| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Joe on Wal-Mart, Discount and CIR | | Date: | Friday, September 2, 2005 19:36:47 (-0700) | | From: | keith wilde <kwilde @...............org>
|
What you say is correct, John, so far as the Act reads. The complaint of some
is that the government stopped most borrowing from the BofC in favor of paying
higher interest rates to the major private banks who had been losing scads of
money on poor investments over the 80s and needed a bail-out. Reformers (mainly
revenue-strapped cities) want the BofC to not only generate more revenue
(profits) to turn back to the government, but also to make more loans to junior
governments at rates lower than the private banks are willing or able to do.
Keith Wilde
John Hermann <hermann@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
Joe Thomson said: ... But why should the 'government' BE the sole
shareholder in the BofC? If it truly belongs 'to the people', why not 'give'
each individual Canadian his or her share of it? And instead of worrying
ourselves about how it can lend to the government 'interest-free', let any net
profit it receives from the 'government' on its borrowings or otherwise, be paid
out to each of us. By so doing would we not be 'financially' crediting the
public with 'capital appreciation' the use of its credit created?
Is it not
already the case that profit received by the BoC from its loans to government
(ie, from interest and other income) effectively returns to Canada's citizens?
That is, it is my understanding that all such profit (after operating costs have
been extracted) necessarily
returns to Treasury. Admittedly this is not the sort of direct route that Joe
might envisage. -- John Hermann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|