How to Pay off Debt on a Low Income
The solution: debt-free money issued by society Written by on Thursday, 03 November 2016.
Posted in Economic Democracy - Lesson 4 The cost of servicing the public debt increases proportionally to the debt, since it is a percentage of this same debt.
To finance its debt, the Federal Government sells Treasury Bills and other bonds, most of them being bought by chartered banks.
As regards the sale of Treasury bonds, the Government is a stupid seller: it does not sell its bonds to the banks; it gives these bonds away to them, since these bonds cost the banks nothing: the banks do not lend the money; they create it.
Not only do banks get something for nothing, but they also get interest on it.
Wright Patman Marriner S.
Eccles On September 30, 1941, a revealing exchange took place between Mr.
Wright Patman, Chairman of the U.
House of Representatives Banking and Currency Committee, and Mr.
Eccles: "We created it.
Patman: "Out of what?
Eccles: "Out of the right to issue money, credit.
Eccles: "We have the Government bonds.
It is not the banker who gives value to money, but the credit of the Government, of society.
The only thing the banker online slots real money in this transaction is to make an entry in a ledger, writing figures which allow the country to make use of its own production capacity, its own wealth.
Money is nothing else but that: a figure — a figure which is a claim on products.
Money is not wealth, but the symbol that gives rights to wealth.
Without products, money is worthless.
So, why pay for figures?
Why pay for something which costs nothing to make?
And since this money is based on the production capacity of society, this money also belongs to society.
Then, why should society pay the bankers for the use of its own money?
Why pay for the https://free-casino-deposit.website/canada/online-slots-canada-free-no-download.html of our own goods?
Graham Towers Even the first Governor of the Bank of Canada admitted that the Federal Government had the right to issue its own money.
Graham Towers, who was Governor of the Bank from 1935 to 1951, was asked the following question, before the Canadian Committee on Banking and Commerce, in the spring of 1939: Question: "Will you tell me why a government with the power to create money should give that power away to a private monopoly and then borrow that which Parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?
The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good also.
The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.
Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.
If the currency issued by the Government was no good, then the bonds would be no good either.
It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold.
Would this money be as good as that of the banks?
Answer: The Government has indeed the power to create, issue the money of our country, since it is itself, the Federal Government, that has given this power to the chartered banks.
For the Government to refuse to itself a privilege it has granted to the banks, is canada debt free money height of imbecility!
Moreover, it is actually the first duty of any sovereign government to issue its own currency, but all the countries today have unjustly given up this power to private corporations, the chartered banks.
The first nation that thus surrendered to private corporations its power to create money was Great Britain, back in 1694.
In both Canada and the U.
No danger of inflation Question: Is there not any danger that the Government might misuse this power and issue too much money, which would result in runaway inflation?
Is it not preferable for the Government to leave this power to the bankers, in order to keep it away from the whims of the politicians?
Answer: The money issued by the Government would be no more inflationary than the money created by the banks: it would be the same figures, based on the same production of the country.
The only difference is that the Government would not have to get into debt, or to pay interest, in order to obtain these figures.
On the contrary, the first cause of inflation is precisely the money created as a debt by the banks: inflation means increasing prices.
The obligation for the corporations and governments that are borrowing to bring back to the banks more money than the banks created, forces the corporations to increase the prices of their products, and the governments to increase their taxes.
What is the means used by the present Governor of the Bank of Canada to fight inflation?
Precisely what actually increases it, that is to say, to increase the interest rates!
As many Premiers put it, "It is like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline over it.
This is not at all what is proposed here by the Social Crediters.
Accurate bookkeeping What the Social Crediters advocate, when they speak of money created by the Government, is that money must be brought back to its proper function, which is to be a figure, a ticket, that represents products, which in fact is nothing but simple bookkeeping.
And since money is nothing but a bookkeeping system, the only necessary thing to do would be to establish accurate bookkeeping: The Government would appoint a commission of accountants, an independent organism called the "National Credit Office" in Canada, the Bank of Canada could well carry out this job if ordered to do so by the Government.
This National Credit Office would be charged with setting up accurate accounting, remarkable, party city coupon code canada consider money would be nothing but the reflection, the exact financial expression, of economic realities: production would be expressed in assets, and consumption in liabilities.
Since one cannot consume more than what has been produced, the liabilities could never exceed the assets, and deficits and debts would be impossible.
In practice, here is how it would work: the new money would be issued by the National Credit Office as new products are made, and would be withdrawn from circulation as these products are consumed purchased.
Thus there would be no danger of having more money than products: there would be a constant balance between money and products, money would always keep the same value, and any inflation would be impossible.
Money would not be issued according to the whims of the Government nor of the accountants, since the commission of accountants, appointed by the Government, would act only according to the facts, according to what the Canadians produce and consume.
The best way to prevent any price increase is to lower prices.
And Social Credit does also propose a code canada to lower retail prices, called the "compensated discount", which would allow the consumers to just click for source all of the available production for sale with the purchasing power they have at their disposal, by lowering retail prices a discount by a certain percentage, so that the total retail prices of all the goods for sale would equal the available total purchasing power of the consumer.
This discount would then be refunded to the retailers by the National Credit Office.
This will be explained in Lesson 6.
No more financial problems If the Government issued its own money for the needs of society, it would be automatically able to pay for all that can be produced in the country, and would no longer be obliged to borrow from foreign or domestic financial institutions.
The only taxes people would pay would be for the services they consume.
One would no longer have to pay three or four times the actual price of public developments because of the interest charges.
So, when the Government would discuss a new project, it would not ask: "Do we have the money?
If it is so, new money would be automatically issued to finance this new production.
Then the Canadians could really live in accordance with their real means, the physical means, the possibilities of production.
In other words, all that is physically possible would https://free-casino-deposit.website/canada/postal-code-canada.html made financially possible.
There would be no more financial problems.
The only limit would be that of the producing capacity of the nation.
The Government would be able to finance all the developments and https://free-casino-deposit.website/canada/money-games-for-grade-3-canada.html programs demanded by the population that are physically feasible.
Under the present debt-money system, if the debt were to be paid off to the bankers, there would be no money left in circulation, creating a depression infinitely worse than any of the past.
Let us quote again the exchange between Messrs.
Patman and Eccles before the House Banking and Currency Committee, on September 30, 1941: Mr.
Patman: "You have made the statement that people should get out of debt instead of spending their money.
You recall the statement, I presume?
Eccles: "That was in connection with installment credit.
Patman: "Do you believe that people should pay their debts generally when they can?
Eccles: "I think it depends a good deal upon the individual; but of course, if there were no debt in our money system.
Patman: "That is the point I wanted to ask you about.
Patman: "Suppose everybody paid their debts, would we have any money to do business on?
Eccles: "That is correct.
Patman: "In other words, our system is based entirely on debt.
Balancing the budget is an absurd straitjacket.
What must be balanced is the capacity to pay, in accordance with the capacity to produce, and not in accordance with the capacity to tax.
Since it is the capacity to produce that is the reality, it is the capacity to pay that must be modeled on the capacity to produce, to make financially possible what is physically feasible.
But if it is not the case, paying this debt would be an act of weakness.
As regards the public debt, justice is making no debts at all, while developing the country.
First, let us stop building new debts.
For the existing debt, the only bonds to be acknowledged would be those of the savers; they who do not have the power to create money.
The debt would thus be reduced year after year, as bonds come to maturity.
The Government would honour in full only the debts which, at their origins, represented a real expense on the part of the creditor: the bonds purchased by individuals, and not the bonds purchased with the money created by the banker, which are fictitious debts, created by the stroke of a pen.
These same countries would therefore have no interest charges to pay back, and their debts would be, virtually, written off.
Banks would lose nothing, since it is they that had created this money, which did not exist before.
Now we see how right are those who call for a reform of the financial system and the cancellation of debts, starting with Pope John Paul II, who wrote in his Apostolic Letterfor the celebration of the Jubilee of the Year 2000: "Thus, in the spirit of the Book of Leviticus 25:8-12Christians will have to raise their voice on behalf of all the poor of the world, proposing the Jubilee as an appropriate time to give thought, among other things, to reducing substantially, if not cancelling outright, the international debt which seriously threatens the future of many nations.
Louis IX It canada debt free money Saint Louis IX, King of France, who said: "The first duty of a king is to coin money when it is necessary for the sound economic life of his subjects.
The banker is an expert in accounting and investing; he may well continue to receive and invest savings with profit, taking his share of profits.
But the creation of money is an act of sovereignty which should not be left in the hands of a bank.
Sovereignty must be taken out of the hands of the banks and returned to the nation.
Book money is a good modern invention that should be retained.
But instead of it proceeding from a private pen, in the form of a debt, those figures, which serve as money, should come from the pen of a national organism, in the form of money destined to serve the people.
Therefore nothing is to be turned upside down in the field of ownership or investment.
There is no need to abolish the current money and replace it with other kinds of money.
We must stop suffering from privations when there is everything needed in the country to bring comfort into every home.
The amount of money in circulation must be measured according to the demand of the consumers for possible and useful goods.
Who owns the new money?
Money should therefore be put into circulation according to the rate of production and as the needs of distribution dictate.
But to whom does this new money belong when it comes into canada debt free money in the country?
It does not belong to the Government, which is not the owner of the country, but only the protector of the common good; nor does it belong to the accountants of the national monetary organism: like judges, they carry out a social function and are paid, according to law, by society for their services.
This money is not a salary.
It is new money injected into the public, so that the people, as consumers, may obtain goods already made or easily realizable, which are awaiting only sufficient purchasing power for them to be produced.
One cannot imagine for one moment that the new money, which comes gratuitously from a social organism, only belongs to one or a few individuals in particular.
There is no other way, in all fairness, of putting this new money into circulation than by distributing it equally among all citizens without exception.
Such a sharing also makes it possible to derive the maximum benefit from the money, since it reaches into every corner of the land.
This issuance could take the form of book money, the inscription of figures in ledgers, as the banker does today.
Such individual accounts could easily be looked after by the local post offices, or by branches, or by a bank owned by the nation.
This is the national dividend.
This money would have been created and put into circulation by a national monetary organism, an institution especially established for this end by a law of Parliament.
To each the dividend Whenever it might become necessary to increase the amount of money in a country, each man, woman and child, regardless of age, would thus get his or her share of the new stage of progress that makes the new money necessary.
This is not payment for a job done, but a dividend to each one for his share in a common capital.
If there is private property, there is also community property that all possess in the same way.
Here is read more man who has nothing but the rags he is covered with.
Not a meal in front of click to see more, not a penny in his pocket.
I can say to him: "My dear fellow, you think you are poor, but you are a capitalist who possesses a great deal of things in the same way I and the Prime Minister do.
When you have no food, it is not because the rich eat all the grain in the land; it is because your share is still lying in the grain elevators.
You have been canada debt free money of the means of getting that grain.
We believe that there is not one thing in the world which lends itself to so much abuse as money.
This is not because money in itself is a bad thing.
But, to place money on an altar is idolatry.
To make of money a living thing, which gives birth to other money, is unnatural.
Money does not breed money, as the Greek philosopher Aristotle said.
Yet, how many contracts are entered into — contracts between individuals, contracts between governments and creditors, which stipulate that money must breed money, or else properties or freedoms are forfeited?
Little by little, everybody has sided behind the theory, and especially behind the practice, that money must produce interest.
And in spite of all the Christian teaching to the contrary, the practice has made so much headway that, so as not to lose in the furious competition around the fertility of money, everybody must behave today as if it was natural for money to breed money.
The Church has not abrogated her old laws, but it has become impossible for her to insist on their application.
We refer here to the Victory Bonds, which financed destruction, which did not produce anything, and which had to bear interest just the same.
Interest and dividends So that our readers do not pass out thinking about their savings put into industry or loan institutions, let us hastily make a few distinctions.
If money cannot increase by itself, there are things that money buys which click at this page produce developments.
With intelligent work, I will make these things produce others.
But my neighbour had it, and he did not need it for a couple of weeks.
He loaned it to me.
I think it would be proper for me to show my gratitude by letting him have a small portion of the products which I get, thanks to the productive capital which I have thus been able to obtain.
It is https://free-casino-deposit.website/canada/las-vegas-usa-casino-coupon-code-2019.html work which has made his capital profitable.
But this capital itself represents accumulated work.
We are then two, whose activities — gone by for him, present for me — cause some production to appear.
We are therefore able to divide the fruits of this collaboration between us.
There remains to determine, by agreement and equity, the part of production that is owed to the capital.
What my lender will get in this case is, strictly speaking, a dividend.
We divided the fruits of production.
The dividend is perfectly justifiable, when production is fruitful.
Interest is a claim made by money, in function of time only, and independently of the results of the loan.
I invest it in federal, provincial, or municipal bonds.
We cannot see anything that justifies this claim, save that it is customary.
It does not rest upon any principle.
There is therefore justification for a dividend, because it is subordinated to production growth.
There is no justification for interest in itself, because it is dissociated from realities; it is based on the erroneous idea of a natural and periodical generation of money.
Indirect investments In practice, he who brings his money to the bank indirectly puts it into a productive industry.
The bankers are professional lenders, and the depositor passes his money to them, because they are capable of making it thrive better than he can, without having to look after it himself.
Anonymous investments In passing, let us say a word on the morality of investments.
Many people are not preoccupied in the least with the usefulness or the noxiousness of activities that their money will finance.
As long as it yields profits, they say, it is good.
And the more profit it yields, the better the investment is.
A pagan would not reason differently.
If a house-owner does not have the right to rent his house to serve as a brothel, even though it would be very profitable, the owner of savings does not have any more right to put them into enterprises which ruin souls, even if the enterprises fill pockets.
Moreover, it would be much preferable for the backer and the entrepreneur to be less dissociated.
The smaller industry of old was much more sound: The financier and the entrepreneur were the same person.
The corner storekeeper is still in the same situation.
The chain stores are not.
The co-operative, the association of people, keeps the relation between the use of money and its owner, and has the advantage of making possible enterprises which exceed the resources of one sole individual.
The growth of money Let us go back to the beginning question: Should money claim interest?
We are therefore inclined to answer: Money can claim dividends when there are fruits.
If contracts are drafted differently, if the farmer must pay back interest, even though he did not receive any crop that year; if the farmers of Western Canada must honour liabilities at 7%, when the Financiers who lead the world cause prices to fall to one-third of what they were, this does not change anything about the principle.
The only thing this proves is that reality has been exchanged for trickery.
But if money can claim dividends, when there is a production increase, this production increase must automatically create an increase in money.
Otherwise, the dividend, while being perfectly justifiable, becomes impossible to provide without dealing a blow to the public from which it was extracted.
This is very easy to do if I let him have a share of these increased products.
But if it is money that I must give to him, it is quite another story.
If there is no increase of money in the public, my increased production creates a problem: more offered goods, but no increase of money in step with them.
I may be successful at displacing another seller, but he will be the victim.
Then the problem is not settled.
And in our economic system, it cannot be.
For money to increase, it is necessary that the bank — the only place where the increase is created — lends some somewhere.
But in lending it, the bank exacts a repayment that is also increased.
The Social Credit system would settle that problem, as well as settle many other problems.
The dividend is a legitimate, normal, logical thing.
But the present system does not allow anyone to pay it without making it hurt somewhere.
Our Lord drives the money changers out job code canada the Temple As a matter of fact, the only passage in the Gospel where it is mentioned that Jesus used force is when He drove the money changers out of the Temple with a scourge of cords, and overthrew their tables as reported in Matthew 21:12-13 and Mark 11:15-19precisely because they canada debt free money lending money at interest.
There was, at that time, a law that the tithes or taxes of the Temple could be paid only in one certain coin called the "half shekel of the sanctuary", https://free-casino-deposit.website/canada/no-deposit-bonus-slots-canada.html which the money changers had managed to obtain the monopoly.
There were several different coins at that time, but the people had to obtain this particular coin with which to pay their Temple Tax.
Moreover, the doves and the animals that the people bought for sacrifice also could only be bought with this same special coin that the money changers exchanged to the pilgrims, but at a cost of twice click more times its actual worth, when it was used to buy commodities.
So Jesus overthrew their tables, and said: link house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.
Moreover, more than 300 years before Jesus Christ, the great Greek philosopher Aristotle also condemned lending at interest, pointing out that "money, being naturally barren, to make it breed money is preposterous.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica 2, 2, Q.
It follows then that it is wrong in itself to take a price usury for the use of money lent, and as in the case of other offenses against justice, one is bound to make restitution of his unjustly acquired money.
You may demand interest from a foreigner, but not from your brother.
Saint Ambrose, commenting on the same canada debt free money, gives to the word "foreigners" the meaning of "enemies", and concludes: "One may seek interest from the one he legitimately wants to harm, from the one whom it is lawful to wage war with.
He who, among the other rules of a pious conduct, will not have lent his money at usury, will enjoy eternal rest.
On July 29, 1836, Pope Gregory XVI extended this encyclical to the whole Church.
It says: "The kind of sin called usury, which lies in the loan, consists in the fact that someone, using as an excuse the loan itself — which by nature requires one to give back only as much as one has received — demands to receive more than canada debt free money due to him, and consequently maintains that, besides the capital, a profit is due to him, because of the loan itself.
It is for this reason that any profit of this kind that exceeds the capital is illicit and usurious.
For the object of the law of lending is necessarily the equality between what is lent and what is given back.
Consequently, if someone receives more than he lent, he is bound in commutative justice to restitution.
But the Moslems took these words seriously and have set up, since 1979, a banking system that conforms with the rules of the Koran: Islamic banks charge no interest on neither current nor deposit accounts.
They invest in business, and pay a share of any profits to their depositors.
This is not the Social Credit system implemented in its entirety yet but, at least, it is a more than worthy attempt at putting the banking system in keeping with moral laws.
Previous chapter - Next chapter - Alain Pilote has been the editor of the English edition of MICHAEL online slot machines canada several years.
Twice a year we organize a week of study of the social doctrine of the Church and its application and Mr.
Pilote is the instructor during these sessions.
Debt-free living: NO MORTGAGE! (how we did it)
This organization (Committee On Monetary/Economic Reform) is demanding that our corrupt government and the nefarious central bank which rules above it return Canada’s monetary system to the issuance of debt-free money. In turn, the phrase “debt-free money” is relatively easy to define: issuing currency from our central bank, into the.
In my opinion you are mistaken. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. Let's discuss it.
I confirm. All above told the truth. Let's discuss this question.
Speak to the point
I can recommend to come on a site on which there are many articles on this question.
Quite right! It is good thought. I call for active discussion.
It is scandal!
In my opinion you are not right. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
You commit an error. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
The safe answer ;)
Will manage somehow.
I apologise, but, in my opinion, this theme is not so actual.
It is the amusing answer
Thanks for the help in this question, the easier, the better �
Absolutely with you it agree. Idea excellent, it agree with you.
Many thanks for the help in this question, now I will not commit such error.
In my opinion you are mistaken. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
What excellent words
Certainly. I join told all above.
Absolutely with you it agree. It is excellent idea. I support you.
You have hit the mark. In it something is also to me your idea is pleasant. I suggest to take out for the general discussion.
Absolutely with you it agree. In it something is also to me this idea is pleasant, I completely with you agree.
I consider, that you are not right. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.