365... Tech

(From the last part of Ellen's article   The Bank of Canada was created to end the hardships of the depression and give the government full responsibility for the health of the economy. As it turned out, the Bank also funded the health of the Canadian people. This simply is not true, Ellen.  If, during all those years when the Bank of Canada was supposed to be doing all the wonderful things that Mr. Abram and others seem to want to attribute to it, it had also truly been funding the health of the Canadian people ,   then Medicare would have been unnecessary.   People, in general,  would have had enough money from their earnings to pay their own doctor's bills. Certainly at least so far as visiting a doctor and having him diagnose what ailed them was concerned.  Or in affording, and continuing to afford,  private medical insurance coverage to cover the costs of any necessary treatments.  Without any serious disruption in meeting their other ordinary ongoing  costs of living.  Only they didn't.  All these things were becoming increasingly unaffordable as time progressed. The Canadian solution was to try to re-distribute something which was already collectively insufficient ~ incomes.  That is what Medicare was trying to do.  It was a socialist perception.  Sure, it pooled and shared risk , as would any other insurer.  And being government owned it did not have to operate at a profit, as would a private insurer, even a mutually owned  or co-operativelly owned one.   But, aside from that attribute, if it truly was an attribute,  it was flawed right from the start.  Just as the attempts by Obama to have universal healthcare in the States (a truly laudable proposition in itself), are similarly flawed.   There is no way that the re-distribution of an insufficiency of consumer incomes can ever make that a sufficiency when it comes to the totality of costs those incomes are supposed to be able to liquidate.   Printing money to give to the government to meet other costs, which are real in themselves, simply will not cut it, Ellen.  We need a means of  debt-free augmentations to consumer incomes sufficiently large enough to allow for the ongoing fuller liquidation of PAST costs.  Then the economic system can be made more fully 'financially' self-liquidating, as it properly should be, and existing debt will then be progressively reduced through ongoing economic activity,  and proportionally through natural growth. Regards, Joe

Joe, If you have the time and interest I would like to discuss the principles of money creation with you. I like your use of language and at a guess I would judge we are at similar ages. (I'm 85). I confess I have not studied Social Credit other than to know you are in favour of a government supplied supplement to personal incomes. I would like to posit one thing and have your response. I believe a government must have control of money creation for government purposes, whatever they are, and  meaning without interest charges because it operates on behalf of the people and we don't need to charge interest to ourselves. On the other hand, entrepreneurs,industry and the whole private economy can use private banks to generate whatever money it needs and pay interest in accordance with free market rules. In our present day economy the two are mixed in an inextricable muddle through taxes and corporate rights and legislation and jurisprudence but theoretically they could be seen to be separate. Do you agree that government should create its own money, interest free, for its own purposes? Hoping to hear from you on this point. Derek p.s. my point about your  previous last sentence was that you tie the inadequate operation of a Medicare scheme to the lack of personal income whereas I would tie it to lack of government funding. djs - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -