Rick Salutin reviews a book that seems to be written for the new child-adult who has eaten too much candy and doesn't think it's fair they have to have a stomachache, or something. I suggest that rather than trying to avoid the consequences of our actions, which is not adult behaviour, we take up arms against a great fraud being perpetrated on us - which would be an adult thing to do.
Mr Salutin's column - Forgive us our debts
Rick: a couple of words -
- about your column - it sounds like the book is missing the most important debt fact of all, insofar as they apply to our current 'austerity based on debt' situation. Whatever things your writer has dragged out of history, it still seems obvious that in any honest, democratic society, debts made in good faith between two people ought to be repaid - it's only some kind of childish wish to avoid responsibility that would try to make a good thing out of avoiding honest debts (we are, of course, becoming a very childish and avoiding-responsibility sort of society these days - I'm a bit surprised to see them sucking you onto the bandwagon, however ...).
BUT - fraudulent debts are another matter. If a banker in some company-town, controlled, master-serf society allows you to sign over your children's lives to 'honor' (wink wink) some debt you take out, any honest court that might get called at some future time would toss such a 'debt' as soon as they heard about it, and probably be encouraging some other charges going the other way. Likewise if you promise to pay someone money for some item, but never get the item, and it turns out there never actually was any 'item' it was all just a big fraud, it's hard to imagine any (honest) court later telling you you owed the money, should the fraudulent seller come complaining about not receiving their money.
And then what about government 'debt', incurred in the name of people who never receive any benefit from such debt? Such as that arising from great loans given to various dictators around the world by the IMF or World Bank over the last 75 years, who then retired in great luxury to some other country after doing their bit to let one or another western country or corporation ravish their country, with the IMF then demanding the citizens impoverish themselves forever to 'honor' the debt? If you are unfamiliar with such things, you might check out the concept of 'odious debt' (you may know one of the main writers about this, a lady named Pat Adams (Odious Debt), or perhaps another lady named Susan George, who has also written widely on the idea - eg Down the Great Financial Drain: How debt and the Washington Consensus destroy development and create poverty).
In this article, Ms George says ".. Odious debts are those that were contracted not for the needs or the genuine interests of the State but in order to strengthen a despotic regime and to repress the population when it tries to rise up against such a regime..." - and I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate to change this only slightly, to something like ".. Odious debts include debts that were contracted not for the needs or the genuine interests of the people of the country, but in order to fraudulently transfer very large amounts of tax money from the citizens of that country to a wealthy elite which controlled the government, and which undertook to construct very large, and very unnecessary, government 'debts' to achieve this purpose, with other desirable spin off effects such as deconstructing the progressive, democratic programs of the country in the name of 'dealing with the debt', and etc..."
As Ms Adams and Ms George wrote about the odious third world debt, I have some talk on the Cdn odious debt situation here - What Happened? . It's pretty obvious and undeniable once you understand what has been going on.
Let me explain briefly - imagine a society where 'money' is not based on any commodity like gold or corn, as earlier money systems were, but is just, basically, a big accounting system, where you get 'credits' for work done, or things sold or services performed - just entries in a big accounting book, that you can then transfer to other people to pay for things, either via straightforward transfers from one account to another, or via little pieces of paper which represent some of the credits in the system. Which is basically the kind of system we have today. Such a system will still involve 'loans', as people wish to have some credits entered into their accounts 'now' that they have not really 'earned' yet, but will pay back over the next few months or years - credits for big things like a mortgage, or smaller things like a car or vacation loan. The people looking after the account books evaluate the loan applicee and decide whether or not they actually can and will pay the credit created for them back or not - assuming the applicee passes the process, the new credit is put into their account.
Now - the thing you need to ask yourself - since such 'credits' are simply accounting entries created out of thin air, like the points you give someone at a sports contest - why should the bank which creates this new credit then be allowed to charge 'interest' on this 'credit' they have just essentially created out of thin air??? By what possible justification can a private business justify collecting $200,000 in 'real' money from someone for which the only 'service' they have actually provided was entering $100,000 in 'credit' created out of thin air into an account?
And this leads to a much, much bigger and more important question - when a government finds itself short of money, or 'credits' - why should a commercial bank be allowed to create credit and put it in the government account at interest, rather than have the (supposedly) "sovereign" government create the credit itself, via the 'state' bank (which should be the democratically-controlled outfit looking after all credit creation in the country, to ensure private businesses and entrepreneurs, whose very enshrined-in-law credo is maxing profit with no concern about what happens to everyone else, do not get a bit crazy with their credit-creation power, and cause instability in the country through various things such as creating too much credit for speculation, etc?
Well, I won't go on, you're obviously smart enough to understand this, if you want to - it just seems that most people allowed to write in the mainstream media choose to not understand this great fraud, or at least to write about it. But just in case you have not heard of this before, I thought I'd drop you a note about it. (and if for some reason you have tasted and found persuasive the standard dogma to the question of the last paragraph, that 'OMG, governments can not be trusted with money creation! - they just print trillions trying to buy votes, and cause massive financial problems!!' - well, first, imagine Michael Wilson, Paul Martin or Jim Flaherty doing such an irresponsible thing - and secondly, for the last 30+ years, we have had private control of the money-credit-accounting system - and that is exactly what they have done, created massive amounts of credit for no other reason than rampant speculation, leading to the current world financial meltdown - a money-credit-accounting system controlled democratically, overseen by aware, engaged citizens who understood what was going on, could hardly do worse - and would almost certainly ensure we had a credit-accounting system that was organised to be much, much more stable for everyone - most citizens would be managing the money-accounting system with the objective of creating and maintaining a stable economy, rather than creating great amounts of 'credit' for speculation of various sorts, attacks on other currencies, creating asset inflation bubbles they hoped to get rich from, etc etc - the major activities of a privately controlled credit-accounting system whose only goal is maxing their profit through manipulating the system in ways of very questionable legality or justification, with no regard to how the resulting inflation and chaos negatively impact millions of average citizens ...)
Good luck -
(PS - I was going to write a short note in the comments section of your article - until I got quite a shock - after writing this (shorter) comment (than the above letter) and trying to post it, I find the Star is now allowing only about 300 *characters* in their comments !!!!!!!! - what in the F***!! can you possibly say of any use or depth or intelligence in 30 words????? - I haven't entirely figured this out yet, but it's become obvious the last couple of years that the "lefty" places (Star and CBC - actually pseudo-lefty, but that's stuff for another comment) are much more authoritarian in their approach to pushing people into acceptance of the NWO - at least the NP and Globe and Macleans and other 'openly' business-libertarian media allow longer comments, and are also FAR less inclined to censor things Big Mother does NOT want the children talking about - things like having a better understanding of what is going on with 'our' banking system, or the role of the media in 'guiding' the way people in Canada think. )
(I have ongoing observations on what is going on in Canada here, if you have any interest on comments that never find their way into the pages of the Star - the View from Green Island ) (including a copy of this letter, which I quite understand there is no point in sending to the Star ...)