Bank Of Canada

[Traktion]

Here are the inflation figures for Canada since 1934:

Year CPI

1934 0

1935 1.39

1936 4.11

1937 1.32

1938 -1.3

1939 3.95

1940 6.33

1941 4.76

1942 2.27

1943 1.11

1944 1.1

1945 2.17

1946 8.51

1947 15.69

1948 2.54

1949 1.65

1950 13.01

1951 1.44

1952 -1.42

1953 1.44

1954 0

1955 1.42

1956 3.5

1957 2.03

1958 0

1959 2.65

1960 1.29

1961 1.27

1962 0.63

1963 2.5

1964 3.05

1965 3.55

1966 3.43

1967 3.31

1968 5.35

1969 3.05

1970 2.46

1971 4.33

1972 7.83

1973 11.54

1974 10.34

1975 7.99

1976 7.72

1977 9.25

1978 9.02

1979 10.03

1980 12.76

1981 11.31

1982 5.44

1983 4.3

1984 3.96

1985 3.81

1986 4.74

1987 3.94

1988 5.2

1989 4.41

1990 6.27

1991 1.08

1992 1.67

1993 0

1994 2.69

1995 1.48

1996 1.69

1997 0.99

1998 1.64

1999 2.8

2000 3.35

2001 1.22

2002 2.6

2003 2.54

2004 1.71

2005 2.43

2006 2.19

2007 3.13

2008 -0.26

You can get these from:

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html

EDIT: To clarify...

When the government printed own money, via the state owned Bank of Canada, the average inflation was: CPI 3.33%

When the government decided to borrow, instead of printing via the Bank of Canada, the average inflation was: CPI 4.38%

It looks like the currency was debased more since 1974 (once they stopped printing), than before it.

Then take a look at the national debt:

(2 mins in for national debt - but this and vid 1 are both interesting)

As far is I can see, from 1935-1974 the state printed and spent it's own money. National debt trundled along at about £20bn. Then the private banks got their claws in in 1974, the national debt soared and inflation went up a by a third (between 1974-2008 - it was double digits in the mid-late 70s).

Has anyone any more information on this? It seems to fly in the face of those who say governments can't manage their own money. During this period, much was built and people were apparently relatively wealthy.

EDIT: Also, GDP also seemed good in 1950, in about 5th place per capita in the world. There was no tax money spent on interest repayments, as the money was created into existence by the state.

Any more info on this would be appreciated as I think it's very interesting.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Traktion

[Y-QUERK]

Yeah but its cold.

[Executive Sadman]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. A cursory glance on any website and Canadian cars, houses, food and so on looks just as pricey as any comparable economy.

[Traktion]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. A cursory glance on any website and Canadian cars, houses, food and so on looks just as pricey as any comparable economy.

Of course they are now - the private bankers got their claws in 30 years ago. More interesting is that they did just fine without the private banks lending to the government.

[Traktion]

http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/app1-debtscam.html

Some more discussion from a Canadian.

I'm surprised this isn't of interest to more people. For 40 (recent) years, Canada created and spent its own money, with no help from the private bankers. There was no hyperinflation. There was no destruction in the standard of living and Canada was prosperous.

Fast forward to the present day and they're paying billions to the private bankers in interest like the rest of us, with no obvious gains and plenty of cons.

Canada isn't some global backwater or dictatorship, but a forward looking, liberal democracy. I don't understand why there isn't more discussion on this, when it is so important to all our lives.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/app1-debtscam.html

Some more discussion from a Canadian.

I'm surprised this isn't of interest to more people. For 40 (recent) years, Canada created and spent its own money, with no help from the private bankers. There was no hyperinflation. There was no destruction in the standard of living and Canada was prosperous.

Fast forward to the present day and they're paying billions to the private bankers in interest like the rest of us, with no obvious gains and plenty of cons.

Canada isn't some global backwater or dictatorship, but a forward looking, liberal democracy. I don't understand why there isn't more discussion on this, when it is so important to all our lives.

It's the way to go, that's for sure.

[interestrateripoff]

If only the Canadians had oil.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Has anyone any more information on this? It seems to fly in the face of those who say governments can't manage their own money. During this period, much was built and people were apparently relatively wealthy.

great idea - not

[ralphmalph]

The Canadians had a strategic goal to be cheap manufacturing base for American companies.

Then the Tar Sands became economically viable. Cue boom times. for about 9 months.

[Muskoka]

I'm hoping to be off there in three weeks (would have been sooner, but wanted a cheap flight)

[Traktion]

great idea - not

That graph proves my point - in 1974, the government started borrowing from private banks to fund their debt. Before then (back to 1934), they just printed up there own and spent it.

I assume you did read my post, but this graph looks like you ignored it and just posted what you thought I was saying.

Now, if you have one of those graphs for 1934-1974, I would be extremely interested to see it. Judging from the table I posted above, it would be less steep a graph than the one since they stopped printing their own money... indeed, that is the point of my post!

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

If only the Canadians had oil.

The americans would invade.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

That graph proves my point - in 1974, the government started borrowing from private banks to fund their debt. Before then (back to 1934), they just printed up there own and spent it.

I assume you did read my post, but this graph looks like you ignored it and just posted what you thought I was saying.

Now, if you have one of those graphs for 1934-1974, I would be extremely interested to see it. Judging from the table I posted above, it would be less steep a graph than the one since they stopped printing their own money... indeed, that is the point of my post!

still looks like theft to me

canadian_dollar_purchasing_power.pdf

canadian_dollar_purchasing_power.pdf

Edited August 4, 2009 by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

[abharrisson]

The americans would invade.

Yeah quite, thats why publicly they have declared the extraction cost of oil from the sands as being high.... the last thing they need is america deciding invading canada is going to be cheaper and closer than invading iraq or afganistan... meanwhile the canadian governemnent has ordered any release about the oil sands to contain the word uneconomic 23 times, that any one speaking french in public should stop it immediately and that anyone when interviewed by US media should wear a puffa jacket even in the summer..... they are adopting a similar "there is no wealth " campaign to Saddams "there are no weapons of mass destruction"..... but fear the anmericans will think they are lying a certain percentage of them can translate the word OUI.

[AteMoose]

Er, yes.....

Borrowing money is the same as printing money directly, it has the same effect.

Is this news?

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Er, yes.....

Borrowing money is the same as printing money directly, it has the same effect.

Is this news?

If you print it without interest obligations it's better than with interest obligations, no?

[Traktion]

still looks like theft to me

canadian_dollar_purchasing_power.pdf

Thanks - that one is good and relevant.

When comparing the two, it confirms there was less inflation when the government was printing it's own money. There was also no interest to be paid to the private bankers from every tax payer.

Er, yes.....

Borrowing money is the same as printing money directly, it has the same effect.

Is this news?

No, it isn't, but some here would have you believe that we need private banks to create money for government spending, otherwise we will get hyperinflation. This is direct evidence to the contrary - governments can create the money just fine and in this case less inflation occurred.

So, remind me why we the government is paying interest to private bankers on loans which could have been avoided altogether?

Btw, here is a link to a crowd of money reformers in the UK. If there is anyone local to their next meet, it would be interesting to hear what they are about. Prosperity UK

Edited August 4, 2009 by Traktion

[Number79]

If you print it without interest obligations it's better than with interest obligations, no?

Yes.

A government printings its own money without interest obligations works perfectly.

The yanks did it with colonial scrip. We realised that they had discovered the secret of money and made it illegal for them to print their own and consequently crashed their economy.

Central banks, privately owned institutions for profit, that lend to governments are the problem. Government debts have to be repaid by taxation of the masses and stealing whatever they have saved through inflation.

[abharrisson]

Then again theres Zimbabwe where they printed and I think have a seen a slight increase in inflation.

[Traktion]

Then again theres Zimbabwe where they printed and I think have a seen a slight increase in inflation.

That's hardly a liberal, democratic, modern society. I don't think Mugabe gives a stuff about his people or their economy - he just keeps paying the troops and living the high life, as far as I know. That said, it makes for a great poster child for why we need to keep paying interest to private banks. I wonder why the media and bankers want to perpetuate that idea?

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Yes.

A government printings its own money without interest obligations works perfectly.

The yanks did it with colonial scrip. We realised that they had discovered the secret of money and made it illegal for them to print their own and consequently crashed their economy.

Central banks, privately owned institutions for profit, that lend to governments are the problem. Government debts have to be repaid by taxation of the masses and stealing whatever they have saved through inflation.

http://www.1776solution.b...

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent...to put shackles upon sleeping men.

— Voltairine de Cleyre (1886-1912)

yeah, you know why Franklin

On December 16th, 2008 ssg263 says:

yeah, you know why Franklin favored the Bank of North America?

war profiteer Robert Morris lent him the gold to be an investor in it. Despite Franklin's words, the bank was a complete and utter failure.

Meanwhile, in the years after the Revolution, the Pennsylvania scrip outperformed the Bank of North America's gold-backed notes! This was demonstrated by Dr. Farley Grubb of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

[AteMoose]

Thanks - that one is good and relevant.

When comparing the two, it confirms there was less inflation when the government was printing it's own money. There was also no interest to be paid to the private bankers from every tax payer.

No, it isn't, but some here would have you believe that we need private banks to create money for government spending, otherwise we will get hyperinflation. This is direct evidence to the contrary - governments can create the money just fine and in this case less inflation occurred.

So, remind me why we the government is paying interest to private bankers on loans which could have been avoided altogether?

Btw, here is a link to a crowd of money reformers in the UK. If there is anyone local to their next meet, it would be interesting to hear what they are about. Prosperity UK

Oh i see Yeah perhaps it has something to do with belief and trust? If a gov prints directly, will a population work as hard, why par tax as they can see the money can be printed into existence, and all blame lies with the gov?

Just a theory, but I am liking your thinking. What's bad about printing money, if done sensibly it can produce a low inflation enviroment just like the one tony and gordon wants WITHOUT the need for the banks!

Edited August 4, 2009 by moosetea

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Yes.

A government printings its own money without interest obligations works perfectly.

The yanks did it with colonial scrip. We realised that they had discovered the secret of money and made it illegal for them to print their own and consequently crashed their economy.

If it's so good, how come they didn't immediately re-install this system after the successful revolution? As for the debate about inflation in Canada, it's as bad there as anywhere else. Energy bills have to be seen to be believed and to make matters worse they are obsessed with Govt. monopolies and various other price-fixing measureds which explains $2000 car insurance and $16 packets of cheese.

[Number79]

If it's so good, how come they didn't immediately re-install this system after the successful revolution? As for the debate about inflation in Canada, it's as bad there as anywhere else. Energy bills have to be seen to be believed and to make matters worse they are obsessed with Govt. monopolies and various other price-fixing measureds which explains $2000 car insurance and $16 packets of cheese.

this more than answers it, worth the time to watch

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...STERS&hl=en

[Traktion]

If it's so good, how come they didn't immediately re-install this system after the successful revolution? As for the debate about inflation in Canada, it's as bad there as anywhere else. Energy bills have to be seen to be believed and to make matters worse they are obsessed with Govt. monopolies and various other price-fixing measureds which explains $2000 car insurance and $16 packets of cheese.

The bankers are persuasive chaps and I'm sure there was plenty of carrots to keep the system going.

In Canada's case, there looks to have been a motivation too...

§ --------- A Sad Truth ---------

Starting in 1974 the same Liberal government which nationalized our Bank of Canada (in 1938), slowly stopped using it... Now Canada's national bank is responsible for only 2% of the money in circulation Today. Since 1974 Canada has borrowed from the same banks as you and me, and a debt of just $18 billion in 1974 (accumulated, since confederation) has ballooned a debt of over $500 billion; 95% of which is compound interest.

Let us state that again, 95% of our $500 billion debt is compound interest which we would not have had to pay if the Canadian Government had borrowed the money from our national bank. This massive debt was inflicted on us by politicians too stupid, lazy or corrupt (pick whichever one you think is true) to use The Bank of Canada's ability to loan Canada money interest free.

On this debt we the tax payers are on the hook for an average of $34 billion per year (that's $93,150,685 PER DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR) through various levels of taxation. This is money that is paid to private banks and investors and is the reason that infrastructure, social programs, education, healthcare, arts and culture funding and more have suffered through the years while our taxes kept going up.

This amount does not include provincial and municipal payments on debt interest which brings the figure closer to $60 billion per year. That's $164,383,562 PER DAY, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR coming out of our economy going directly to private international bankers, rather than simply paying off the borrowed money, back to the Canadian population.

"It is well enough that people of

the nation do not understand our

banking and monetary system, for

if they did, I believe there would

be a revolution before tomorrow

morning."

-- Henry Ford

§ --------- What Changed? ---------

The self-serving members of our own governments took Canada down a bad road by embracing the principles of globalization... It's not surprising that Canada became a member of the then G7 in the same year. There are no coincidences in politics...

EDIT: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2697600352 - not the best source, granted, but interested nevertheless.

The point is not that inflation is lower, although it was still a third lower when they were printing for government spending (not hyperinflationary as some suggest). The point is that they are not paying any interest to private bankers for government borrowing, while still not getting high inflation.

That is not to say we couldn't have a fiat currency with no monetary inflation if it was targeted (much like 2% is now by the BoE).

Edited August 4, 2009 by Traktion