Comments on: Mark Carney and the aftermath of printing money http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/17/mark-carney-and-the-aftermath-of-printing-money/ Conservative group weblog that publishes daily commentary on political events and topics affecting Canada, the United States and the world. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:41:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: James MacInnis http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/17/mark-carney-and-the-aftermath-of-printing-money/comment-page-1/#comment-214318 James MacInnis Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:35:45 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/?p=7013#comment-214318 I agree with Mark Peters! Carney is a Banker and it is from this that his warnings resonate. Although appointed by the Prime Minister and not elected, the power he holds over the money supply of this country is greater then the Prime Minister and members of parliament who are duly elect but in reality he is a puppet of the old established money trust. Credit is another word for debt. The stimulis money had to be borrowed because like all countries that have a central bank, government has relingushed its constitutional right to create its own money suppy. In excahnge for this they have endentured the people who elect them to office and since the borrower is servant to the lender, interest is a tax the banks charge and is but the evidence of our servitude. When a nation gives up its right to print its own currencey to a Central Bank that nation is no longer soverign. Nations need to wrestle control over its own money supply from the international cartel of bankers to whom we are forced to pay tribute. Most of the accumulated debt over the last several decades can be attributed, not to politition's wasteful spending but to interests charges which compound every several years. I agree with Mark Peters! Carney is a Banker and it is from this that his warnings resonate. Although appointed by the Prime Minister and not elected, the power he holds over the money supply of this country is greater then the Prime Minister and members of parliament who are duly elect but in reality he is a puppet of the old established money trust.
Credit is another word for debt. The stimulis money had to be borrowed because like all countries that have a central bank, government has relingushed its constitutional right to create its own money suppy. In excahnge for this they have endentured the people who elect them to office and since the borrower is servant to the lender, interest is a tax the banks charge and is but the evidence of our servitude. When a nation gives up its right to print its own currencey to a Central Bank that nation is no longer soverign. Nations need to wrestle control over its own money supply from the international cartel of bankers to whom we are forced to pay tribute. Most of the accumulated debt over the last several decades can be attributed, not to politition’s wasteful spending but to interests charges which compound every several years.

]]> By: Mark Peters http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/17/mark-carney-and-the-aftermath-of-printing-money/comment-page-1/#comment-214244 Mark Peters Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:31:27 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/?p=7013#comment-214244 Totally agree on the monetary expansion ruse and the poor advice to rely on debt to solve economic problems, Charles. (The biggest sleight of hand is the use of "credit" instead of "debt" when describing lending.) Carney & Co deserve their share of the blame there. But -- what do you expect?-- they're bankers. ;) Taken by itself, Carney's advice is pure gold. People and companies do need to take responsibility for their debts and ensure they leave gap space for rising interest rates. This is basis of contract law, freedom of association and, in the end, the stability of society. Having said that, people need to realize that Carney is still covering his a$$; he realizes that interest rates can only rise so far before triggering defaults similar to what has happened stateside. Judging by the historically low interest rates of the past 10 years, I suspect that mark is close to 7 percent. Push beyond that and things will start coming unstuck. Carney is telling people to be mindful of their ability to service debt so that the banks get the interest they are projecting. I consider his concern to be much less about the little guy and much more about the banks. Again, he's a banker. Totally agree on the monetary expansion ruse and the poor advice to rely on debt to solve economic problems, Charles. (The biggest sleight of hand is the use of “credit” instead of “debt” when describing lending.) Carney & Co deserve their share of the blame there. But — what do you expect?– they’re bankers. ;)

Taken by itself, Carney’s advice is pure gold. People and companies do need to take responsibility for their debts and ensure they leave gap space for rising interest rates. This is basis of contract law, freedom of association and, in the end, the stability of society.

Having said that, people need to realize that Carney is still covering his a$$; he realizes that interest rates can only rise so far before triggering defaults similar to what has happened stateside. Judging by the historically low interest rates of the past 10 years, I suspect that mark is close to 7 percent. Push beyond that and things will start coming unstuck.

Carney is telling people to be mindful of their ability to service debt so that the banks get the interest they are projecting. I consider his concern to be much less about the little guy and much more about the banks. Again, he’s a banker.

]]>