Subject: Government Update on Teachers (Nova Scotia Liberal Party)

DennisTate · Jan 26, 2017

Please notice what trend began in the 1990's:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/provincial-government-canada-organization-institutions-issues

Beginning in the 1970s, however, the federal government has steadily decreased its share of the financial costs for many of these programs. In the late-1990s, in particular, the federal government drastically offloaded much of the costs to the provinces in an attempt to eliminate the federal deficit. This, in turn, placed massive financial pressures on the provinces, as they were faced with escalating overall costs for provincial social programs and dwindling federal transfers in support of these programs. During the late-1900s and early into the 21st century, provinces experienced rising annual deficits and ever ballooning debt loads. In recent years, the federal government has begun to increase its fiscal transfers to the provinces, particularly in the area of health care (although, the economic crisis beginning in late-2008, and the pressures it will place on federal finances, may reverse this trend). Nevertheless, federal support remains far short of its original commitments, and some provinces continue to struggle to pay for the ever-increasing costs of social services.
Click to expand...

Three economists explain why this happened.....

http://www.michaeljournal.org/artic...ce-our-country-debt-free-say-three-economists

The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free Say Three Economists

...........Since the mid-1970s, however, the Bank of Canada, with government consent, has been creating less and less of the new money, while letting the private banks create more and more. Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government and of course you and me, as well with outrageously high interest rates. And it is these extortionate interest charges that are the principal cause of the rapid escalation of the national debt. If the federal government were paying interest at the average levels that prevailed from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, it would now be running an operating surplus of about $13 billion!
Click to expand...

....

Many economists rail against «wage push», and it's true that wages have risen by 2,700% over the past 50 years. But in the same period government tax revenue went up by 3,400%, and net interest by 26,000%! Yet, most of the economic textbooks that deplore rising wages don't even mention the tax and interest pushes. And it is not because they are complex ideas rather, they are simple and obvious but because it would be so embarrassing for economists to admit they've made a boner of such magnitude: that their theory of monetary policy violates basic principles of scientific logic.

The creation of money

One of the most pervasive myths about the government deficit is that governments which spend more than they receive in revenue must borrow the difference, thus increasing the public debt.

In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.

Business and the conservatives in politics and the media are horrified by the suggestion that the government exercise its right to create more money. They claim it would precipitate another ruinous bout of inflation.

But money creation is money creation whether by a private bank or the Bank of Canada. And a government in debt only to the government's own bank is not really in debt at all. If it wants to go through the rigamarole of having the Treasury «borrow» from the central bank and later pay interest, that is a minor matter of bookkeeping. As long as the central bank's profits are returned to the Treasury, the results are much the same as if the Treasury had created the money itself.

There is no reason why the growth of Canada's money supply (averaging about $22 billion annually in recent years) could not be more substantially created by the Bank of Canada. If that policy had been followed, the federal government would not have been obliged to add to its debts to pay interest on old debts. Instead, the Bank of Canada has produced barely 2% of the money added in recent years, while the chartered banks added the rest as they made loans to households, businesses, and all levels of government. At the very least, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks should share the privilege of creating money on a 50-50 basis.

Those who dismiss such a proposal as «inflationary» should be required to explain why it would be more inflationary for the government's bank to create $11 billion and the private banks $11 billion, rather than the present practice of having the government's bank create $0.7 billion and the private banks $21.3 billion!

Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney-era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation.

.....(by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia, 1995)
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Jan 31, 2017

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

Thank you, Dennis, again, for the kind words. being from the US I'm a lot more familiar with our system than that of Canada's. The biggest difference I'm aware of (today) is how we set interest rates. The US has a 10% reserve requirement, Canada has none, however, it's relly important to understand that the reserve requirement is just a mechanism by which the Fed controls interest rates.

I run across a lot of people that believe that reserve requirements are a "reserves" of cash that banks hold in the event of bank runs. This simply isn't true and it's not how the banking system works.

The other thing that people generally believe is that the "market determines the interest rates based on the supply/ demand of loanable funds".

Again, this is another myth held over from the period prior to 1971 when the US formally broke from the gold standard. Today banks aren't constrained in making loans by a number of customer deposits or by the amount of reserves they have on hand. There are three basic things that constrain a bank when it wants to lend in order of significance.

1) Credit-worthy borrowers

2) Regulations that can increase or decrease the regulations that determine what a "credit-worthy" borrower is. That is, if the government decreases standards, there will be more credit-worthy borrowers, if it increases standards, there will be fewer.

3)The banks operating capital. This is harder to describe to the layperson as there are several "layers", so I will just say very briefly, that banks must have investors who invest with their "real" money. A bank must have more capital than it has liabilities.

Thus, there is no crowding out of lendable funds when the government borrows. However, I believe that it is, however, possible for the government to crowd out resources, but that's another issue entirely with certain positives and negatives.
Click to expand...

Econ4Every1.. I so thank you for inspiring me to get digging into all of this again.....
I just found verification for a statement that I made back in 2006 that is at the heart and
core of the dispute between the NSTU and the McNeil provincial government:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=492235&p=1067059039#post1067059039
Kevin O'Leary on how to make Canada more energy independent"

DennisTate said: ↑

Econ4Every1, did I just find verification for a statement that I made back in 2006?

http://bankingsystemflaws.blogspot.ca

My name is Dennis Tate. I lived most of my forty seven years in West Lochiel Lake, Guysborough County. I am running for MLA as an independent in the area of Pictou Centre so that I can help as many people as possible become more aware of what I am sure is the real reason why our roads are in disrepair, why hospital beds are unused, why so many of the rural schools have been shut down, why our soldiers in Afghanistan are poorly equipped and why many if not most of our young people may have to leave Nova Scotia to find jobs.

When well trained workers have high quality technology to work with then the total of all wages and benefits paid out to employees is only a fraction of the retail value of the products they produce. As a result of this fact the only way to move products out of warehouses is to extend higher and higher levels of credit. One problem with an abundance of red ink is that compound interest on all this government, business and personal debt over a period of decades will grow to astronomical levels. At this time there is approximately TEN TIMES as much debt in Canada as there is money. A simple explanation for how this happened can be seen here:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty34.htm

In my opinion this rather simple mathematical problem is perhaps the number one cause of inflation in the Canadian economy over the past three decades. This is also perhaps the number one reason why our costs of production are so high and Canadian products cannot compete on the world markets as well as they could under better conditions.

From 1940 to 1970 the Government of Canada put roughly half of the total money supply into the economy through loans issued through the federally owned Bank of Canada. Provincial and municipal governments could borrow the money to build roads, schools, hospitals and sewage treatment facilities at zero or one percent interest. In 1970 we changed our system and since that time a higher and higher percentage of all government debt is financed through loans issued through privately owned banks. At this time it is ninety eight percent. This policy may be great for our banking sector but it was estimated that in the one year of 1995 alone our federal government could have saved roughly SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments if we had gone back to creating half the total money supply through these low interest rate loans issued through the bank that is OWNED BY ALL CANADIANS.

Considering that our deficit was approximately thirty billion dollars for that year, simply by changing back to an already proven monetary and banking system, we could theoretically have had a FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS OF THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 1995.
Click to expand...

The rather crucial sentence that I bolded and enlarged is the one that I
believe I have found verification for:

http://www.michaeljournal.org/artic...ce-our-country-debt-free-say-three-economists

The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free Say Three Economists
on Wednesday, 01 March 1995. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia

.....

Governments these days find it easy to defend cuts in services and programs. All they have to do is point to their annual deficits and their total accumulated debts. (As of March, 1994, Canada's public debt was about $546 billion.) This public debt provides the politicians with a convenient excuse for cutting spending or raising taxes. Or both. «We're broke,» they tell us plaintively. «We can't afford to increase public services, or even keep them at their present level.»
Click to expand...

.....

Also raised by this policy, of course, is the income of the money-lenders, which explains why they subscribe so fervently to the perverse doctrine that high interest rates are somehow anti-inflationary. Certainly the world's bankers and other money-lenders have gained much from the nonsensical notion that, while giving workers a big raise is inflationary, giving money-lenders a big raise is not.

Many economists rail against «wage push», and it's true that wages have risen by 2,700% over the past 50 years. But in the same period government tax revenue went up by 3,400%, and net interest by 26,000%! Yet, most of the economic textbooks that deplore rising wages don't even mention the tax and interest pushes. And it is not because they are complex ideas rather, they are simple and obvious but because it would be so embarrassing for economists to admit they've made a boner of such magnitude: that their theory of monetary policy violates basic principles of scientific logic.
Click to expand...

So Econ4Every1..... does this statistic that net interest is up by 26,000% essentially verify my
statement from my 2006 campaign as an independent for the office of M. L. A?
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Feb 6, 2017

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

We discussed local currencies just briefly, but I wonder if, in the long run, it creates as many problems as it solves.

Remember, the economy is kind of like a swimming pool. It's best when it's filled up close to the top but not overflowing. The government's job is simply to monitor the level of the "pool" and turn on the faucet (new money) or open the drain (taxes) in order to keep the "pool" filled to the optimal level.

Local currencies might make for an improvement in one locality, but it might result in things being worse somewhere else. I'm not entirely against what you're doing as I really don't have any evidence on how it will affect the economy overall, but the one thing I have learned is that every transaction in the economy can be viewed from at least 2 points-of-view. It's very easy to see a positive and miss the negative.

One of the best examples is the idea of "saving money". Nothing wrong with saving money, right? But when a person decides to save rather than spend, someone isn't earning an income they otherwise would have. The Marco Economy is about looking at economics mostly from a national level. About making the nation strong so all it's citizens can get in sync and share the benifits.
Click to expand...

Here is one example of how a local currency,
or perhaps even a political party currency, could perhaps be used:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=492083&p=1067083542#post1067083542

Kevin O'Leary's Conservative leadership bid should target 'eager' millennials...

................

DennisTate said: ↑

Mr. Kevin O'Leary and team:

In the past you gained a reputation for
basically being anti-union. Some unions though are
different than others. The Nova Scotia Teacher's Union for example represents
a group of workers who are known for going far beyond the call of duty.

Here are my own comments on the NSTU conflict with the
Nova Scotia Liberal government back on December 5, 2016:

http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...ate-teachers-nova-scotia-liberal-party-2.html

Thread: Subject: Government Update on Teachers (Nova Scotia Liberal Party)

Mr. O'Leary.....
the relatively underutilized expertise of thousands of retired teachers in the one
province of Nova Scotia is worth multiple millions of dollars. If a way was found to inspire retired teachers to take on more students, under conditions significantly better than before they retired, this could be a win - win - win - win initiative for all concerned.

Technically...... a Conservative Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar could be used
to increase, focus, organize and improve the efficiency of tutoring of students by retired teachers.

This sounds to me like a database problem that many of your friends may be extremely interested in tackling?
Click to expand...

Econ4Every1.... do you have any friends or contacts who you think might be
willing to initiate some form of local currency, (the gang on Big Bang Theory had a printed currency
based on the idea of their apartment being a micro-nation).

Political leaders have to worry so much about conflict of interest that
it is much easier for the private sector to tackle an opportunity like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Start_Your_Own_Country

How to Start Your Own Country

DennisTate · May 2, 2017

DennisTate said: ↑

Last week I was pleasantly surprised..... and quite frankly emotionally moved to receive
a reply directly from Hon. Jamie Baillie, FCPA, MLA
Leader of the Opposition

Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: In response to your email of December 19, 2016

Dear Mr. Tate,

Thank you for your email regarding the labour impasse between the McNeil Liberals and Nova Scotia teachers. I am disappointed that this situation has been allowed to get to this point.

Premier McNeil made a decision that will have long lasting consequences for students, parents and teachers in our province. He was unable to negotiate with teachers and caused the first ever, province-wide teachers job action.

Stephen McNeil locked students out of classrooms. He has had months to address potential job action and could not even plan for that and left parents scrambling to find child care while teachers sit in empty classrooms. Quite simply, we will not be a party to such incompetence.

With a completely poisoned relationship, it is now clear that under his government, classroom conditions will not get better. Student outcomes will continue to suffer. The blame for this mess rests squarely on the shoulders of Premier McNeil.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me.

Sincerely,

Hon. Jamie Baillie, FCPA, MLA
Leader of the Opposition
Click to expand...

(I plead guilty to using perhaps an extra large font for Mr. Bailley's message because frankly.......
this is one of the most thorough replies that I have ever received from a major political leader.... and.....
I am extremely impressed that he replied directly to me).
Click to expand...

The election is on for May 30 and the fact that Mr. Jaimie Baillie personally
replied to my e-mail and gave me permission to repost his message here
is another significant reason why I will be voting for Mr. Rob Wolf on May 30.

DennisTate · Nov 17, 2017

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

Thank you, Dennis, again, for the kind words. being from the US I'm a lot more familiar with our system than that of Canada's. The biggest difference I'm aware of (today) is how we set interest rates. The US has a 10% reserve requirement, Canada has none, however, it's relly important to understand that the reserve requirement is just a mechanism by which the Fed controls interest rates.

I run across a lot of people that believe that reserve requirements are a "reserves" of cash that banks hold in the event of bank runs. This simply isn't true and it's not how the banking system works.

The other thing that people generally believe is that the "market determines the interest rates based on the supply/ demand of loanable funds".

Again, this is another myth held over from the period prior to 1971 when the US formally broke from the gold standard. Today banks aren't constrained in making loans by a number of customer deposits or by the amount of reserves they have on hand. There are three basic things that constrain a bank when it wants to lend in order of significance.

1) Credit-worthy borrowers

2) Regulations that can increase or decrease the regulations that determine what a "credit-worthy" borrower is. That is, if the government decreases standards, there will be more credit-worthy borrowers, if it increases standards, there will be fewer.

3)The banks operating capital. This is harder to describe to the layperson as there are several "layers", so I will just say very briefly, that banks must have investors who invest with their "real" money. A bank must have more capital than it has liabilities.

Thus, there is no crowding out of lendable funds when the government borrows. However, I believe that it is, however, possible for the government to crowd out resources, but that's another issue entirely with certain positives and negatives.
Click to expand...

At my school there was a meeting of the NSTU last week.

I can imagine that the mood in the room might not have been euphoric
considering the events of the past year.

I am about to send off an email to several teachers who are active in the NSTU on a possible way for them
to pay off the provincial debt of Nova Scotia, then Canada, then the USA and Israel and all of Canada's allies.

I feel that this must be done though through the private sector......
I am thinking of a film production company and cooperative and kibbutz.......
and we Canadians weigh in on USA politics.... and encourage Ms. Oprah Winfrey to team up
with MMT proponent Chris Brown......
and court Chris to become her V. P. candidate for the 2020 election.

The artistic value in this proposed campaign is certainly worth hundreds of millions......
but I am thinking in terms of 4.3 trillion dollars US!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...esident-trump-in-2020.518678/#post-1068271217

MMT proponent Chris Brown for DNC national leader to face President Trump in 2020.

DennisTate said: ↑

MMT is a theory that can be profoundly offensive to any of us.......
because the implications are astonishing........... I do have a problem with MMT myself......
it is too complicated.

It is easier to just come right out and admit that monetary policy.....
at the highest levels..... is something like a cruel joke on the ignorant masses?!

Here is a quotation from my 2008 campaign:

http://bankingsystemsflaws.blogspot.ca

You would be astonished how many of our political leaders do not understand the tremendous benefits of historical Canadian monetary policy.
Click to expand...

.....
http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenB.htm

"Why was a much larger national debt shrugged off in 1945, while today's much smaller debt (as a percentage of GDP) is being used as an excuse to let the economy stagnate?"

"The answer can be found at the Bank of Canada. During the war, and for 30 years afterward, the government could borrow what it needed at low rates of interest, because the government's own bank produced up to half of all the new money. That forced the private banks to keep their interest rates low, too.

"Since the mid-1970s, however, the Bank of Canada, with government consent, has been creating less and less of the new money, while letting the private banks create more and more. Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government — and of course you and me, as well — with outrageously high interest rates. And it is these extortionate interest charges that are the principal cause of the rapid escalation of the national debt. If the federal government were paying interest at the average levels that prevailed from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, it would now be running an operating surplus of about $13 billion!"

..... "Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney- era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation.

"It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free. "(by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia) .
Click to expand...

One of the implications of MMT is that we Canadians.....
are in a position to pay off the national debt of the USA over the next three decades......
because the national debt of the USA is something of a cruel joke anyway?!

I would like to add another couple of paragraphs from that same article by the three economists:

Also raised by this policy, of course, is the income of the money-lenders, which explains why they subscribe so fervently to the perverse doctrine that high interest rates are somehow anti-inflationary. Certainly the world's bankers and other money-lenders have gained much from the nonsensical notion that, while giving workers a big raise is inflationary, giving money-lenders a big raise is not.

“Many economists rail against «wage push», and it's true that wages have risen by 2,700% over the past 50 years. But in the same period government tax revenue went up by 3,400%, and net interest by 26,000%! Yet, most of the economic textbooks that deplore rising wages don't even mention the tax and interest pushes. And it is not because they are complex ideas — rather, they are simple and obvious — but because it would be so embarrassing for economists to admit they've made a boner of such magnitude: that their theory of monetary policy violates basic principles of scientific logic."
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DennisTate · Feb 13, 2018

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/nova-scotia-teachers-union-president-calls-for-strike-vote-1.3802081

Nova Scotia Teachers Union president calls for strike vote

CTV Atlantic
Published Tuesday, February 13, 2018 5:59PM AST
Nova Scotia’s public school teachers could be headed toward an illegal strike.

The Nova Scotia Teachers Union released a memo to members Tuesday informing them that a strike vote will be held in one week. The union is not in a legal strike position.

In a statement, union president Liette Doucet says the education system is “under attack from the McNeil government.” The statement explains that the union is asking for a strike mandate from members if the government goes ahead with implementing recommendations from a recent report by Avis Glaze.

The government says it plans to implement all 22 of the recommendations in Glaze’s report, including two particularly controversial changes. Education Minister Zach Churchill says the Liberals will introduce legislation in the spring sitting to eliminate all English-language school boards and to remove principals, vice-principals, and other managers from the NSTU.

The legislature resumes sitting on Feb. 27. The NSTU strike vote will be held Feb. 20.

On Feb. 17, 2017, the NSTU held a one-day strike as the McNeil government passed Bill 75, which imposed a contract on the 9,300 public school teachers. That emergency sitting of the legislature came after three tentative contracts were rejected by the NSTU membership.
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Feb 17, 2018

Econ4Every1 said: ↑

We discussed local currencies just briefly, but I wonder if, in the long run, it creates as many problems as it solves.

Remember, the economy is kind of like a swimming pool. It's best when it's filled up close to the top but not overflowing. The government's job is simply to monitor the level of the "pool" and turn on the faucet (new money) or open the drain (taxes) in order to keep the "pool" filled to the optimal level.

Local currencies might make for an improvement in one locality, but it might result in things being worse somewhere else. I'm not entirely against what you're doing as I really don't have any evidence on how it will affect the economy overall, but the one thing I have learned is that every transaction in the economy can be viewed from at least 2 points-of-view. It's very easy to see a positive and miss the negative.

One of the best examples is the idea of "saving money". Nothing wrong with saving money, right? But when a person decides to save rather than spend, someone isn't earning an income they otherwise would have. The Marco Economy is about looking at economics mostly from a national level. About making the nation strong so all it's citizens can get in sync and share the benifits.
Click to expand...

What I would love to see is a Truro, N. S., Canada Volunteerism Hour printed up........
and a Sderot, Israel Volunteerism Hour printed up........
(and / or organized through a database).......
and then residents of Truro and Sderot compete with each other........
to provide more valuable services to each other..... . than is being provided by their competition in the other nation.........

I can put into this a lot more than you might at first imagine..........

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/exodus-usa.520741/

Exodus USA

Log in or Sign up

Subject: Government Update on Teachers (Nova Scotia Liberal Party)

Did P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau make a serious error in 1974?

No..... P. M. Pierre Trudeau was our best Prime Minister ever!

Yes... we all make mistakes!

Yes... but his error was good for the environment and confederation.

Maybe... I am researching this further!

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Subject: Government Update on Teachers (Nova Scotia Liberal Party)

Did P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau make a serious error in 1974?

No..... P. M. Pierre Trudeau was our best Prime Minister ever!

Yes... we all make mistakes!

Yes... but his error was good for the environment and confederation.

Maybe... I am researching this further!

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches