

[Avro]

And how exactly do we avoid globalization when we are witnessing ever more international exchanges not only commercially but culturally too. We're seeing more international travel, marriages, immigration and emigration, information exchanges via the internet, international students (and this includes Canadians studying abroad), medical tourism, etc. etc. etc. How do you propose we maintain these benefits while closing our borders. We're not living in the pre-telegraph era anymore.

I did say perhaps....and you never argued that point.

However, if we were to fight globalization would the removal of free trade and the introduction of a Tobin tax not curb this intertwining of economies.

The more and more we rely on what other economies are doing are we not more and more vulnerable to them?

 

[Avro]

May be relevant to the topic......

Harper, Merkel call on countries to rein in debt

May 08, 2010
Bruce Campion-Smith


BERLIN—Canada and Germany have issued a joint call for speedier reforms of financial institutions and for nations awash in red ink to pay down their debt — two factors that are fuelling financial turmoil and putting the fragile economic recovery at risk.
The need for renewed action has taken on fresh urgency in recent days in the wake of Greece’s debt crisis and a worrying fallout that has European leaders scrambling to contain the damage.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and German Chancellor Angela Merkel emerged from a meeting here Saturday afternoon with a similar recipe for coping with the financial upset, a topic that will now dominate discussions when G20 leaders meet in Toronto in June.
“All members of the Eurozone have to reduce their deficit with determination and great speed,” Merkel said.
“We need strict regulation of the financial markets,” she said, citing derivatives, short selling and hedge funds by name.
“I think it’s important that we act with determination and at the same time calm in responding to the situation,” she said.
Merkel, who has been the forefront of Europe’s response to the financial troubles in Greece, applauded Harper for ensuring the question of financial sector reform is at the top of the G20 agenda.
European leaders and finance ministers worked through the weekend to craft further responses to the Greek crisis, which was undermining the value of the Euro and raising questions about the debt loads of other nations like Portugal and Spain.
While the European Union has spearheaded a package of loans to assist Greece, Merkel said the “stability of the Eurozone as a whole is not guaranteed with this program alone.”
“We all have to do our homework and make sure our structures are sound. It will then be more difficult for speculators to gain ground,” she said.
“We have to ensure that we regulate the instruments that are being used to speculate and to do so in a way that they cannot be abused, you know, bet on things that you don’t even ownership of,” she said.
Harper echoed the call for faster financial sector reforms, saying progress “has not been as quick as we would like to see.
“It is important that we continue to work strongly and aggressively on reform of the financial sector, nationally and internationally,” Harper said.
However, he pinned the blame for the current crisis more on the practices of individual countries, which have allowed debt loads to spiral out of control.
“The fundamental crisis here is not in the financial sector. It is in the finances of certain governments,” Harper said.
“It is important for all countries to understand that high levels of deficit and debt cannot continue indefinitely. In some countries they are very high. That issue does have to be tackled, not just in Europe but across the globe,” he said.
Harper, who was on the last day of a four-day European tour, flew into Berlin after a morning in Zagreb.
His meeting with Merkel at the German Chancellery was to discuss the agendas for both the G20 meeting and the G8 meeting in Muskoka. In addition to the economy, Harper said that Iran and Afghanistan would also be on the agenda along with humanitarian aid and Ottawa’s signature project, maternal health.
Merkel gave an endorsement of the ongoing free trade talks between Canada and the European Union, calling free trade “one of the most important growth forces.”
Harper used his stop in Berlin to announce that Canada is expanding the guest list for the G20 meeting, extending invitations to the leaders of five additional nations — The Netherlands, Spain, Ethiopia, Malawi and Vietnam.
A Harper aide said that inviting additional nations strikes a good balance “between representation and effectiveness.”
As host of the meeting, Harper gets to choose what additional nations get an invite though the decision was made in consultation with its G20 partners. Similar invites have gone out at previous summits.
Also attending the G20 summit will be the heads of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Financial Stability Board, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations, among others.


Source

 

[Machjo]

I did say perhaps....and you never argued that point.

However, if we were to fight globalization would the removal of free trade and the introduction of a Tobin tax not curb this intertwining of economies.

The more and more we rely on what other economies are doing are we not more and more vulnerable to them?

Yes, the more vulnerable we become, but the more we stand to gain too. It's a double edged sword I suppose. But honestly, globalization had already begone with the first telegraph message in 1844. There is no turning back.

My proposal would be not to try to fight globalization (as that would be a losing proposition anyway) but rather to try to redefine it. There is no avoiding the New World Order. Now the question is how it will be defined. I think overall the right has proven more successful precisely because it had recognized the futility of fighting globalization early on and so embarked on defining it instead. The left lost out by wasting precious time fighting the unfightable. If the left were smart, it would abandon that struggle and launch a new campaign not to fight globalization per se, but rather the way it is defined. It would likely have more success on that front. A smart warrior does not waste time trying to avoid the unavoidable. Instead, he tries to redefine the battlefield on which it's going to be fought.

 

[Avro]

Yes, the more vulnerable we become, but the more we stand to gain too. It's a double edged sword I suppose. But honestly, globalization had already begone with the first telegraph message in 1844. There is no turning back.

My proposal would be not to try to fight globalization (as that would be a losing proposition anyway) but rather to try to redefine it. There is no avoiding the New World Order. Now the question is how it will be defined. I think overall the right has proven more successful precisely because it had recognized the futility of fighting globalization early on and so embarked on defining it instead. The left lost out by wasting precious time fighting the unfightable. If the left were smart, it would abandon that struggle and launch a new campaign not to fight globalization per se, but rather the way it is defined. It would likely have more success on that front. A smart warrior does not waste time trying to avoid the unavoidable. Instead, he tries to redefine the battlefield on which it's going to be fought.

Okay, how do you protect our market from forgein debt and cheap labor.

 

[Machjo]

Okay, how do you protect our market from forgein debt and cheap labor.

By promoting international collaboration in the fight against debt internationally and by promoting higher wages worldwide.

If you just shut our borders down, yes our salaries might rise, but the cost of living would likely outstrip it. Is it really worth the salary increase then? They'd be better with a lower salary but a lower cost of living too. Also, f you discourage foreign investment to Canada, other countries would retaliate. Same with trade. Consider Bombardier. It relies more on foreign markets as far as China than it does on the Canadian market. Isolationism would be economic suicide. Let's consider too that many Canadians work abroad too. If we kicked out foreign workers in Canada, we'd quickly have Canadians losing their jobs abroad and taking the first flight back to Canada, a new batch of unemployed Canadians.

Again, to fight the New World Order is a waste of time. The winners will be those who can define the New World Order to their ends. So far, the right has proven more successful than the left on that front.

 

[Avro]

By promoting international collaboration in the fight against debt internationally and by promoting higher wages worldwide.

If you just shut our borders down, yes our salaries might rise, but the cost of living would likely outstrip it. Is it really worth the salary increase then? They'd be better with a lower salary but a lower cost of living too. Also, f you discourage foreign investment to Canada, other countries would retaliate. Same with trade. Consider Bombardier. It relies more on foreign markets as far as China than it does on the Canadian market. Isolationism would be economic suicide. Let's consider too that many Canadians work abroad too. If we kicked out foreign workers in Canada, we'd quickly have Canadians losing their jobs abroad and taking the first flight back to Canada, a new batch of unemployed Canadians.

Again, to fight the New World Order is a waste of time. The winners will be those who can define the New World Order to their ends. So far, the right has proven more successful than the left on that front.

Promoting isn't enforcement.

I still think a Tobin Tax would be a good idea to protect our markets but in particular ones that are more vulnerable.

Still doesn't address how jobs in the West are becoming increasingly reliant on making money form money as opposed to making something or providing a service.

Unsustainable if you ask me.

 

[Machjo]

Promoting isn't enforcement.

I still think a Tobin Tax would be a good idea to protect our markets but in particular ones that are more vulnerable.

Still doesn't address how jobs in the West are becoming increasingly reliant on making money form money as opposed to making something or providing a service.

Unsustainable if you ask me.

I'm undecided as to whether a Tobin Tax is a good idea or not. However, sharing a common currency as has been done in Europe is something i'd e for.

On the one hand, yes it would make all parties more vulnerable, and so pressure would have to be put on all parties sharing this currency to be fiscally responsible. On the other hand, it would also cut out a lot of fat from the currency exchange industry.

 

[Machjo]

As for workers' salaries, perhaps German-style co-determination laws might be a way to go too.

 

[Machjo]

In the modern age though, foreign debt and cheap labour are not fully controllable by one lone contry. I could sell certain services worldwide online, and you'll put up trade barriers to stop me? Raise the minimum wage? There really isn't much you can do. The same applies with international debt. Nowadays it's possible to transfer money worldwide in seconds.

This is where the left has failed. If it wants to control international debt and international labour, in the modern age it will have to be done through international government. Traditional solutions don't work anymore in the internet age.

 

[Avro]

I'm undecided as to whether a Tobin Tax is a good idea or not. However, sharing a common currency as has been done in Europe is something i'd e for.

On the one hand, yes it would make all parties more vulnerable, and so pressure would have to be put on all parties sharing this currency to be fiscally responsible. On the other hand, it would also cut out a lot of fat from the currency exchange industry.

Given the current problems with the EU I think sharing currency as well as anything alse has bee proven ill advised.

 

[Slim Chance]

That is the problem, Banks are making record profits for a small number of people. ..... Please don't tell me the banks deserve 1.8 trillion or that interest should be compounded.

The banks are making that money for their investors... You wanna be an owner, it's simple; buy shares.

Fold up the top 5 banks and the world dept is wiped out, you prefer to see the world wiped out so the 5 banks don't experience what poverty is.

I see that you've changed your tune from an earlier submission of yours in post # 9:

I didn't say the debt had to be dishonored, I am saying the interest being charged is a burden that does not have to be there.

.... So, which is it to be?

The Bank of England was owned from day 1 of it's creation, the rest of England came to be literally owned by the Rothschild clan on the very day Napoleon met his Waterloo. If they use tactics like that to get what they want people are allowed to resist ..... by force since that is their favorite intimidation technique and if that doesn't work executing somebody in front of you would do the trick.

Sure it did.. "Banks" in their most rudimentary form all began as private. Once the governments saw the value in controlling the money supply and the associated benefits, they made the decision to get in the game; in doing so, why would you reinvent the wheel and start from scratch when you could get into an established and going-concern?

There's no conspiracy here.

 

[Bar Sinister]

It is not going to happen through the UN. The OECD might have a chance if the Americans, Chinese, Germans, and Japanese push for it.

 

[Machjo]

It is not going to happen through the UN. The OECD might have a chance if the Americans, Chinese, Germans, and Japanese push for it.

The Americans are so knee-deep in debt I doubt they'd be well equipped to push for it themsvelves. As for the Chinese, Germans and Japanese, maybe.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Given the current problems with the EU I think sharing currency as well as anything alse has bee proven ill advised.

Hear, hear - Me thinks Germany is wishing it still had the deutchmark.

JMO

 

[YukonJack]

Dixie Cup, surprise!

Germany still has the deutchmark as its national currency.