You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Keynesian Economics will never work.... It's stupid, for starters...
The idea of big government spending as a national remedy, started in the 1930s when the United States was in the the Great Depression.
There is a big difference in printing money to pay workers to build the Grand Coulee Dam and sending Quantative Easing to banks to cover their toxic bets in the dirivative markets. Such comparisons are highly misleading in my opinion.
One will get money in the hands of the workers and help the general economy while the other made free money available for the wealthy to artificially inflate the stock market.
...the point is the borrowing off the future, or taxpayers - to pretend its a moving economy.
Short sighted and doomed to failure without something like war to reset things.
It's the same end result. A sucking of people resources away from growth with production.
There's a reason the deep state have been pushing for a war anywhere they can start one..
It is not, in my opinion. The 1934 Bank of Canada Act gave the Canadian National Bank the ability to issue non-interest loans to federal, provincial and municipal governments for infrastructure projects. Such projects as the Saint Lawrence Seaway, the second largest naval fleet in the world prior to the US' late entrance into WWII and the Trans Canada Highway were a few such projects.
Even with such huge funding Canada's national debt had not been greater than
20.3 billion, which was the final year of using The Bank of Canada Act. The present Prime Minister's father, Pierre Trudeau, stopped using the national bank in this way for a seat on the G7. Canada is the only country in the G7 with a National Bank.
The practise then became making government loans from banks with compound interest. The following graph will show you the difference to the national debt this practise has made.
P.S. It should be mentioned that this was done just prior to the 80's double didget interest rates, coincidentally.
You misunderstand the big picture, my friend...
If you have to borrow and not produce, to make the economy - it's on borrowed time....
1o years or a 100 years - it's the same outcome.
Borrowed money cannot create a sustainable economy only spin plates..
...the 'hockey stick' is not just a product of the last decade or so - but the chickens coming home to roost from nearly a century... of this philosophy.
Look at the welath in the US - but it was destined to collapse because borrowed money is not a sustainable model..
A perfect example. In what way does all the money going into this project produce anything? (except war)
The money was taken from future generations labor production, via borrowing.
You seem to be missing my point. Borrowed money implies you are borrowing it from someone with interest. By today's standards that is the banks and the federal reserve in the case of the US. The debt incured through QE will eventually drag the economy down once the cost of servicing the debt increases due to the rise of rates.
In the example of Canada's National Bank there was the situation where the government owned bank prints more funds and distributed it to all levels of governments, interest free, for infrastructure projects.
If you don't feel that the Saint Lawrence Seaway or the Grand Coulee Dam have not paid for themselves many time over then we must simply see economics very differently.
Rothchilds banks...
Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada
Are you suggesting that the nationalized Bank of Canada is a Rothchilds' bank?
No, I was just pointing that out...I just did a quick search, is all.
Pointing what out?
The Rothschilds are in Canada...which is a very bad omen as to 'who' is running 'what' - behind the scenes.
only for a short period of time, it's not sustained, and will collapse at some point in the future - without extreme events to reset - war being the best one for that..
The grand coulee dam has been producing electricity for 2.3 million homes per year since coming online. You have a funny take on "only for a short period of time" and "it's not sustained". 😎
1942 , until to today is 70 years - ish.
In terms of a debt based system running full throttle - lets say 100 years...
Markets without this system ran for at least 4000 years.
('This system' meaning a financial industry , central banking and usury - compound interest in this context)
So in the scheme of things, and in context of civilization - anything post ww2 is short term. This doesn't make it sustainable - it's only 2 generations away...
For comparison, do you see the fossil fuel industry as 'for a short period of time'?
It is, relative to the history of man, and this also is probably not sustainable..
.....the cost of the dam is not repaid until 2044