All posts by UNDERSTANDING Canada

The Psychopathic Roots of Exponential Interest Rates

There is an intentional imbalance in every monetary system, it is intertwined with the capitalist economic system and pushes it forward, and this imbalance is a direct reflection of the imbalance inside the people that devise and maintain the system that controls us all.

When banks make a loan of any kind, whether for a business loan, mortgage, credit card, or line of credit, they are creating new money right then and there.  Loans create money, repaying loans deletes money. 

The vast majority of money in the economy is created by banks when they lend.  When the bank gives you a loan you get an new asset (the money) matched equally with a new liability (the loan).  However, what is not matched on both sides of the balance sheet is the interest the loan has on it.  The money to pay the interest does not exist in the system, the system must constantly expand over time to cover the payment of interest.

The fact the money to pay the interest is not created along with the loan, leaving a constant imbalance in the system, is the core aspect of the monetary system that drives the growth economy. New debts pay off old debts in a never-ending spiral (it truly is a Ponzi scheme), but what allows for the continued expansion of all that is the continued expansion of the population and resource extraction. New people and new resources from which wealth can be extracted means new debts can be created at a level capable of paying off old debts.

But if growth slows down for any reason, like the global birth rate leveling off the last 40 years, or a natural disaster, or because people are consuming less to have less of an impact on the planet, or because consumers are so over-indebted they simply can’t afford new stuff, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Such is the folly of a debt-based monetary system, especially one that uses compound interest, because then the economic growth must also be exponential to overcome the exponentially growing debt.

This is not the first time in recent history we’ve started bumping up against the limits of such an unsustainable system. The last time was during the profitability crisis of the late 60s/early 70s (here’s an excellent US perspective that also traces the roots of neoliberalism). A profitability crisis ensues when corporations aren’t pulling in enough revenue to cover all their debts potentially leading to insolvency, and avoiding such a “crisis” is why the federal government’s primary concern is feeding the corporate profit machine.

Due to high public expectations and in part to strengthening unions, workers had been making serious gains in the post-war period, taking a larger and larger share of the wealth created in the economy and leaving less for the owners of capital. This was the golden age of capitalism into which the Boomers were born, and all that growth also required alot of progressive investments by government, like new hospitals and schools, and as the Boomers aged, new universities too. This was all well and good as long as the unprecedented economic growth of the post-war period kept on chugging.

But the debt-based monetary system requires EXPONENTIAL growth, it wasn’t even a matter of keeping pace with previous years, the economy was required to somehow grow FASTER. Except by the late 60s/early 70s “secular stagnation” was setting in, a completely natural ebb of economic growth. But the system was not designed to ebb; it was designed to be an ever increasing flow upwards into the pockets of the wealthy elite.

So, what was the reaction of capital to the profitability crisis resulting from this natural and unavoidable secular stagnation? Well that was the birth of “neoliberalism”, an ideology hell bent on turning EVERYTHING into a marketable commodity in a “free” market that was to be influenced as little as possible by government.

The OPEC oil crisis hit (1973), inflation soared, and the elite saw an opportunity in the crisis to regain the power they had before WWII. Wage and price controls were instituted in the US and Canada, and you can see on a chart how from that point (1975) onward productivity kept going up while wages have completely stagnated.

Another way to look at it is labour terms of trade:

Which is why since 1975 the incomes of the wealthy elite have gone up so much more quickly than workers: as the pie expands labour’s slice remains the same size. In the post-war period labour gained too much share of the profits, the elite had to regain their lion’s share.

The “free” market fetish at the core of neoliberalism also entails circumscribing government by actively and openly advocating for retrenchment, regardless of how socially destructive austerity has proven. This has taken many forms over the last 40 years, from demonizing and restricting deficit spending, to privatization after privatization of public assets, to trade agreements that are little more than corporate power agreements, to the rise of public-private partnerships, to simply slashing and burning the public service (like the 25% across-the-board cuts of Chrétien in the 90s).

In a neoliberal context, government’s only priority is to facilitate the profits of the private sector, THAT is government’s only purpose: providing a stable labour force and maintaining a profitable environment for our largest corporations (and by extension maintaining the wealth and power of the elite).  Education is not about enriching lives and enlightening minds, it’s about training a competent workforce.  Healthcare is not about keeping people well, it’s about maintaining a healthy and reliable workforce.  All of the seemingly benevolent bandaids and handouts dribbled out by government are designed to be just enough to stop people rioting over the problem, but never enough to solve anything.

Turn to today, with growth slowing the last decade in another bout of incurable secular stagnation that rock bottom interest rates cannot stimulate, what have all the big banks and companies been doing to keep the debt machine chugging? Well if the real (physical) economy can’t provide the growth they need, they turn to shadow banking and the speculation of the global casino of financial markets, markets which have become completely unhinged from reality.

The irony is that now investments in completely virtual financial products are considered “less risky” than investments in actual physical ventures, because something physical has to work in reality to succeed, but if it only exists in the virtual realm they don’t have to worry about reality getting in the way. That was the root of the 08/09 GFC, too many entities desperate for investment earnings went after what looked like a sure thing on paper, when it had zero connection to the reality crumbling beneath it. Once reality caught up with the paper, it all came crashing down.

Speaking of mortgages, the other solution for the elite having too much money and not enough places to grow it is to put it into physical assets, like real estate, bidding up the prices to incredibly inflated highs in desired areas. This is why housing has gone through the roof in some markets, because of the amount of speculation. Worst are not the house flippers, but investors who have so much money they simply sit on vacant homes for years waiting for the need to sell.

Between tax avoidance and ever-lowering corporate tax rates the wealthy elite have managed to keep their profits rolling in at the desired pace, but that leaves the remaining burden of debt on governments, and we’re seeing that worldwide. Every government is burdened with debt and starved for revenue because they keep bending over backwards to reduce costs for corporations in order to spur economic growth that never happens. All that happens is the growth of wealth for the elite.

And a portion of that growth in wealth comes from the government bonds that the wealthy and corporations line their investment portfolios with! So instead of taxes removing the need to sell bonds to fund government spending, they cut taxes and sell the bonds to the very entities that use the money they saved from lower taxes to buy the bonds! Imagine that deal if you would:

  1. government gives wealthy/corporations a tax cut
  2. now government is short of revenues to spend and so must raise money selling bonds
  3. government sells bonds to the wealthy/corporations who buy the bonds using their tax savings
  4. government uses the proceeds from bond sales to spend on the public, but now owes interest to bondholders, interest on money the wealthy/corporations wouldn’t have had to buy the bonds with if they were taxed properly in the first place!

Isn’t it simply diabolical that our governments turn tax cuts into not just a savings for corporations and the wealthy, but then also make an interest-earning investment out of it for them, allowing them to double dip? They get their tax savings, and some interest earnings to boot. Now, if cutting those taxes actually resulted in positive economic results for all they could be justified, but supply-side or “trickle down” economics has been proven unequivocally a failure of neoliberalism. If that doesn’t lay bare the inequity of the system I don’t know what does.

Today we’ve reached the limits of our exponential interest debt-based monetary system and the growth economy. Not just because infinite exponential growth on a planet with finite resources was always an unbalanced equation and our consumption is killing the planet, but because we’re simply coming to a natural plateau as a species.

The global fertility rate is now 2.4, replacement value is 2.1, we aren’t creating enough people to satisfy the growth economy and its pre-existing debt. We need an economic system that is FLEXIBLE, that can ebb and flow with the natural ebb and flow a species should have (no species on the planet save humans expands century after century displacing and extinguishing hundreds of species in its tracks).

I am actively trying to devise such a system, the problem is there’s simply no room for billionaires in a sustainable system. I don’t say that simply because I want a more equitable system or because billionaires are just elite psychopaths (unless you inherited it, you can’t become a billionaire without heartlessly and grossly exploiting masses of people).  I say it because the ability of the billionaire to extract that much wealth, and their ability to command the resources that wealth buys, is too large an imbalance, their wealth extraction and resource consumption doesn’t leave room for a sustainable circular economy. The planet simply doesn’t have room for psychopath billionaires.

In the end, bad debts can be written off, companies and people can go bankrupt, but that’s not a reset or even a bandage. It’s a peek at the truth: that our neoliberal capitalist system is one of exploitation of the masses by the elite, a wealth vacuum for the ultra-rich. Yes, regular folk get some benefits from that system too, but that’s just to keep them happy and distracted and not straying from their role as labour creating wealth for capital. Not to mention those benefits for regular folk have been shrinking ever since neoliberalism set in, the gains by labour of the post-war period are being eroded, there are more renters and less owners of property, and you can see on a chart how the middle class is shrinking. We’re slowly returning to feudalism.

Here’s the kicker:

My concrete conclusion after years of studying the history of politics and economics through the lens of psychology is that we are ruled in all corners by textbook non-violent elite psychopaths. The Stephen Harpers, Rob/Doug Fords, and Donald Trumps of this world are a prime example. And if the person in charge is not themselves a psychopath (as I believe Trudeau is not), it’s only because they’re the puppet of billionaire psychopaths (like the Bronfman family that run the Liberal Party). Really, you can look at just about ANY leadership across the world, whether political or business, and you find psychopaths dominating. That’s why supranational corporations behave like psychopaths: it’s just a reflection of the people running the show.

If you want to reach the end of the rabbit hole, the unifying theory that explains ALL the evil and inequity in the world, read about psychopaths. Not all psychopaths are evil, but directly or indirectly all evils started with a psychopath. Here’s a few books on the topic should this pique your interest:

Political Ponerology by Andrzej Łobaczewski

The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Kevin Dutton

Without Conscience by Robert Hare

The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson

Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare and Paul Babiak

How did talking about interest rates evolve into a diatribe about psychopaths you might ask?  It actually gets to the heart of the system, the WHY.  Why would we use a monetary system that is inherently unbalanced and unsustainable, requiring impossible infinite growth on a finite planet, in a globalized era of modern technology and instant communication, when we know for a fact we are pushing against the ecological limits of our growth as a species? Are bankers, economists, and politicians all really that short-sighted, or, just like the behaviour of corporations, is the structure of our monetary and economic system just a reflection of the psychopaths running it?

Psychopaths do not feel emotions as regular people do, they have a bottomless black hole where there emotions should be. Imagine if you can, knowing an emotion in your head, like happiness, sadness, guilt or remorse, but not feeling it in your body (which is why we call them “feelings” in the first place, we actually have a physical reaction to emotions we can feel in our gut).  Psychopaths spend their lives trying to fill this hole, but it’s unfillable, they stuff more and more into the hole with no effect, the hole is still empty. But they can’t simply stop trying to fill the hole; everyone with a hole in their life tries to fill it. Some unfortunate people without support try and fill that hole with booze or drugs, whereas many folk often find a hole in their life filled by family, friends, community, or religion, unlike psychopaths, whose hole is simply unfillable, they are insatiable.

This bottomless black hole where their feelings should be is what drives psychopaths to risky behaviour.  In striving to feel something, anything, the closest they can get is adrenaline and/or dopamine, and so they seek out risky and/or pleasurable behaviour.  They are also incredibly charming and manipulative and gravitate towards positions of power.  The saying “power corrupts” is a specious truism few question, despite the fact it’s a complete myth.  Power does not corrupt, the corrupt seek power.  Everywhere there is a position of power, you can bet there’s a psychopath vying for it, it’s one of the many ways they try in vain to fill that unfillable black hole.

And THAT is why the system is paradoxically based on infinite exponential growth in a finite system: it’s a direct reflection of the unfillable black hole existing in the elite psychopaths running the system. The system is built by psychopaths for psychopaths, ever since we left behind our hunter-gatherer ways for civilization psychopaths have been gaming things in their favour and taking and consolidating power every chance they get.

In a lot of ways civilization itself facilitates psychopathy, and in all likelihood was started by a psychopath hoarding fertile land and exploiting others to labour for their benefit.  It’s really hard for a psychopath to selfishly exploit and monopolize in a hunter-gatherer group where the group’s survival depends on group cooperation and everyone knows everyone intimately.  But in a city of millions, where you can back stab and climb your way to the top leaving destruction in your wake with impunity, psychopaths find themselves right at home.

Regular folk have little chance against psychopaths, the system is designed by them for them, and the ONLY way to rise to the top is to either be a ruthless psychopath or be willing to act like one to compete with all the other elite psychopaths. I know a few people high up in corporations who just couldn’t hack it anymore because of their psychopathic bosses and the psychopathic decisions they were forced to make.

One fellow in particular, who was a highly paid corporate executive who was slowly eating and drinking himself to death, had to quit after his boss was telling him to fire people for reasons that made a little sense in the short term (to save money) but no sense in the long term (because half the sales team would be gone before their usual clients were buying in). Classic psychopathic behaviour: seeking immediate reward regardless of long term consequences.

EVERYTHING about the structure of our system is rooted in the need for elite psychopaths to constantly fill their unfillable hole. Missing their emotions means psychopaths are inherently unbalanced by nature, hence the system they designed being inherently unbalanced by nature. And we’re all being dragged along for the ride. I for one would like to get off the psychopath’s treadmill and walk at my own pace, instead of the pace set by the endless hunger of an emotionless bottomless black pit.

By Adam Smith, 21st Century


“We’ll be passing the bill to the next generation!”
“We’re indebting the future of Canadians!”

“Higher deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow!”

“We’re living beyond our means!”


Oh the ironic baseless cries and fear mongering about federal debt and deficit!  Ironic because federal debt and deficits have actually been the key to our growth and prosperity, baseless and nothing to be feared because we’re a nation that is monetarily sovereign and owns its central bank.  Which means through the Bank of Canada the federal government controls the Canadian dollar and can independently create at will as much of it as we need at any point in time. 

Don’t take it from me, here it is from the feds, “As the nation’s central bank, the Bank [of Canada] is the ultimate source of liquid funds to the Canadian financial system and has the power and operational ability to create Canadian-dollar liquidity [money] in unlimited amounts at any time.”  In unlimited amounts at any time.

I had always planned to eventually write a follow-up to my article “Where did Trudeau get that CoVID cash?”, about what the changes to the BoC balance sheet all mean in the long run, but I am forced to fast track it because there is FAR too much ignorance and fear mongering in the media and government about debt/deficit concerns.  I am hoping to dispel that ignorance and allay those fears, but the neoliberal indoctrination of the public is DEEP.

However, if you’re reading this it means you aren’t satisfied with the official line and have an inkling something deeper is afoot, that we’re not being told the whole truth. You are here to dispel the neoliberal myths, to pull the wool from your eyes, and to get a peek behind the curtain of federal finance and the monetary system. And I applaud you for it, we need a more informed citizenry able to think for themselves, people not satisfied with the ongoing lies and distortions of the political elite in service to the corporate elite (often they are one and the same). I can’t promise all of my explanation will be simple and easy to understand, finance and the monetary system is a convoluted counter-intuitive system, but I’m going to try my damnedest. If you have further questions, please don’t hesitate to comment or contact me.

Without actually reading my article too many people on social media kept commenting as if I was criticizing Trudeau for the COVID funding, when really it was bashing him for NOT funding other needed things and lying about not having the money, like when Trudeau falsely told veterans they’re asking for more than the government can give right now.

The worst part is that people are freaking out over the debt and spending, but you ask them what other choice was there, and they draw a blank.  Were the feds supposed to give NO support and just let people lose their homes and businesses and starve in the streets? 

It’s this strange ideological knee-jerk hyper-partisan reaction of the indoctrinated public to blindly rail against such spending without giving a single thought to what would happen without it.  Many people have been so brainwashed and conditioned by ideological partisan forces to outright reject such policies without giving it a moment’s critical thought, it’s really quite disturbing.  Here are all the reasons why we don’t have to worry about our grandchildren being buried under a mountain of debt:

  1. The media and politicians are hyping up the fear with ignorant and incorrect information
  2. Debt/deficit hysteria has been empirically debunked… many times
  3. We control the Canadian Dollar and can monetize debt
  4. The feds can NEVER go broke and taxes aren’t required to fund spending
  5. Japan
  6. Future inflation, growth, and GDP measures
  7. We don’t ever need to repay it
  8. Conclusions
1.  The media and politicians are hyping up the fear with ignorant and incorrect information

So far no one is hyping up the unfounded fear of debt and deficits more than conservative ideologues, whether the ones elected or those writing for right-wing media like the National Post and the Toronto Sun.  As if we don’t have enough history to prove them unequivocally wrong, but still they have no qualms stirring up as much ignorant hate of the government as they can.  Historically it’s ALWAYS been selfish ignorant conservatives pushing back against progressive spending by the government.

However, it’s not just conservatives catering to the neoliberal system and telling falsehoods, supposedly progressive parties like the NDP have their leader repeating these myths about debt and deficit too.  If politicians and their rhetoric have proven anything over the 85 years of the existence of the BoC it’s how few really understand federal government finance and the monetary system, and how many actively propagate the myths.  Isn’t it strange to live in a system where our public spending decisions are governed by people completely ignorant of how the system of that spending works?

But it’s not all bad, the G&M and CBC have had some more reassuring reporting on the topic, and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is coming into the common lexicon, even if the media still misrepresent certain facets by parroting the neoliberal fictions.  Even John Ivison of the National Post got some stuff correct, although he also repeats many neoliberal myths.

I’ve put my critique of a selection of mainstream media articles into a separate post, I will add to it over time as more articles come out that either require debunking for spreading ignorance or lauding for getting it right.

2.  Debt Hysteria and the Deficit Myth empirically debunked… again and again

The other ironic aspect about the public falling for the fear mongering of neoliberal debt/deficit hawks is that their unfounded fears have actually been debunked for decades now by multiple books and groups!  Deficit spending has been incorrectly blamed for Canada’s debt woes at every turn since neoliberalism set in in the 70s.  

As I thoroughly explored in my paper on the BoC and inflation starting in 1974, books like “The Monetarist Counter-Revolution” by Arthur Donner and Douglas Peters and “Money, Inflation, and the Bank of Canada Vol II” by Thomas Courchene, made it obvious uncontrollable exogenous inflation which then turned into an endogenous wage-price spiral was the main culprit of Canada’s increased debt, and NOT out of control government deficit spending.

Yet in the early 80s, as the hangover of the inflation triggered by OPEC oil crisis was still a concern, (primarily conservative) debt and deficit hawks started clamouring about the public debt with the identical false cries we’re hearing now.  By the late 80s, sick of hearing all this bashing of debt and deficits due to supposed government overspending, a couple little known statisticians at Stats Canada, Hideo Mimoto and Murray McIlveen, decided to do their own study about the sources of the growing debt. 

Their conclusion?  Inflation wasn’t even factored in, the deficits leading to increased debt were primarily due to lost revenue from TAX CUTS in the early to mid-70s.  It wasn’t out of control spending causing deficits, it was tax cuts draining revenues, in particular corporate tax cuts, to spur growth that never happened. 

Add in the punishingly high interest rates of the early 80s and the debt was growing faster than revenues or GDP to the point in the mid-80s Canadians had actually paid off the principal of the debt and the remainder was all interest.  It’s important to note that debt was self-inflicted by the interest rates the BoC itself was setting.

Starting in the late 80s, after the inflation obsession of BoC governor John Crow began, the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) made its mission to debunk the neoliberal narrative about using our central bank more fully, and by the early 90s two COMER publications were openly challenging the fiction.  “A Power Unto Itself:  The Bank of Canada, The Threat to Our Nation’s Economy” by William Krehm, and “It’s Your Money” by William Hixson. 

By mid-90s Linda McQuaig was debunking the deficit myths in “Shooting the Hippo”, and by the early 2000s Timothy Lewis wrote “In the Long Run We’re All Dead:  The Canadian Turn to Fiscal Restraint.”  Not to mention research papers on the topic, like Seth Klein’s 1992 paper “Good Sense VS Common Sense: Canada’s Debt Debate and Competing Hegemonic Projects”.  As you can see, there are ample Canadian sources deflating deficit hysteria.

Now we’ve got MMT to help us debunk, starting with Warren Mosler’s seminal work “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” of which Fraud #2 is “With government deficits, we are leaving our debt burden to our children”, and no better than Stephanie Kelton tackling the subject head-on in her new book “The Deficit Myth:  Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy”.  Not to mention of course Bill Mitchell’s excellent MMT blog with articles like “Where do we get the funds from to pay our taxes and buy government debt?”

And yet, despite such a thorough debunking by many sources, even the mainstream and well-known Linda McQuaig, decades later we’re still fighting against the misinformation of the neoliberal elite.  The problem seems to be mainly that people simply do not understand the monetary system as it exists, instead clinging to the more traditional notion of physical money under a gold standard.  People truly have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact money is completely virtual and not backed by anything, they have been fooled into thinking there’s some limit on the creation of money, as if it’s a faucet to a finite reserve water supply instead of merely a virtual faucet with virtual water coming out of it.

3.  We control the Canadian Dollar and can monetize debt

It’s really hard getting into explanations of the monetary system without getting technical, because the system was designed as a technocratic vault to dissuade and discourage the average person from attempting to understand it.  It is purposefully convoluted, its inner workings well-guarded and veiled, even from private banks, and it only communicates in dense bankspeak that can take years for the uninitiated to wade through (I know, I’ve been slowly deciphering technical papers on the BoC website for years).  But this explanation wouldn’t be complete without delving a little into the mechanisms that also blow away the debt/deficit myths.  I get a little deeper into the explanation of the basics mechanics of the monetary system in this paper.

Part of the difficulty of the counter-intuitive nature of the system is the notion of federal government “borrowing” when it sells debt like bonds or t-bills.  When people think of borrowing or a loan they think, “You have money to lend, I need to borrow it and will pay you interest.”  Well that’s how it works between two people, but that’s not how it works between banks and the feds.

When a private bank extends a loan to a person they’re not lending their equity money, they’re not lending their depositor’s money, and they’re not giving money based on some quantity of a commodity like gold.  When loaning the banks are creating brand new digital money on the spot.  THAT is the power of banks, to create money/credit, such is the core of our debt-based monetary system.  Debt creates money, repaying debt destroys money, and all that’s left is the interest payment.

However, when banks buy federal bonds they aren’t loaning the money into existence, they are purchasing the bonds with settlement reserves that were created by the BoC and injected into the banks by government deficit spending. It’s important to understand that crucial detail, that the money banks use to buy federal debt is just money the government spent and didn’t tax back. It’s more like a swap of assets than borrowing: the banks don’t like holding low-interest reserves, and so have the option to swap them for bonds, which not only earn more interest, but banks can sell them to investors and they are used as risk-free general collateral for loans in overnight markets.

Like any bank the BoC can also create funds out of thin air anytime it needs to, whether lending extra settlement reserves to a bank that came up short at the end of the day, or to fund federal government spending.  Now here’s where I have no choice but to go a little deeper down the rabbit hole to explain why the debt is no constraint on anything.

As I said previously, Canada is “monetarily sovereign”.  What does this mean?  It means we have our own distinct national currency, we control the issuance of our currency, our currency is not tied to the currency of any other nation (our exchange rate is “floating”), and as we own and control our central bank, which provides all the settlement reserves that are the backbone of the financial system, no external force can disrupt the internal workings of our currency.  All of that adds up to the “unlimited” funding aspect of our federal government.  It also means that we control the cost of lending Canadian dollars because the BoC sets the interest rate on settlement reserves (the key policy rate a.k.a. the target for the overnight rate), which then transmits into the interest rates consumers and businesses pay on loans from private banks.

The control of CAD is also essential to defusing fears about foreign-held debt.  It does not matter AT ALL if foreign countries own our bonds as along as those bonds are denominated in CAD because we control CAD.  Different story for our bonds that are denominated in foreign currencies (primarily US dominations) because we do not control those currencies and if a bondholder needs to be paid out we don’t have the ability to create the money at will because it’s not our currency.  But as the vast majority of our federal debt (bonds and t-bills) is in CAD, there is no concern to be had because we can always pay.  A foreign nation buying our bonds more or less amounts to that foreign nation keeping a savings account with us in our dollars, it doesn’t mean they own or control our government.

So, how does the BoC create any funds the government needs?  Through the magic of monetary financing, also known as “monetizing the debt”.  When the government needs funds it releases more bonds to “borrow” from private banks.  But it can also borrow from the BoC when the BoC buys its bonds and credits the government’s account at the BoC (the Receiver General account).  Here’s another federal government page explaining this.

When the central bank buys bonds straight from the government not only does the government have a bunch of new money to spend, it also means that because the central bank is holding the debt, the repayment of the debt and interest goes right back to the central bank, which we own.  At the end of the year all excess profits from the central bank go to the government as revenue.  Such is the magic of monetary financing/monetizing the debt:  when you hold your own debt you pay yourself interest and there is NO debt burden.

What does all this have to do with the extraordinary CoVID funding?  Well, it was entirely done using the ability of the BoC to create money out of thin air.  So if we’ve got all this new debt, but the debt is held by our central bank and pays out right back to us, is the debt really a burden?  Is it even really fair to call it “debt” at that point seeing as no other economic entity has such powers, not even private banks?

Between the fact we are monetarily sovereign and not restricted (like the US or Eurozone) from monetizing our debt, there is no reason to ever see public debt as a burden, because we always have the means to deal with it.

4.  The feds can NEVER go broke and taxes aren’t required to fund spending

Not only is it tough to wrap one’s head around the abstractions of the monetary system, it’s tough to convince people the rules of personal household finance that apply to them DO NOT apply to the federal government.  One might even say the reality of federal finance is completely counter-intuitive to the public’s understanding of finance. 

For example, the federal government can NEVER go broke.  As mentioned at the start of the paper, the BoC can create liquidity (money) in unlimited amounts at any time; the feds can ALWAYS pay their bills.  This also means the feds do not require a dime in taxes to spend, a truth the elite neoliberals do not want us to know and that conservative ideologues refuse to accept.

In our system taxes at the federal level serve only three purposes:

  1. An enforced tax liability creates demand for the domestic currency.  If you’re forced to pay taxes in CAD you will conduct business in CAD.
  2. Taxes send policy signals to the public about the government’s wealth redistribution priorities.  Who gets taxed and by how much?
  3. Taxes are a check on inflation by removing money from the economy.  This is an abandoned use ever since neoliberalism set in in the 70s.

Here’s the part where it gets a little tricky, where an MMT person would add, “Federal taxes don’t fund spending”.  This is perhaps the MOST counter-intuitive and difficult part of explaining the monetary system.  Taxes at the provincial and municipal levels DO fund the government, because those governments are not monetarily sovereign and do not have a central bank.  But at the federal level, because the feds do not spend regular deposit money but rather they spend using central bank settlement reserves in the Receiver General account, it enters the system differently. 

When a provincial or municipal government is paid taxes, those deposits just shift from the bank of the taxpayer to the bank of the provincial or municipal government:

But when the federal government is paid taxes, the deposits DISAPPEAR from the system, and the bank of the taxpayer shifts central bank settlement reserves to the Receiver General account:

When the government spends the opposite happens, it CREATES new deposits with the public, and the Receiver General shifts settlement reserves to the banks to balance the new deposits. 

Another way to phrase this is that taxes don’t fund federal spending, rather they simply remove spendable deposit money from the economy. The settlement reserves the bank of taxpayer holds (before shifting them back to the government with the tax payment) are from some form of previous government spending. Whether spending on the public or paying out bonds to the bank, those reserves originated with government deficit spending, meaning that previous government deficit spending is what funded tax payments, not that tax payments are funding government deficit spending. Confusing as hell, I know, but once you wrap your head around these abstractions as MMTers have you start to see the neoliberal fictions about federal debt and deficit for what they are.

Every time the feds spend more than they taxed, a deficit, they leave more money in the hands of the public but also increase government debt.  The total federal public debt is just the accumulation of deficits and the interest paid on them, all the money the government spent but didn’t tax back.  As we’ll get into later, this puts the burden of the debt on the government, which can roll the debt over forever without consequence, as opposed to putting the debt on the people and requiring strict repayment or face consequences.

You can tell people these facts, that through our central bank the government has unlimited funds and does not require taxes, and people’s faces get all screwed up, the doubts cloud their mind, and they inevitably say something like, “Yeah, but money has to come from SOMEWHERE.”  And you ask them “then where does money come from?’ and they are stumped.  Because MONEY COMES FROM THIN AIR, it is created “ex nihilo”, this is what’s called a “fiat” monetary system.  It’s mostly just numbers in a computer, and a bit of cash and coin.

Yet people have no trouble understanding that the federal government has full control over the printing presses of our notes and the minting of our coins, which while they are physical items, their value is not derived from their physical material but rather whatever number the feds have stamped on the surface.  For whatever reason, creating physical cash and coins based on nothing fits in people’s minds, whereas creating digital money out of nothing in a computer at the central bank somehow doesn’t jive.  This is a great exercise for someone to really make a person think about the nature of money and where it comes from, as it becomes obvious when you really question a person’s assumptions about money that they haven’t really given it any deep thought.

People have truly been deeply indoctrinated, even brainwashed, by the neoliberal system, they simply cannot imagine the myths are fictions; they take them as gospel truths because they do not dare refute the high priests of finance.  The system is too complex, esoteric, and unfamiliar that people simply dismiss any notion of trying to understand it and take the technocratic neoliberal elite at their word, as if these elite working to maintain the status quo of the corporate oligarchy really have the best interests of the public in mind. 

For me that’s the real kicker, when people who rail against the machinations of the elite and the horrible inequality of the corporate oligarchy then turn around and attack MMT or monetary reform by parroting the myths of the very elite they claim to decry.  As I said on one post recently, “if you’ve been jailed without cause, why would you believe the word of your jailer?”

5.  Japan

Ah Japan, MMT poster child and the go-to for any monetary reformer looking to blow away debt and deficit myths.  Japan has had the highest debt-GDP ratio on the planet for a couple decades now, and the sky hasn’t fallen.  At one point the Bank of Japan was also the largest holder of Yen bonds too.  Again, the sky never fell.  And ratings agencies keep putting them up and down, and yet investors still put money there and Japan still lends to developing nations. 

Despite the fact Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world and the Bank of Japan holds about half of all outstanding government bonds, Japanese interest rates and inflation are exceedingly low. Mainstream economic theory cannot account for these real-world results which completely contradict its predictions. Bill Mitchell writes extensively on the subject of Japan defying neoliberal expectations.

The point is, whatever the neoliberal elite claim can’t or shouldn’t be done with debt and deficits here, Japan proves them wrong.  If Japan can do just fine with a 236% debt-GDP ratio then we can too.

6.  Future inflation, growth, and GDP measures

This is the aspect that reveals just how purposefully deceptive media financial commentators are being when they whip up debt/deficit hysteria.  They know full well the amount of debt by itself is meaningless, and that it is measured against other factors to determine if they perceive it as problematic or not, but they cherry pick the information that looks most worrying to the public and then give it no context or comparison that might soothe the public’s mind.  As mentioned earlier, it must be understood, the federal debt is not a burden to the public, the government shoulders that weight, but for those concerned about the debt it can be viewed in more favourable ways and there are factors that will naturally mitigate it over time.

First off, let’s talk inflation.  We can throw misguided concerns about hyperinflation right out the window, in another article I address the neoliberal red herrings of the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, the common tropes indoctrinated people trot out as if they are proof that higher public spending automatically means hyperinflation (as opposed to a confluence of variables and external pressures). 

I get deep into the Canadian experience with inflation in my paper on the BoC and 1974, but it’s really important to understand from the point of view that inflation erodes the real value of debt.  If your debt is accruing interest at 2%, but inflation is at 3%, then in real terms (“real” meaning adjusted for inflation) your debt is actually shrinking by 1%.  And with interest rates as low as possible at the effective lower bound, almost ANY amount of future inflation will be eroding that debt. 

Now, that may seem insignificant in the short term, and it is, but when talking of inflation and federal debt one must think long term.  We sell bonds with as long a maturity as 30 years, inflation at 2% doubles prices in 35 years, or conversely halves the real value of debt.  So, over time the real value of that debt is not the same, and so as long as there is some inflation, debt is slowly becoming less significant.

And of course there’s growth to consider.  We didn’t get out from under the mountain of debt of WWII by paying it off; we grew our way out of it with the unprecedented growth of the post-war period.  If your economy is expanding both in population and consequently GDP, not only is the debt spread between more people, but there is the possibility of running a surplus and paying down some of that debt if we so choose. 

As we’ve seen from ratings agencies and the like, debt-GDP is the key measure they use to evaluate debt.  Well none of the various levels of governments of Canada have any intention of stopping the growth economy anytime soon, so it’s safe to say there will be growth in GDP in the future.  As long as that GDP growth outpaces the growth of new debt, our ratio will slowly improve.

However, growth is completely stagnant at the moment, we’re entering another bout of secular stagnation, and they’ve been having trouble keeping inflation to target since the 08/09 financial crisis, so much so the Deputy Governor of the BoC had a speech musing about the possible need to evolve a new monetary policy not solely concerned with inflation.  While these factors are troublesome to the neoliberal system, they also crack wide open how inflexible and insufficient this system is if it cannot be sustained with a natural ebb and flow of economic activity instead of requiring infinite exponential growth.

(as a brief side note, it’s very satisfying for me to see our ultra-neoliberal former Finance Minister Bill Morneau proved completely wrong about inflation and monetary financing.  As I wrote in a letter to the feds, when a federal e-petition for increased use of the BoC to fund federal spending was presented, Morneau’s ignorant lame duck response was to outright lie and dismissively claim “that would be inflationary”.  Now we’re at our highest level of monetary financing EVER, with the BoC holding over 35% of federal debt, all while the government has been spending like mad, and there’s still no inflationary storm on the horizon.  Well there was already enough empirical evidence from Canada proving Morneau wrong then, and now he is living the proof he is wrong, as he watches the government do without inflationary consequence what he claimed they couldn’t)

7.  We don’t ever need to repay it

I saved this for last because it is indeed the most important.  When people cry about future generations paying the debt the question to ask is, “when have we EVER paid back all our debt?”  The answer is NEVER, and we never will. 

As a monetarily sovereign nation we can always pay off maturing debt, that’s the whole point of the BoC, to backstop the entire system so it’s quite impossible for the feds to ever be insolvent or default on debt payments.  With ongoing deficit spending most of the last 40 years the feds just keep rolling over old debt with new debt and adding as much extra needed to cover the deficit spending.  There is absolutely no obligation or need for the feds to pay down their debt, ever. 

Every nation will go into debt into infinity or until their economy collapses and causes a reset, such is the nature of a debt-based monetary system.  The supply of money for federal spending cannot expand without federal debt expanding too, but the beauty of monetary financing means the BoC can hold all the debt if we so chose.  So is it really “debt” when we owe it to ourselves?

There is an important aspect of deficits that the neoliberals do not like to admit to and strive to hide when they foment fear over deficits:  a federal deficit is a private sector surplus.  When I said above that the debt is the cumulative total of all federal deficits and their interest, and all of that is money the government spent and didn’t tax back, what I’m saying is that deficit spending leaves more money in the hands of the public.  This gets back into the counter-intuitive nature of federal spending not being at all comparable to a household.

When you are a business or household, usually a deficit is bad, it means you are spending more than you earn.  But as a business or household you do not have the unlimited funds of a central bank at your disposal, nor the longevity and immortality of a government, so you cannot go into deficit for too long without consequences like having your house repossessed or going bankrupt.  The feds on the other hand can never go bankrupt or be unable to pay a bill.  And the money they spend ends up in the hands of the public, which can be further spent into the economy or saved.

As a business or household a surplus is good, it means you have more money coming in than going out.  A federal government surplus on the other hand means the government is taking back MORE in taxes than it’s paying out in services.  Basically we are getting less from the government than we are giving.  So why the fear of deficits if it means more money in the hands of the public, and government debt can be and is rolled over all the time?

Most people don’t realize the only* way to pay down federal debt is by running surpluses.  It’s just the accounting of the system:  you cannot pay down federal debt except with taxes, you won’t have more taxes than spending unless you run a surplus, and you won’t have a surplus unless you either cut spending or raise taxes.  It’s a zero sum game, and decades of dubious neoliberal tax cuts to spur growth that never emerged has left government debt pretty much unrepayable without massive taxation.  

(*the central bank also has the power to run negative equity to retire bonds, which completely removes any need for government debt to fund spending ever, but the central bank holding negative equity is not acceptable behaviour to neoliberal technocrats and so I don’t include it as an option)

Once you realize that tax cuts created the excess debt, and only running surpluses taking in more taxes than spending can pay down debt, you will see that it’s simply not possible to pay down all the debt without draining the economy of large sums of money.  As mentioned, most of the debt now isn’t even from deficit spending but rather the leftover interest from our ridiculously high rates in the 80s. 

Really though, who ever expected any sovereign nation to pay off all their public debt?  Once you explain that to pay off public debt requires a surplus in which the government taxes more than they spend many people do not like that idea.  Then one can see the choice:  tax more than spend to pay down debt and reduce its perceived burden, or, enjoy the fruits of deficit spending and only pay taxes as determined by the government’s sense of social equity.

Regarding paying interest on the debt, it’s another red herring trotted out by conservative neoliberals.  While massive interest payments on our debt was one of the justifications used for the austerity of the Chrétien cuts in the mid-90s, those payments were never any constraint on government spending.  As I hope I’ve shown, the government is NEVER constrained by a lack of revenues or the need to spend more on interest, the BoC can credit any entity the government needs it to.  Those cuts were a neoliberal choice to appease financial markets and ratings agencies, and they devastated our public service.

It must also be understood, the government doesn’t need revenues to pay that interest on the public debt, when bonds mature the BoC just credits the account of the bondholder by the value of the maturing bonds.  The interest payments show up as a line item on our federal budget, but as with ALL spending the BoC just creates it, we don’t need to wait to collect enough taxes to pay that interest.  Meaning the interest is not a burden either, it can build up as high as it likes, the BoC and government can and will always pay it out.  Banks rarely even take their payout from bonds maturing, rather they simply roll them over into a new issue of bonds from the government, because those bonds will pay more interest and have more uses (like to influence long term interest rates or as collateral for lending in overnight markets) than holding settlement reserves instead.

8.  Conclusions

Well I hope the conclusion is obvious:  we need not fear debt or deficits!  It was silly to fear in the first place when you understand we are monetarily sovereign, and that fear serves the wealthy elite by making people afraid of imaginary invented consequences of government spending on the public.  It arbitrarily circumscribes government support and serves to retrench and create austerity for no other reason than it maintains a desperate work force, suppresses wages, and keeps a stock of unemployed so that corporate profits can be maintained at the highest possible level.

We need to shift our thinking, there is no need in a modern economy for everyone to be reliant on paid employment, but also no need for people to be unemployed if there are jobs needing to be done and people willing to do the work.  A basic income is getting alot of attention now, and the MMT crowd is pushing for a job guarantee.  Whatever the solution we know one thing:  money is NEVER a constraint for our monetarily sovereign federal government.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

BIG thanks to Larry Kazdan of MMT Canada for all his help keeping me on the level.

The proponents and detractors of deficit hysteria

As a supplement to my article “What About the Grandchildren? Dealing with Debt from COVID” I have made a list of mainstream media articles that either take the neoliberal line and foment unnecessary and ignorant hysteria over the federal debt and/or deficit, or those that state the actual reality of debt and deficits being a necessary investment in the public and no burden to the government or the public. In some cases it’s not the article itself taking a stance, but the politicians being reported on. You will note what type of more neutral balanced publications state the truth (ie Star, G&M, CBC), and the rabidly right-wing articles that propagate fear based on myths (Financial Post).

Those that got it right (mostly):

I have been VERY encouraged by some of the mainstream media coverage of COVID federal deficit spending and the debt it incurred, and even more so that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is coming into the public’s lexicon. People are finally waking up the reality of money being simply a symbol of value that is entirely virtual, and that there is no limit to creating a supply of something virtual. Spending money has limits in the amount of labour and real resources available to be bought, but the money itself is never limited. Here’s a bunch of articles that give me hope the public (and the elite) are slowly giving up on the fictions that constrain us from a more equitable society.

Five reasons it’s time to relax about the Trudeau government’s huge deficit

This first link is perhaps the most excellent of all the mainstream media in Canada, written by the amazing Jim Stanford. Talk about cutting through the bullshit, he plainly states the 5 perfect reasons why debts and deficits simply don’t matter. These reasons echo many of mine included in the grandchildren article, the most important to note being #5: Government’s debts are Canadians’ assets.

How is Ottawa going to pay off its COVID-19 debt? With any luck, it won’t have to

A great and balanced article from top to bottom, allaying fears with relevant history from past instances of large government intervention.

No need to worry about a deficit when the government can print money, say some economists

I must say I’m proud of how our public broadcaster has fairly and evenly represented MMT in this article, even interviewing Kelton and stating the true reality, “This ability to print money means that Canada will always be able to pay its bills, it can never go broke, or default on its debt, no matter how deep into the red it goes.” Excelsior!

Why Canada Won’t Go Broke

This is one of those articles that kinda gets it right, but is clearly unfamiliar with MMT and so in the subheading makes the mistake of calling it “controversial”. MMT is not controversial, it’s just how it all works, what’s controversial is that MMT lays bare the lies and distortions and obfuscations of those in power that want the public to believe there is some finite limit to the spending of a monetarily sovereign government. The controversy isn’t over the reality of the monetary system, it is over the challenge to power that public knowledge of this reality brings.

The article also addresses the spectre of deficits from ignorant alarmist conservatives when it mentions, “Conservative senator Leo Housakos accused the prime minister of leading “the greatest country in the world into bankruptcy.”” Such blatant fear mongering over what is actually 100% impossible should be criminal, or at the minimum, should be grounds to removing a senator’s job for life. Thankfully the article immediately debunks this nonsense.

It continues to explain some of the basics of MMT, mentions Kelton and “The Deficit Myth” and generally does a good job of stating the reality as per MMT, and mentioning that the inflation bogeyman is not rearing its head. It then goes on to speak of the detractors, and then mentions the red herring of Venezuela without getting into why those things do not apply, but still goes on to say none of those issues really apply to Canada, and even drops a line, as I have, about MMT poster child Japan.

COVID-19 has proved the value of big government. Will Justin Trudeau step up and lead the economy?

While this article doesn’t exactly mention debt or deficits, it’s a good example of balanced reporting that questions neoliberal assumptions about Big Government all while avoiding the fear mongering.

The throne speech: Fiscal prudes are fretting about the wrong issues

Considering I just learned that Marc-Andre Pigeon has been a proponent of MMT for 20 years it’s no surprise he gets it all right in this article. He even stays ideologically neutral by commenting about the calls on the left and right of the political spectrum to be misguided and misinformed, and correctly states we’ve got far bigger concerns, like COVID and climate change. This is yet another case, like the Stanford article, where they pretty much could have written my grandchildren article for me. Or put more aptly, we’re all working to the same equitable ends with a thorough knowledge of the reality of the monetary system.

As Canada’s budget deficit soars, where are the tightwads in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet?

While this article engages the anonymous deficit hawks in government, the reporting stays even-handed and amply gives the other side of deficit spending as a good thing its due. It’s kind of debunking the deficit hawks, but in a gentle way, and making the case that in general our government is moving away from the notion that deficits are simply unacceptable.

Bill Morneau can fix Canada’s ‘unholy’ debt mess — if he has the guts

This article skirts the edge of getting it wrong, but mostly gets it right, and more importantly, is the only article from the rabidly right-wing Post Media empire that isn’t purely ideological neoliberal fear mongering.

The real problem, which should put this article in the “got it wrong” category, is this: “Realistically, the hard choice remains between raising taxes and reducing spending. McGill’s Ragan said one of his chief concerns is the inter-generational inequity of leaving our children and grandchildren to pay for the current bailout.

Yes, they brought up the spectre of our grandchildren being oh-so burdened by our debt. Which should put it in the “wrong” category, but the author didn’t say it, and for a Post article to otherwise give a fairly balanced and non-conservative-fear-mongering take, I must give credit where due.

governments around the world are issuing debt and it’s not clear whether private capital markets will absorb it all, or, if they do, at what rates.” And? Who cares if they do or not, that’s the beauty of being monetarily sovereign and owning the BoC, it can and will absorb whatever markets don’t. This baseless fear is repeated many times in the following articles.

One other small error, but it’s not clear if he just kind of misstated the history: “Canada’s experience in the mid-1990s… Soaring debt levels were compounded by high interest rates, as the Bank of Canada tried to curb inflation.” Actually we had already curbed inflation by the mid-90s, and BoC Governor’s obsession with it already brought on an unnecessary home-grown recession in the early 90s. The high interest rates and inflation were more prevalent in the 80s, not the 90s.

The Bank of Canada: In Crisis and Beyond

While this article has its heart in the right place, it gets some things right about the BoC and COVID funding, and SO much wrong about the history of the BoC. Much of the mythology I debunk in my article “Much Ado about 1974” is scattered throughout the article, no surprise as the author used as a source the absolute WORST and most mythological article out there: “The Bank of Canada should be reinstated to its original mandated purposes“. So much for Aquanno fact-checking, he ate up the myth from the opinion piece of a non-journalistic source hook, line, and sinker. I’ve been planning an article to specifically debunk all those articles propagating the myth, and it can’t come soon enough when people are STILL parroting the misinformation.

While there is more right than wrong in the article, there’s still some important details that need to be refuted. A common irony I mention in a previous article, when a progressive that rails against neoliberalism still subscribes to neoliberal fictions, “whereas the thrust of the bank’s policies have aimed at supporting credit conditions in the near term, the deficits governments accumulate will have long-term political implications, especially since the additional debt load will not build new productive capacity.

Whatever the “long term political implications” may become, is Aquanno suggesting we curb this needed funding? Why assume any political implications for such extenuating circumstances when we’re clearly in uncharted territory? And requiring the debt load to build productive capacity is pure neoliberal logic to demonize public spending that does not result in economic growth and corporate profits. Why decry neoliberalism at the start of the article and then use neoliberal fear mongering in the middle?

Making matters worse, the bank has not committed to any form of yield curve control to ensure that government funding costs remain low in the years following the crisis… for they fail to address the discipline imposed on governments by private debt holders in the form of higher interest rates or investment strikes” I guess Aquanno doesn’t understand that the BoC sets interest rates, not the market? And that the feds can issue whatever interest rate of bonds they please and the BoC will scoop whatever the market doesn’t? Who cares about investment strikes, that’s carte blanche for the government to fill in the gap and cut out private investors altogether so the public will finally realize we don’t need such parasites. Yet again, decrying neoliberalism then ironically propagating its fear mongering.

Canadian governments will be forced to contend with unprecedented budget shortfalls and the need to use private markets as their main source of financing.” Except will they? The feds sure don’t need private bondholders, and the BoC could buy provincial debt and even municipal debt as it is currently. Not saying that will happen, but why assume one way or the other? Again, uncharted territory, if the feds want the wealth vacuum for the elite we call an economy to survive COVID they will do whatever’s necessary, who knows that that will require in these uncertain times?

the Bank of Canada has unique institutional capacities that can limit financial discipline and pre-emptively de-rail austerity measures” If he’s talking about private banks, correct, if he’s talking about the feds, incorrect. As the very last critique at the bottom of this web page states, a quote from our BoC governor, the BoC decides NOTHING about fiscal policy, that’s the feds job, and the BoC will accommodate WHATEVER spending the feds desire. The BoC is neutral regarding such things and that’s how it should be, it does not make political decisions, that’s for Parliament.

A more ambitious strategy involves the development of a new public bank… This would transform debt into a public asset“. Federal debt already IS a public asset when the public holds that debt. When the BoC holds our debt it does nothing for us, but when sold to the private sector it is their asset now. And because we are monetarily sovereign and nothing can cause a default on debt so the feds can carry it forever, a federal deficit is a private sector surplus.

With all its faults that article ALMOST made it into the next category, but the good did outweigh the bad, and there were some great ideas in there about democratized public banking.

Those that got it very wrong:

The real question to ask about those that got it wrong, whether politician or journalist, is if those getting it wrong actually know better and are just supporting an ideological position? It’s baffling to me, through my years of independent layman’s research, that people in positions of power, the people that make the decisions that spend our public dollars, seem to be completely clueless about the monetary system and government finance. In the case of our politicians, especially those tasked with finance, my impression is they willingly and knowingly propagate neoliberal myths in order to facilitate the corporate agenda they are very much on side with. Otherwise, we must admit, we are electing some brainlessly ignorant people into government.

In government spending and deficits, we’re now No. 1 in the world

Ugh, the subheading of this article primes a person for just how ideologically ignorant the rest of the article will prove “Unproductive public spending outstripping economic growth will be our real albatross threatening prosperity in years ahead“. For those unfamiliar it must be understood, the Financial Post is one of the most unabashedly neoliberal rags ever published, nearly EVERY article they publish is just right-wing neoliberal ideological tripe designed to misinform the public and reassure Big Business.

It goes on to lament about Canada’s deficit-to-GDP as the largest of all nations, but taken without context it’s meaningless. Because we don’t really know what’s happening on either side of that ratio. Is deficit spending much higher because the government is overspending, or is GDP lower because our economy is underperforming? The real question to ask is: does EITHER measure matter?

We are in unprecedented times, COVID has knocked every nation for a loop, and they’re ALL doing unconventional monetary and fiscal policy. So what exactly does that measure tell us other than the government is deficit spending to keep everyone afloat? The fact it’s higher than other nations, especially Europe, can mean either we’re supporting our public with a greater cushion of federal spending, or that we needed more support by comparison because European nations already had a decent cushion built in.

Mintz continues ignorantly throwing out every scary economic number he can think of, every measure that makes Canada look bad, all while completely ignoring the ONLY measure worth looking at: the results of the spending. Are people starving in the streets? Is there an inflationary storm of public spending? No? Then it seems we’re neither doing too little nor too much spending.

He then continues, true to partisan ideologue style, by throwing conservative red herrings about the WE scandal around, as if that pittance of spending is somehow solely responsible for the ballooning deficit. He makes his ideological resistance worse by projecting unfounded speculation that the CRB will deter people from working, because, you know, everyone loves earning the bare minimum and being unable to afford luxuries.

This next line gets to the very heart of why I wrote “What About the Grandchildren” because he trots that red herring out without any shame: “Doling out money may be a politician’s dream, but it will be a nightmare for our children and grandchildren when the bill comes due.” Such ignorant fear mongering ought to be illegal, but apparently putting “FP Comment” before the article is license to throw out any wildly unfounded ideological conjecture the author wishes with impunity.

His comments about the US are laughable in the face of their COVID response and difficulty dealing with the virus. I honestly cannot understand why he holds any of the lame US response as something to be admired, it only reveals just what a blind ideologue he is. Only someone from the elite could make such comments and look themselves in the mirror.

It gets worse, he can’t help but end the article with yet another neoliberal conservative myth, “But the public’s belief that government spending comes from a magical money pot will eventually have to be revised.” Except it DOES come from a magical money pot, it’s called the Bank of Canada. Does Mintz still believe we need to mine gold to create money? That begs the question: is he that supremely ignorant, or is he just another conservative ideologue trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

Justin Trudeau’s credibility as a fiscal manager is shot; he’ll have to curb spending to get it back

It’s probably a pointless exercise in futility (or at least needlessly redundant) to debunk yet another article by the pro-corporate neoliberal rag known as the Financial Post, but the myths within this article do vary from the last. Of course, it all begins with wildly fantastical fear mongering in the subheading: “Calls grow for a ‘fiscal anchor’ to prevent a return of the ‘northern peso’

The northern peso, really? The author goes on to parrot the neoliberal fear mongering that convinced Chrétien to make his devastating cuts in the 90s, despite the fact (yes, I’m going to mention it again) that Japan was already WAY higher debt-GDP ratio than Canada and they weren’t exploding with hyperinflation or watching their economy fully collapse. Well, I say “convinced” but I do not believe Chrétien or Finance Minister Martin needed any convincing. Does the quarterback need to convince the wide receiver to catch his throw? No, because they’re on the same team working towards the same goals. The team is called “neoliberalism” and the goal is corporate hegemony.

It’s actually kind of enraging to debunk this article, because it’s even more rife with falsehoods and distortions of the truth. For example, “In early 1995, creditors demanded yields of around nine per cent to lend the federal government money for 10 years, pushing interest payments to more than 30 per cent of revenue.

That’s pretty much an out and out lie. Firstly, investors cannot compel the government to set interest rates on bonds, and being monetarily sovereign, and with the BoC by convention scooping up any bonds not sold at auction, there is never a possibility the government will fail to sell bonds. The second falsehood (two in one sentence!) is that interest payments were ALREADY that percentage because of the high rates of the early 80s, not because of new bond issues. But the author pushes the double fiction that all of that is because of Canada’s debt levels causing external powers to force their hand. What a load of tripe!

It gets worse “With a debt approaching 70 per cent of gross domestic product, Canada looked like a risky bet and investors demanded extra compensation for the possibility that the federal government would default.” This is one of those cases where it’s not clear if the author is just that incredibly ignorant of the reality of a monetarily sovereign government or if they are intentionally lying to the public? We are MONETARILY SOVEREIGN, we own our central bank and control our currency, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for us to default. The whole point of having a central bank as “lender of last resort” is so that we can ALWAYS pay our bills! What a lying shill!

Ugh, it’s so much easier writing about the good articles, in this case I have to stop every paragraph because there’e another falsehood, “Don Drummond, an associate deputy minister at Finance when Jean Chrétien’s government finally reversed a couple of decades of overspending“. As the Mimoto study has proven, there was NO overspending, our debt and deficits troubles started with tax cuts at the same time as the collapse of Bretton Woods, leading into the inflationary storm of the OPEC oil crisis, worsened by a homegrown wage-price spiral, and then we floundered around with monetarism for a while without improving anything.

The greatest irony is when former BoC Governor David Dodge chimes in about debt service costs and the impact of taxes on the middle class, as if he doesn’t know the reality of federal finance. But if there’s anything that makes neoliberalism an impenetrable fortress for reformers it’s the fact its proponents are all united in its tenets and ideology. There is only ONE fiscal anchor: did the spending produce equitable results without inflation or other negative effects?

He then goes on to mention a ratings downgrade, as if those agencies have ANY credibility after the 08/09 financial crisis where those same corrupt agencies rated toxic MBS as AAA and directly contributed to the economic disaster. Why does anyone listen to those corporate shills anymore?

In a bizarre twist, no lack of irony in this article, the author then goes on to talk about how we’ve learned central banks can create vast amounts of money without inflationary consequence, and that has “run the bond vigilantes that Dodge and others worried about in the 1980s and 1990s out of town“. So which is it? Do we have to worry about pressure to sell our bonds at a certain price, or not? The rest becomes some weird downplaying of all the fear mongering the author built up over the article, stating correctly many of the realities he railed against earlier. By the end I really have to wonder if he wrote what he believes, or what the FP wanted him to write for their corporate masters?

Top bankers warn Ottawa about Canada’s spiralling debt

Alright, I know it’s getting repetitive, but one more article from the FP in need of debunking. Right off the bat the falsehoods and fear mongering starts, “Canada’s largest lenders are warning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government it doesn’t have carte blanche to run massive budget deficits“. Um, yes, they do have carte blanche, because the BoC can fund whatever the government pleases, without or without the banks.

This notion of “lending” by banks gets back to part of my explanation in the grandchildren article. When “lending” to the feds the banks aren’t creating new money through a loan like when they give a person a mortgage, they are swapping existing settlement reserves the government spent into the economy for bonds. That’s all, it’s just a trade, their reserves for the government’s bonds. And if the government so chooses it can, through the BoC, fund everything without a single bond sold to the private sector.

The next quote kinda repeats the same neoliberal nonsense, as if the banks have any control over the feds finances, “while low interest rates provide some scope to borrow more in coming years to support the recovery, it’s imperative the government recommit to specific new debt targets to impose discipline on the budgeting process.” Or else… what?

Who is going to impose this discipline if the government won’t? Will banks simply stop accepting government cheques? This crazy notion that banks control our government is just the worst neoliberal fiction, they have absolutely NO POWER over our government, they can easily be cut right out of the loop and they know it. So their neoliberal sycophants and lackeys create this illusion that somehow the banks can impose their will on the government. Newsflash: THEY CAN’T!

So… hard… to… keep… reading… this… BULLSHIT! “But that would need to come with a hard commitment to bring the debt burden down gradually in order to ease concern about the nation’s fiscal path, they said, possibly by introducing legislation to force the government to lower its debt ratio.” So, who’s going to introduce and pass this legislation? The banks? Investment houses? Foreign powers? This would be self-imposed by government itself, and would be the stupidest thing to do. Talk about an inflexible and brainless policy, no different from the limitations of the Maastricht Treaty preventing European central banks from buying their government’s bonds, or the self-imposed US debt ceiling. The OUTCOME is what’s important, not the numbers that got us there.

In the 90s under Governor Crow they once talked of enshrining inflation as the primary concern of the Bank of Canada into law, thankfully cooler heads prevailed and they didn’t. We need policy FLEXIBILITY, not to rigidly think the evolving needs of the public are going to conform to the formulas of left-brained technocrats.

Of course the article just blathers on with more inconsequential nonsense and fear mongering. Someone once told me no credible financial or business person actually reads the Financial Post, which considering the dry subject matter, makes me wonder who does read this unmitigated complete and utter neoliberal conservative bullshit?

Freeland Grilled By Tory Finance Critic On Ballooning Government Debt

Pierre Poilievre is one of those rabidly ideological CONservatives that would oppose the government saving his grandmother if it meant deficit spending. As finance critic it’s not clear if he’s just that ignorant of the system he is supposed to be critiquing, or if this is all just part of the show Cons put on for their equally ideological followers.

Poilievre spouts a bunch of nonsensical hysteria, but most telling is this “she won’t tell us whether the debt will be paid back before interest rates rise“. First of all, under the circumstances of extraordinary COVID funding, how could ANYONE predict that? The crisis is ongoing, we’re not remotely back to normal, so what’s his hurry?

More importantly, what difference does it make if interest rates rise when you are a monetarily sovereign nation (see the grandchildren article for an explanation of that term)? Interest rates have ZERO bearing on the government’s ability to fund its deficit spending. And if they do rise, it’s because the economy is getting back on track. The truly silly part though is that with how low interest rates are, our bonds are locked in to that interest rate until they mature. The BoC could raise rates to 10% tomorrow and it would not affect the cost of our existing debt one iota. Either this guy’s an ideological conservative rube ignorant of reality, or he’s just another political psychopath riling people up with falsehoods and rhetoric for his party’s gain.

An interesting if not insidious piece of info in this article: the parties all dipped into the wage subsidy to fund their party offices, a bit of a dubious use, but I guess it’s still a legitimate job.

NDP Steps Up Push For New Tax On Wealthy, Companies ‘Profiteering’ From Pandemic

This is one of those sad examples where the leader of a supposedly progressive party, the NDP, none the less panders to neoliberal thinking and advocates for taxes based on conservative logic.

Sure, tax the wealthy for all kinds of equitable reasons, but not for the falsehood that our federal debt is somehow a burden. This line sums up the falsehood well:

Singh said ordinary Canadians are becoming “more and more worried” about shouldering the burden of slaying the deficit, warning it could mean eventual government cuts to health care and social programs.

“To pay for the programs, the help that people need, it should not be you that has to pay for it,” Singh said. “It should not be families and people and workers and small businesses who have struggled. It should be those who have profited off the pandemic, it should be the ultra-wealthy that contribute their fair share.”

I hope readers have been paying attention and know what nonsense talk that is, that we do not require ANYONE to pay taxes for the feds to fund the needs of the public. The article goes on and on about what we can “afford” if we implement such a tax, even though we can already afford whatever we please without any tax. Putting it in this frame only propagates the neoliberal fiction and plays into conservative-minded sympathies. Yes, tax the ultra wealthy and supranational corporations to level the playing field, but not because if we don’t do so we can’t afford to fund the needs of the public.

Deficits Matter And Federal Aid Programs Won’t Last Forever: Freeland

Then of course our Liberal finance minister Freeland goes partly progressive by not shying away from more deficit spending, but then ensures the neoliberals she is still very much on their side when she states, “Whether on Bay Street or Main Street, there are no blank cheques, and there are no free lunches. Our fiscally expansive approach to fighting the coronavirus cannot and will not be infinite.

No free lunch? Do tell, other than the salary of the person typing the numbers into a computer, what’s the cost to creating more supply of a virtual currency? The only costs are people and resources, the money is not a cost because it does not exist in the real world, and people starving in the streets is a much greater cost.

The approach should be whatever is necessary, and yes, that debt might just exist into infinity unless she expects a looming currency reset or debt jubilee, or sees some end to the nation of Canada some time soon. This is the kind of neoliberal posturing we’ve come to expect from our elite politicians, they say progressive things to soothe the public, but then follow it up with reassurances to Big Business and conservative ideologues.

The neoliberal bent is even more pronounced when she said, “the federal government will impose spending limits upon itself, rather than waiting for “more brutal external restraints” from international market forces.” What, pray tell, are these “more brutal external restraints” and how can they be imposed on a monetarily sovereign nation? This is pure neoliberal scare tactics to impose farcical discipline on federal spending as if that discipline could ever be imposed from the outside.

This smacks of the same neoliberal thinking that led Chretien to make his devastating cuts in the 90s, merely because ratings agencies and the financial world had some beef with our deficit (ignoring of course the example of Japan). Bill Mitchell addresses this incredibly well in his article “Overt Monetary Financing – Again” when he writes:

The sense of fright is driven by a lack of education that leaves people unable to comprehend how the economy actually operates.

Neo-liberals magnify that sense of fright, by demonising what are otherwise sensible and viable explanations of economic matters.

They know that by elevating these ideas into the domain of fear and taboo, they increase the probability that political acceptance of the ideas will not be forthcoming.

That strategy advances their ideological agenda. The basic rules that should guide government fiscal policy are, as Lerner noted, “extremely simple” and “it is this simplicity which makes the public suspect it as too slick”.

Neo-liberals who have vested interests in ensuring that the public does not understand the true options available to a government that issues its own currency manipulate that suspicion.

In the place of these simple truths, neo-liberals advance a sequence of myths and metaphors that they know will resonate with the public and become the ‘reality’… I’m often confronted with arguments by sceptics who say ‘the markets’ will be unhappy, or retaliate, but when I asked them, specifically, to articulate exactly what they think the markets (whoever they are) will or can do, I am met with a sort of jumbled set of propositions or more typically, silence.

So I ask the same of Freeland, what are the “more brutal external restraints”? One might be a depreciation in our exchange rate, but again, considering due to COVID most nations are in the middle of such extraordinary measures, why would Canada be singled out? Especially when those measures aren’t funding government works like infrastructure, but rather are just supporting the minimum of demand to keep profits flowing to our supranational corporations. I think Walmart would be pretty upset if we stopped COVID funding and their customers could no longer afford even their cheap wage slave prices.

What other “brutality” might happen? Corrupt ratings agencies lower our credit rating? And what then? They can do that all they like, it still doesn’t obligate us to raise our interest rates. If banks and investors still feel Canadian bonds are as risk-free and reliable as always, they will invest accordingly. The real joke there is when you realize we don’t actually need to sell our bonds to anyone, domestic or foreign, to fund government spending, so what is the fear?

The only other possibility that might happen, a la Venezuela, is sanctions. Again, is the world going to single Canada out as deserving sanctions, especially considering how incredibly corporate-friendly a nation we are? What then are these supposed “more brutal external restraints”?

I just have to throw in a great example of alchenomics: “Officials estimate the economy will still shrink by 5.7 per cent this year, but grow by 4.2 per cent next year, and 3.7 per cent in 2022, meaning gross domestic product won’t rebound to pre-pandemic levels for another two years.” They have absolutely NO WAY of knowing any of that, and I would bet all my savings they will be proven wrong. We never truly bounced back from the 08/09 crisis, now with COVID we’re even deeper in uncharted territory and the old rules apply less than ever. Economic forecasting is worse than weather forecasting. The longer the horizon the more incorrect it will be, and with the increasing volatility in the climate being a pathetic fallacy for the increasing volatility in stock markets, add in COVID, who can predict ANYTHING for sure anymore?

There is one EXCELLENT tidbit in this article however, that lays bare the farce of central bank independence, when the Governor of the BoC says, “As for how long the aid should last, Macklem said it was up to the government.” UP TO THE GOVERNMENT, meaning the central bank will accommodate WHATEVER spending the elected government has decided on. Meaning, yet again, we have another admission from the powers that be that there actually is nothing in the way of them funding a more equitable society for all other than their own lack of action.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Where did Trudeau get that COVID cash?

pdf version:  BoC balance sheet COVID


It seems fitting that in the anniversary of its 85th year the Bank of Canada has come full circle and is back to its roots using the same kind of monetary tricks it employed in 1935 to start pulling Canada out of the Great Depression (plus a few new tricks).  Neoliberal governments the last 40 years have hoped Canadians forget the progressive past of our publicly-owned central bank aiding the people, but it’s come back to the forefront in a way now that will be hard to ignore.

The $361 billion (and counting) question?  WHERE DID THE FEDS GET THE MONEY FOR COVID SUPPORT?!?  Well, the answer is as simple as it always has been: where does all money come from?  OUT OF THIN AIR!!!

Yes, for those of you reading this information for the first time, it’s true, we live in a debt-based fiat monetary system, pretty much all money is created as debt, and there is nothing backing our money (like gold or silver) other than confidence in our economy.  Here is a federal government page admitting to that fact: “Both private commercial banks and the Bank of Canada create money by extending loans to the Government of Canada and, in the case of private commercial banks, lending to the general public.”

When your bank gives you a loan, or line of credit, or mortgage, they don’t lend you their own money, they don’t lend you their depositors’ money, they type numbers in a computer and POOF!  New deposit money you can spend, matched by the new debt you rack up, it’s all just numbers on a digital ledger.  The flip side is that repaying a loan destroys that new money, and all that is leftover is the interest you pay to the bank.  If we paid off the principal on ALL the debt there would be no money left, only the unpaid interest.  And so new debts pay off old debts in a never ending spiral of growing debt that grows the almighty GDP.

Well it’s that simple for the government too, our public central bank has the ability to create ANY money the government should require to finance the solution to any problem.  Here’s another great quote from the feds themselves about how the federal government can never go broke and will never have difficulty finding funding:  “As the nation’s central bank, the Bank [of Canada] is the ultimate source of liquid funds to the Canadian financial system and has the power and operational ability to create Canadian-dollar liquidity [money] in unlimited amounts at any time.”  In unlimited amounts at any time.

So, why don’t they create more to solve Canadians’ problems?  Well, neoliberal governments serve the profit needs of the private sector first, they don’t actually want to solve society’s problems, they merely want to create the illusion they are helping, just enough to get re-elected. Which is why they never give quite enough money to actually solve anything unless it’s to bailout a favoured supranational corporation.

But in a crisis with such macroeconomic ripples as this, to give the economy the support it needs the government and central bank have no choice but to tip their hand and reveal just how easy it is to turn on the money taps when the wealth vacuum for the elite we call an economy stops functioning.  Not only is COVID a threat to the economy, it’s a literal threat to the elite in power, because a virus does not discriminate by socioeconomic status.  The elite are immune from poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate healthcare, and unclean water, so those life-threatening conditions do not get the funds necessary to solve those problems. 

As it turns out, maintaining those problems serves to strengthen the neoliberal system by creating conditions of stress, scarcity, and desperation that suppresses wages and keeps people seeing each other as the competition instead of cooperating.  If people are too busy struggling to make ends meet they don’t have time to think about what their politicians are doing, never mind taking action. It’s one of the primary ways elite neoliberals keep as many people as politically disengaged as possible to ensure there is no “excess of democracy“.

The long and the short of it is this:  our federal government does not have to “find the money”, it has ALWAYS had the power to create whatever it needs if it so chooses.  The only reason they don’t is purely ideological and caters to the needs of the wealthy, our largest corporations, and the financial sector.  While there are real world constraints to increasing government spending on the public, we’ve never truly seen what they are because our governments serve the profit needs of the private sector first, and everything else second.  We’ve never known how many more problems we could solve if our products, services, and resources were dedicated to improving the public good first (like ensuring ALL Canadians have reliable access to clean water and healthcare or a roof over their heads), instead of being monopolized to ensure corporate profits and being squandered on things like luxury cruise liners and military equipment.

It’s simply the nature of a capitalist economy in a debt-based monetary system:  if most of the economy is privately-owned and all money is debt, then if the government doesn’t maintain those private profits the debts can’t be repaid and the whole house of cards comes crashing down.  Under this inequitable unsustainable system politicians really have little choice but to support the prioritization of the profits of our largest corporations because if there’s a corporate profitability crisis and companies start defaulting on their debt the economy will collapse.  Either that or our “leaders” could, you know, advocate for a system NOT based on making a tiny minority of people exceedingly wealthy thereby empowering those ultra-wealthy to monopolize our resources and direct public policy to their own greedy ends?

But you’re not here to listen to a diatribe about the neoliberal inequality engine we use as the system to run our lives (or maybe you are?), you’re here to learn how the government can create all the money it needs for social good through our central bank.  It’s really quite simple….

How it all works:

The Bank of Canada creates money primarily two ways:  it can create it to loan to a bank or government (an “advance”), or it can create it to buy financial assets like bonds, treasury bills, and many other kinds of securities.  Advances rarely happen, especially advances to governments (here’s a short list), but the latter method happens all the time, if not daily.

I won’t go too deeply into details about the mechanics of all this, because in the aggregate the daily moves of the BoC are quite an intricate dance ensuring stable predictable flows in the financial system.  Just look at how even the balance sheet numbers were before the crisis, the BoC works very hard to keep those numbers steady, shuffling assets and liabilities around multiple times a day to get its balance sheet, and consequently interest rates, right where it wants them.

While the government has many different accounts for itself and its various Crown corporations, all the funds for COVID are coming out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, aka the Receiver General account, at the Bank of Canada. This is where pretty much all discretionary spending by the federal government originates. BILL C-13: An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19 states “there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of a federal minister and with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health, all money required to do anything in relation to that public health event of national concern.”

There is one huge caveat to my analysis of the BoC’s balance sheet:  one cannot say for sure precisely what is going on because the BoC is incredibly tight-lipped about all of its inner workings, the motivation for the moves it’s making must be deduced from understanding what each of the items on the balance sheet are and why they would change.  Central banks are pretty much a black box, one can track the changes on their balance sheet but they’ll never explain precisely why they took a particular course of action each day.  Most of the reason is it makes it impossible to criticize them from the outside, whether you are a sitting politician or a business analyst, but it’s also to maintain the mystery of it all and ensure the public have little chance of ever understanding it.  Well this is another of my attempts to pull the wool off our eyes and reveal to the public, as plainly as I can, the reality of banking and the monetary system.  Welcome to the rabbit hole…

The Balance Sheet:

The opening diagram is of the weekly averages of the balance sheet of the BoC.  Every economic entity, including people, are each their own balance sheet of assets and liabilities.  Assets are what you own, liabilities are what you owe.  Your house is an asset, your mortgage is a liability.  To a bank, your deposits are their liability (they owe it to you), but your debt is the bank’s asset (because you owe it to them).

So what you are looking at on the opening diagram is the total of all BoC assets on the top, and the total of all BoC liabilities on the bottom, both measured in millions of dollars.   By accounting convention total assets and total liabilities will always balance, which is why they are a mirror image of each other.  As you will note, they both soar after COVID lockdown begins, indicating the hundreds of billions of new dollars the BoC created for the crisis.

But don’t expect the BoC to outright admit that’s what it’s doing; they use bankspeak to obscure the reality.  Instead of stating clearly they created hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, the BoC states “These interventions, which involve acquiring financial assets and lending to financial institutions, increase the size of the Bank’s balance sheet.”  A “balance sheet expansion” is simply money creation, they just refuse to call a spade a spade because that would alert the public to the subterfuge.  Fortunately I have been studying the BoC long enough to cut through their Orwellian bankspeak so rest assured I will explain everything as best I can.

I’m learning over time how incredibly hard this topic is to convey to regular folk unfamiliar with even the basics.  Many an ignorant person will claim, “if you can’t explain it simply it means you don’t understand it”, but that’s truly not the case, not for particle physics, not for the monetary system.  The topic is simply too esoteric, requires knowledge of far too much unusual and slippery terminology, and explaining the accounting does not translate well into words or even pictures (it requires an animated explanation, one day, one day).  I will go through each category one by one so everyone can hopefully understand what it means.  If you’d like you can also refer to the Bank’s description of the balance sheet.  Or just trust my conclusions and skip to the bottom.  Here we go…


As previously mentioned, advances are loans to banks or the government, in this case specifically the banks that have accounts at the BoC.  But before you get your hackles up about our banks needing loans, these are not bailout loans to prop up an insolvent institution, these are temporary bridge loans to cover unexpected shortfalls in the large-value transfer system (the LVTS, which is where banks and the government settle up all their transactions at the end of the day).  As you can see, those loans are already being wound down, they will likely be the first item to disappear from the post-COVID balance sheet.

The reason these loans were necessary was likely due to unexpected friction between banks settling with each other in the LVTS; one or more institutions fell a little short and the BoC, as lender of last resort, covered them.  The BoC charges them the Bank Rate, and we make a little money off the deal.  More on the operating band of interest rates later.

The BoC states clearly it will not disclose the names of the banks, and this is for good reason.  The average person simply does not understand how central banking works, and if they saw their bank’s name as receiving a loan it would likely undermine public confidence in that bank and possibly cause a run on the bank.  So the books clearly show the loan, we’ll just never know to whom it was made unless we dissected the balance sheets of all the banks in the LVTS and pieced together who had loans from the BoC at that time.

Securities Purchased Under Resale:

Securities purchased under resale agreements is when the central bank buys assets from the private banks, usually government bonds, with an agreement to sell them back at a later date, anywhere from one day to three months.  This is normally done in order to influence interest rates and/or neutralize government flows.

This is by far the largest change on the asset side of the BoC balance sheet, and it’s the easiest to spot example of quantitative easing (QE), which the BoC is doing for the first time.  In a nutshell, QE is when the central bank injects liquidity (new money) into the system by buying existing financial assets from the banks and other entities.  The reason for this is because those assets become less desirable for banks and companies to hold, partly because those assets lose value in the wake of the crisis, but also because those assets are not as “liquid” as money, they can’t be spent like money and must be sold first.  By making these purchases the central bank is encouraging an easy flow of credit from the banks because they will be less reluctant to lend if they are flush with billions in liquid cash.

(for the wonks only:  one can quibble about the semantics of labeling resale agreements as QE as Governor Poloz has, but in Canada’s case it fits, firstly because we actually rarely use resale agreements for monetary policy, opting for transfers of government deposits instead, and when the activity is so unusually large and intended to be ongoing for the crisis, it is no longer a typical resale)

Canada Mortgage Bonds:

Anyone who’s seen the movie “The Big Short” or delved a little into the cause of the 08/09 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) will be familiar with mortgage-backed securities (MBS).  These are when a bank bundles a bunch of mortgages into one big security, and then sells that security to investors, and the investors reap the interest payments of the mortgages.  Well there’s a reason Canada did not suffer as badly as other nations during the GFC, and it’s mainly because of how we handle MBS.

First off, our banks are not allowed to invest in any MBS other than Canada Mortgage Bonds, which is why they were not exposed to that market when it crashed in the US.  Secondly, our MBS can only be made out of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)-insured mortgages, so these mortgages are already safely insured and guaranteed by the government.  Lastly, our banks only bundle the mortgages, then the CMHC buys them up, then the CMHC itself sells them to investors.  So we have structured this market much more securely and with a lot more oversight and accountability than the free-for-all frenzy that happened in the US.

HOWEVER, the government, BoC, and CMHC seem to be making an exception now, and will “allow lenders to add previously uninsured mortgages into the pool of securities eligible to be bought by the government.”  So they are opening the door to precisely the kind of dynamic that toppled the US, let’s hope those uninsured mortgages are from solid borrowers, not simply wealthy foreign investors willing to dump their real estate if the market sours.

In this case, the BoC is not purchasing direct from the CMHC as it does for balance sheet purposes, but rather on the secondary market to support financial market functions, another form of QE as direct support for the banks.  Prior to the crisis the BoC always held a few of these, now they’ve ramped it up over 1100%.

Banker’s Acceptances:

A banker’s acceptance (BA) is kinda like a post-dated cheque but guaranteed by the bank, not the company writing the cheque, and is used by small and medium-sized corporate borrowers.  This is another form of QE by the BoC, as they don’t normally hold BAs, and the BoC is not buying them direct from the companies, but rather from the banks that guaranteed the BA.  Once again, it’s not clear which banks the BoC is buying these securities from, nor which companies they are from.

Commercial Paper:

Here’s where things get interesting.  Commercial paper is debt issued by companies but also public entities, like provinces and municipalities.  But this is not direct support for public entities, at least not on the surface, because the BoC is buying this debt from banks, not from the public entities themselves, and so it is more QE.  But the BoC can buy municipal debt if it so chooses, and was able to do so before COVID, they just won’t lift a finger to fund cities unless doing so supports monetary policy (which I would argue in cities like Toronto it does, because the cost of living, and hence inflation, is higher there and would be even higher if we raised taxes to fund our flagging infrastructure).

Government of Canada Bonds:

Finally we have come to the heart of the matter:  direct support for the feds by the BoC.  But, of course, it’s never quite as clear as one would hope.

Government of Canada bonds are the main way in which the government issues debt.  Private banks acquire bonds either by swapping their excess reserves for bonds in the primary market or by crediting government deposits at the banks with the purchase, and then sell some of the bonds to the public in the secondary market.  The tricky part however is how much the BoC bought direct from the government in the primary market and how much it bought on the secondary market to support the financial system.  When the BoC buys newly-issued federal bonds direct from the government it is called “monetary financing”.  This is sort of the other side of the coin of QE, except instead of creating money to buy existing assets, it creates money to buy new assets, injecting the government with new money.

This mechanism of monetary financing is the subject of much debate in Canada (I’ve written a VERY in-depth paper on the subject), as it is proof of how our government can easily use our central bank to create whatever funds it needs without ever paying a dime of interest to the banks.  It is monetary financing that kick-started the BoC in 1935 to begin ending the Great Depression, made possible our funding of WWII, and aided the government throughout the post-war economic expansion. 

After neoliberalism set in starting in the 70s we curtailed this power more and more, but unlike most central banks that are forbidden from the practice, we actually use monetary financing EVERY time the feds issue new bonds and the BoC snaps up a percentage at auction.  Without painstakingly disaggregating the data by poring over the various purchase results we cannot tell precisely how much monetary financing we increased since COVID hit, but it’s somewhere in the $50 billion range.

Provincial Money Market:

This is perhaps the MOST intriguing and encouraging change in the BoC balance sheet.  The provincial money market is where provinces issue bonds, it’s their primary market.  What makes this so intriguing is that seemingly for the first time ever the BoC is doing monetary financing for provinces.  Yes, you heard that right, the BoC is creating new money to buy debt directly from the provinces AND it’s possible the BoC has created new deposit accounts for them too (more on this later).

Alot of the debate about the BoC and Canada’s past funding of public works centered on the notion of the BoC making loans to the feds, provinces, and cities.  Unfortunately I’ve had to dispel a lot of myths about this, as it is a misinterpretation of the function of a central bank and the loans the BoC has in fact made.  As per the loan provisions of the BoC Act, they are NOT meant as loans to fund projects; just like advances they are temporary bridge financing to cover a shortfall in expected revenues, which is why the loan provision terms are so limited in amount and time frame.  But monetary financing is a horse of a different colour, it’s like a back door “loan”, a way to provide funding that uses newly created money and does not require paying interest to the private sector.  Another phrase for it is “public money creation”: money created by a public institution for public use.

This is one change the BoC should consider keeping, especially as it can help ease the debt burden some of our provinces suffer under.  But federal and provincial jurisdictions are closely guarded, we’ve seen how provinces become the fiefdoms of ideological demagogues (especially Conservative ones) and how the feds will or won’t cooperate with various Premiers (and vice versa).  Supporting the provinces in this way would likely be seen as letting them off their fiscal responsibility hook, and so the feds would be loathe to do it for the same reasons they don’t really do it themselves:  they cannot appear to favour the public sector and must remain fiscally neutral in the eyes of the neoliberal financial world.  This means you do not run deficits without matching the deficit spending with bond issues to the banks, else the neoliberal world will punish you with divestment, lowered credit ratings, lowered exchange rate, and worse comes to worse if you really push the envelope, crippling sanctions.

Treasury Bills:

Treasury bills (T-bills) are simply another form of federal debt like bonds; they just pay out interest differently.  The changes in this category are pretty much the same analysis as government bonds: some were likely bought direct from the government (monetary financing), some were likely bought on the secondary market to support the financial system (QE).

All Other Assets:

This category is insignificant, it includes property and equipment, intangible assets and other non-investment items, and did not change in any meaningful way.

On to the liabilities…

Notes in Circulation:

This is cold hard physical cash (notes).  As a brief aside, the word “cash” is a prime example of the intentional ambiguity of bankspeak.  In central bank terms, “cash” can mean the same thing as “reserves” or “settlement money” or “high-powered money”, it’s basically referring to fully liquid deposits, and usually does not refer to physical notes.  Another way to put it is “cash” is any deposit easily converted into actual physical cash. Not knowing this can make reading about central bank actions very confusing.

Normally this is the largest liability on the BoC’s balance sheet and requires the most acquiring of assets to match it.  It is demand-driven by the public, meaning the BoC only provides as many notes as the banks are asking for according to the needs of the public.  It says “circulation” because the notes are just paper until the BoC officially circulates it by swapping it for reserves with the banks.  The government can have billions of notes printed waiting in a warehouse, it does not count as “money” until the BoC circulates it.

The good part is that the demand for notes has barely changed, meaning there are no bank runs or people withdrawing large amounts of notes.  Another interesting thing to note about notes (pun intended) is that they are the ONLY access to central bank money the public has.  Despite the fact deposit money in a private bank is our primary medium of exchange, it’s not actually legal money like notes, it’s just the PROMISE to pay legal money on demand.  Deposit money in private banks is not defined in the Currency Act, it is de facto money, and we have allowed private banks the power to create it at will.

All Other Liabilities and Capital:

Just like “All Other Assets” this is not a significant item on the balance sheet.  The “capital” part is likely just the leftover equity after all else has been accounted for.  However I would like to know what exactly changed that it decreased in amount.

Government of Canada Deposits:

As yet another example of confusing bankspeak, Government of Canada deposits are also known as the Consolidated Revenue Fund aka the Receiver General Account (RG account).  This is where all spending comes from and all taxes go into.  That’s why you make your tax payment to the Receiver General, and why all government cheques come from the Receiver General.  It’s the government’s account at our central bank.

The change in this account is more or less (in the aggregate) the result of new monetary financing, the BoC bought debt direct from the government and credited this account with newly-created money.  And the BoC does this on a regular basis, it just used to do it more (the main subject of my previously mentioned paper).

One might be confused considering the government’s various announcements about financial support of the economy not really jiving with this increased amount.  Well, that’s because the government NEVER has on hand all the cash they need for their spending in a year, it’s a daily simultaneous flow of spending going out and taxation going in.  The BoC anticipates these government flows and will take pre-emptive action to ensure the RG account has what’s needed for any particular day of government spending, either building up reserves for a big spend, or auctioning them off when they’re not needed.

This also means the federal government does NOT depend on your tax dollars in order to spend on public services (whereas without a central bank provinces and municipalities do depend on tax dollars to fund themselves).  The federal government does not need to save up tax dollars first before it can spend on the public, it spends first and taxes later, or more accurately, spending and taxation both occur at the same time every day in varying amounts relative to each other.  Point being though, federal government spending is NEVER constrained by tax dollars, if it were very little would happen until after tax time rolled in and the government saw how much they had to spend.

Other Deposits:

Remember when explaining provincial money markets I said I’d get back to new deposit accounts?  This is another case where because of the BoC’s stated policy of “confidentiality considerations” we may never know who exactly owns these deposits, but it seems very possible a large chunk of them is whichever provinces the BoC bought bonds directly from.

“Other deposits” is a newer entry on the BoC balance sheet, I can’t say for sure without really digging deep, but it’s entirely possible this is the first time the BoC has ever granted deposits to entities other than the federal government and banks.  According to the BoC website “These include foreign central banks and international financial institutions, designated clearing and settlement systems, and other domestic federal government agencies.”  As this COVID intervention is likely for domestic entities, the BoC likely gave new deposit accounts to smaller banks not part of the LVTS, or possibly even to some of the larger corporations it’s supporting with QE, and lastly, maybe even some of the provinces or larger cities.  We may never know.

Members of Payments Canada:

And finally we come to the aggregate result of QE, the increase of deposits of the private banks that are members of Payments Canada.  The members are the largest banks/financial institutions in the country, they all participate in the LVTS, and they are for whom most of this hubbub is about.  Increasing these deposits (aka “injecting liquidity”) by buying up financial assets from these banks is what is meant to grease the wheels of money markets and bank lending, to ensure continued easy access to credit.

You will note the amount of these deposits is barely visible before COVID.  That’s because the BoC has a 0% reserve requirement, since 1994 our banks have not been required to hold any reserve money as a percentage of their deposits, they can lend or spend their excess reserves as they see fit.  But keeping reserves at the BoC earns the bare minimum in interest (the Deposit Rate), they’d rather swap them for a variety of government bonds earning various rates of interest for various time periods which they can then sell to investors.  So they keep a very specific minimum at the BoC, which did not fluctuate week after week before the crisis.

(wonks only:  in a bizarre twist, the BoC is violating its own interest rate operating band.  The target for the overnight rate aka the policy interest rate aka the key interest rate (more confusing bankspeak giving everything multiple names!) is a 0.5% band, the policy rate is at the center, the Bank Rate (the rate banks pay on advances from the BoC) is 0.25% higher and the Deposit Rate (the rate the BoC pays on deposits) is 0.25% lower. 


So when the policy rate is 0.25% as it currently is, the Deposit Rate should be 0%, we should not be paying banks interest on their deposits.  But for whatever reason the BoC is not going to the actual effective lower bound, it’s staying just above it, so all the new deposits we created for the banks are still earning 0.25% when they should be earning squat.  Even with all that extraordinary support we’re still ensuring the banks get their pound of flesh).

If you think all this cajoling and bending over backwards to ensure the banks do their job and fulfill their function as providers of credit is a bit of a farce, you’re not alone.  The entire monetary system is set up not to control banks and their de facto money creation, but rather to gently influence them, leaving as much to the “free” market as possible.

The BoC does not control the supply of money, at all, it attempts to influence the cost of credit, primarily through its actions in markets to support its intended interest rate.  It’s yet another monetary dance, part of the illusion of finance, and it’s the reason I advocate for nationalizing the banking system.  Having a fully public banking system would eliminate the necessity and expense of overnight money markets, neutralizing government flows, selling bonds, and doing the specious dance of leveling the central bank’s balance sheet.  Money creation should be a public utility, not one of the most profitable private businesses vacuuming billions of dollars from the public every quarter.


Those COVID “funds” are nothing more than numbers in a computer conjured out of thin air, the feds have the power to create as much as they want at any time. Yes, money is imaginary, to say we don’t have enough is to admit we don’t have enough imagination.

It all boils down to this:  when Justin Trudeau tells a disabled veteran “They are asking for more than we are able to give right now” he is either telling a bald-faced neoliberal lie to deny funding the needs of Canadians, or he is supremely ignorant of how our monetary system works and is completely oblivious to the fact he’s telling a neoliberal falsehood.  That also goes for every politician claiming we need to “find the money” or who foments hysteria around debt or deficits.  These are the falsehoods standing in the way of truly improving life for ALL Canadians.  Whether lying or ignorant, can such people really be trusted with our collective future?

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Much Ado about 1974: The Bank of Canada in the 70s

By Adam Smith, 21st Century

This paper is dedicated to John Monroe and Michael Karp, without whose exposing of my ignorance on the monetary system I would not have found impetus to delve as deeply as I have.

Ah the Bank and Canada and 1974!  I don’t think there’s a central bank in the world with more wild mythology surrounding a precise point in time.  I must admit however, were it not for this mythology I would not have found myself motivated to dig as deeply as I have to find the truth. In revealing this truth to others I have been called a government apologist and/or shill, a secret insider of “controlled opposition”, and many other names by ideologues whose conspiracy theorist identity is so wrapped up in the myth that their confirmation bias won’t allow them to accept new facts that belie their prior misinformation. The truth creates a cognitive dissonance their mind cannot accept, the irony being these people spent so much time researching bunk sites for false info but refuse to look elsewhere because the truth doesn’t fit their narrative.

Continue reading Much Ado about 1974: The Bank of Canada in the 70s

Top 10 Liberal Betrayals 2015-2019

One could make quite a list detailing all the dirt the Libs have built up the last 4 years, but here’s our (admittedly subjective) list of the…


1. Lying about electoral reform

2.  Buying a pipeline for the oil sands

3. Approving and supporting other pipelines and projects for new extraction of fossil fuels

4. Continued to disrespect and oppress First Nations, especially fighting valid claims in court spending more defending than what was requested

5. Continued lack of support for our veterans, including cutting their healthcare funding

6. Using every lame excuse to sell the Saudis armoured vehicles despite knowing full well their history of violently oppressing civilians

7. Despite it never results in growth or jobs, creating more corporate tax breaks

8. Trying to get one of the world’s most corrupt corporations, SNC Lavalin, off easy for past misdeeds

9. After railing against them, hypocritically using an omnibus bill to…

10. … Create an infrastructure privatization bank to enrich institutional investors

1. Lying about electoral reform

While one could argue other items on this list did more actual harm, this out and out lie to steal progressive votes was the most cynical. Swing voters who may have been more likely to go NDP or Green but were terrified of Harper were seduced by the Liberal promise of electoral reform, feeling comfortable in the knowledge that a Liberal victory now would mean a truly fair election the next time around. The Libs made the promise a staggering 1,813 times on the campaign trail. Even more diabolical, Justin Trudeau stole Fair Vote Canada’s slogan “Make Every Vote Count” in making this false promise.

Upon taking power the Libs made a show of faith by erecting the ERRE to explore the issue. A majority of members on a multi-party House committee recommended a referendum on a form of proportional representation but that was ignored. Well, not only does Fair Vote Canada endorse proportional representation, which by definition compared to first-past-the-post or ranked ballots is the ONLY system where every vote counts, but 88% of respondents to the ERRE also endorsed some form of proportional representation. That wasn’t the answer the Liberals wanted to hear! Apparently Justin prefers preferential ballots and claims that means there’s no consensus, but really the Libs could never permanently dilute their own power now that they had it again. Either way, they out and out lied through their teeth about it.

UPDATE: Recently a reader who claims to be non-partisan, but then actively ignores any contention that cannot explicitly be proven to their personal satisfaction, claimed Trudeau and the party weren’t lying about electoral reform, they just weren’t that smart. But the proof of the lie isn’t in the final result (or lack thereof), it’s in the conflicting words of Trudeau. If Trudeau was always in favour of ranked ballots, why would his party campaign on “make every vote count”? Ranked ballots DO NOT make every vote count, only PR does that. So, was Trudeau and his entire party and election team oblivious to that fact, or, was it just another tactic to cynically steal votes based on false promises? History suggests the latter, there’s no way a party as elite and well-heeled as the Libs were ignorant of the reality of ranked ballots vs PR, and certainly they knew full well they were stealing the slogan of Fair Vote Canada. They out and out lied to steal votes, the proof is everywhere, they had zero intention of following through.

2.  Buying a pipeline for the oil sands

The gross hypocrisy of this just boggles the mind. The day after announcing a climate change emergency, the Libs ironically negated that empty proclamation by spending billions in corporate welfare overpaying for a pipeline for the oil sands. The oil sands are:

Simply put, we must leave it in the ground.

3. Approving and supporting other pipelines and projects for new extraction of fossil fuels

Furthering the hypocrisy of the Libs’ climate change rhetoric, they approved Enbridge Line 3, approved, then lost, then re-approved the Kinder Morgan expansion, fully support Keystone XL, and approved a new LNG plant reliant on fracking. Every Canadian cheering on the Libs as serious about climate change must be living under an ideological rock wrapped in a partisan security blanket.

4. Continued to disrespect and oppress First Nations, especially fighting valid claims in court spending more defending than what was requested

Like every single government before them, the Liberals shamelessly oppress the rights of our Indigenous peoples while proving how two-faced they are with claims of reconciliation. From lying that they will adopt UNDRIP’s “free, prior, and informed consent” to then not even living up to consent’s poor cousin consult by not consulting properly on projects like Trans Mountain, the Libs’ betrayal of reconciliation goes deep. Like challenging compensation for apprehended First Nations children harmed by the on-reserve child welfare system and under-funded child and family services, or this ridiculous court battle, spending more than $110,000 fighting a First Nations girl in court to block payment for orthodontic treatment that cost just $6,000, or spending millions losing a battle about testing fish farms for a virus, or spending nearly twice the $380,000 needed by Wapekeka First Nation for emergency mental health care after the northern Ontario community uncovered a suicide pact last year. Health Canada denied them the funding and two 12-year-old girls, Jolynn Winter and Chantell Fox, took their lives in January. How cruel is that?!? How indifferent to the suffering of First Nations children does one have to be to fight these battles? All this after the MMIWG report concludes our discrimination amounts to genocide.

5. Continued lack of support for our veterans, including cutting their healthcare funding

The Libs continue another government tradition, total disregard for our veterans. Despite their clear need for services Libs underspent hundreds of millions on them, putting the burden of their healthcare costs onto hospitals, all while fighting valid lawsuits and tinkering with pensions to further reduce support for disabled vets. Worst, is when Trudeau lied to an injured vet when he said, “You’re asking for more than we have to give.” We are a monetarily sovereign nation that owns our central bank, the feds can fund whatever they want easily, and stiffing the veterans who went to battle for them, put their lives on the line, in unconscionable and should warrant better than a lame duck excuse that is simply false.

6. Using every lame excuse to sell the Saudis armoured vehicles despite knowing full well their history of violently oppressing civilians

This one really shows the Libs’ true colours as corporate war profiteers. The arms deal with the Saudis was started under Harper, but after criticizing the deal while in opposition the Libs had every chance to scuttle the deal and came up with a new excuse every time they were called out for continuing the sale. All this despite firstly, the Saudis’ history of oppression and using force on civilians in general, and secondly, dismissing evidence Canadian-made weapons were likely being used against civilians. And now, after empowering the Saudis’ interference in Yemen, Canadian-made war machines are falling into the hands of rebels. This has landed us the dubious honour of being the largest arms exporter to the Middle East second only to the US.

7. Despite it never results in growth or jobs, creating more corporate tax breaks

Is there more music to the ears of corporations than yet another undeserved tax break? The Liberals decided to continue yet another neoliberal tradition, the last few decades of corporate welfare, by introducing more corporate tax breaks to spur growth and investment, despite the fact such breaks NEVER result in promised jobs or growth.

8. Trying to get one of the world’s most corrupt corporations, SNC Lavalin, off easy for past misdeeds

This one was such obvious corporate cronyism we had to write a blog post on it.

9. After railing against them, hypocritically using an omnibus bill to…

The hypocrisy continues, a classic case, where you oppose in opposition what you practice in power, in this case omnibus budget bills, of which they did more than one.

10. … Create an infrastructure privatization bank to enrich institutional investors

The Canadian Infrastructure Bank is flying under the radar of most Canadians (possibly because it’s barely done anything to date) but it was quite contentious in economic and monetary reform circles because it is quite literally an infrastructure privatization bank as opposed to a public bank to build infrastructure as was promised. We also railed against it in our letter to the Finance Minister.

One could write a book on all the betrayal and two-faced nature of the Liberals the last four years… oh wait, someone did. “The Trudeau Formula” is an excellent resource for anyone wanting to fully understand just how much in bed the Trudeau Liberals are with corporate Canada, and how their core policies are about maintaining the status quo for the wealthy elite, and what little socially beneficial policies they enact are merely superficial bandaids to create the appearance of progressiveness and equality to appease and quiet the masses.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

SCANDAL: Trudeau, SNC, and the DPA

Seeing as the SNC-Lavalin scandal has everyone excited in an election year, and there is a ton of information, history, and varying views, we thought it prudent to write a post that details the whole story in a linear fashion.

Our information comes mainly from these articles:

Let’s begin with the simple historical timeline:

  • SNC is in trouble for various shady doings around the world. Most recently they got in trouble for bribes to Qaddafi’s son.
  • SNC needs to clean house, replaces CEO and some other senior execs, but the charges of bribery remain
  • SNC feels the charges should no longer apply because they’ve cleaned up the company, and if charged they would no longer be valid for Government of Canada contracts (a large part of their business). SNC then starts lobbying the feds for a “deferred prosecution agreement” (DPA) which is basically just a settlement, paying out for the problem without the whole company being held criminally responsible.
  • The Liberals, being as corporate-cozy as they are, don’t just agree to the idea of a DPA, at SNC’s request they devise legislation for a DPA and undemocratically slip it into their omnibus budget bill.
  • With the DPA legislation in place, and the investigation into SNC underway, Trudeau and others from the PMO start pressuring MP and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to “consider” a DPA in the SNC case.
  • Wilson-Raybould does not acquiesce nor relent, and pressure mounts to the point she feels it necessary to secretly record a conversation confirming that pressure. Wilson-Raybould keeps her mouth shut however, even though she feels unduly pressured to do as the PMO is suggesting.
  • Trudeau, claiming other reasons, removes Wilson-Raybould from the Attorney General appointment.
  • Wilson-Raybould goes public about the pressure for the DPA. Responding to a Globe and Mail article Trudeau out and out lies about the pressure.
  • Fellow Liberal MP Jane Philpott finds herself defending Wilson-Raybould, and they both get ejected from the Liberal caucus. They are both running as independents now.
  • Lastly, the ethics commissioner report comes out saying that Trudeau acted improperly violating the Conflict of Interest Act. Trudeau counters saying he’s not sorry for defending Canadian jobs.

And that about sums it up. There is one interesting side note to the articles above, that actually helps blow away a commonly held conspiracy theory: that the CBC only does the bidding of the government of the day, casting them in a golden light. Well, if those damning articles don’t wholly refute that I don’t know what else will. Those CBC articles could very well lose Trudeau the election, so ANY notion that the CBC is just a government mouthpiece should be put to rest.

There are some other tidbits worth mentioning, showing just how cozy a relationship SNC has with many government players, like the fact Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci, acting as lawyer for SNC at the time, also added pressure. If that’s not enough, another retired Supreme Court justice waded in with another supporting document for the PMO. Other than Wilson-Raybould, who doesn’t SNC control?

Finally we must address one of the detractor articles, where barrister David Hamer attempts to pick apart the supposed faults of the ethics report. Straight out the gate, one must acknowledge what a shameless die hard supporter of the Liberals Hamer is. He’s one of those ideological dyed-in-the-wool Liberals that will cheer for their political gang no matter how shady they act. Just look at his Twitter page, rife with blind support for a long-corrupted party.

The main issue with Hamer’s article is it’s simply a distraction, a lame attempt to run interference and try to diffuse and dispel the stink of Trudeau’s clear and unambiguous violation. His claims of a “predetermined conclusion” are quite ironic, as it seems that’s what he started with, the conclusion his hero Trudeau is blameless, and then worked to debunk the report based mostly on semantics. Excerpts like this “The Conflict of Interest Act is meant to prevent the improper furthering of private interests by elected politicians, not to control interactions between politicians and attorneys general” are particularly telling, as in light of the full history there is no better way to describe Trudeau’s actions than “the improper furthering of private interests by elected politicians”. His supposed distinction falls rather flat.

His semantics games with the word “improper” show just how great a lawyer he must be, because only a lawyer could twist the reality of those words to such an extreme it garbles their meaning to the point of doubt. Point in case:

“No public office holder shall … seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.”

The word “improperly” is key — it modifies the words “further another person’s private interests,” not the phrase “seek to influence a decision.”

On the commissioner’s interpretation, it is as if the word “improperly” were moved, so as to read: “No office holder shall use his position to seek improperly to influence a decision so as to further another person’s private interests.”

See, Hamer wants to distract you from the actual law to claim some interpretation that changes the purpose or focus of that law. When really, one need only take “No public office holder shall … seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests” at face value as it applies perfectly to Trudeau. He made it about Quebec, and Quebec votes in his Quebec riding. No more obvious use of public office to further private interests could exist.

Hamer then continues on, demonizing and projecting his own version of Wilson-Raybould’s actions as “unreasonable”, from an highly subjective point of view. So, an AG subjected to unusual pressure from multiple people from the PMO including the PM himself, to utilize a brand new and untested law THAT THE COMPANY IN QUESTION LOBBIED FOR, is somehow “unreasonable” in her resistance? Or that it is not within her purview to act as such, wanting to ensure massive multinational corporations face consequences for their actions? That the only way for her to be considered “reasonable” would have been to roll over to the pressure?

The most shocking of Hamer’s fallacious logic though is the complete and total dismissal of SNC’s intense lobbying for the DPA that saw them get a piece of legislation passed just for their specific needs. Hamer seems to think context is meaningless and that we shouldn’t bother paying attention to how the DPA law came to be. Now who’s being unreasonable?

All in all, Hamer’s lame duck attempt to deflect from the PM’s wrongdoing by projecting onto and demonizing Wilson-Raybould makes him look no better than the biased partisan shill he clearly is. He really exemplifies just how many high level cronies the Libs have in their pockets.

The conclusions are obvious:

  • we have a government and PMO solidly in bed with our largest corporations, to the point where the government will not only go to bat for them defending them to the public, they’ll even go so far as to create legislation for them and then pressure it to be used
  • we truly do live in a corporate oligarchy, where our largest multinationals can and do write their own rules
  • we have a PM either ignorantly oblivious of his wrongdoing, unaware of the legalities of his actions, or he knew the potential consequences but prioritized political concerns, drunk on his own power and privilege.

No matter how you shake it, we are electing the neoliberal representatives of the corporate oligarchy and it’s driving us into the ground. This election, vote something other than Lib or Con, maybe find a “reasonable” independent to vote for.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Making the case for public money creation in Canada

There is a very strong case to be made for monetary reform in Canada, in particular increasing public money creation to fund deficits instead of always borrowing from capital markets. This type of money creation is called “monetary financing” and is achieved through the central bank buying government bonds instead of investors and private banks (so we owe the debt to ourselves) and spending that money into the economy without neutralizing it*. This would mean less burden of debt payments to investors, which take up a substantial part of the budget, and which is used an an excuse for unnecessary austerity measures to “balance the budget and reduce debt” (although paradoxically for conservatives you cannot reduce the debt without running a surplus, taxing more than spending).

*central banks, and notoriously the BoC, typically use open market operations and government reserve deposit auctions to “neutralize” or “sterilize” government spending. That is to say, the CB takes actions to ensure its spending new money into the economy is balanced by taking money or other assets (like bonds) out of the economy.

There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of this other than neoliberal ideology, particularly the ideology emanating from the Bank for International Settlements and their desire that central banks be neutral and autonomous. Now, while there is a case to be made for central bank neutrality considering the past mistakes of some governments, in a historical context those mistakes are usually symptomatic of larger often exogenous problems, and moves to use the central bank to solve the problem only exacerbates it. There is no reason a responsible government (and not in a panic trying to solve a crisis) would cause any ill effects to financial markets or the economy with a little more monetary financing. In fact, in a global economy of persistent stagnant growth, a little deficit spending through monetary financing could actually perk things up significantly. Deficit spending grows economies, austerity shrinks them.

Please enjoy my first attempt at making the case for public money creation in Canada, I will add to and evolve the argument over time as new evidence emerges.

First of all, debunking the intentionally inflammatory and fear mongering misinformation about past hyperinflations, the two most common tropes being Weimar and Zimbabwe.  Well, money printing was the symptom, not the disease.  In particular in Weimar the hyperinflation was happening FASTER than they could print the money, so clearly money printing was not the culprit:

“The empirical reality, both when looking at quantitative data and qualitative descriptions of what actually happens in hyperinflations, shows that they are not the results of well-governed states abusing the money creation process.

Indeed, the case study of Weimar Republic shows that it was not even Public Money Creation but private bank money creation that triggered hyperinflation.

The lessons from the above case studies suggest that hyperinflations do not happen simply because of an increase in money creation; indeed, the private banking sector in the UK more than doubled the money stock from 1997-2007 and we did not see experience hyperinflation. Hyperinflation in Germany and Zimbabwe was preceded by a fundamental collapse in the productive capacity of the economy, which started the inflationary pressure.

In both cases the economy collapsed and the government could not mobilize resources via taxation to fund expenditure. As was the case in Zimbabwe, desperate for funds, the government resorted to financing their spending through money creation. Hyperinflation was thus not a consequence of monetary policy but a symptom of a state that has lost control of its tax base.”

On to Venezuela and the reality of what is happening versus the gross oversimplifications and demonizations of mainstream media. My knowledge is cobbled together from multiple sources over time, so there’s no one source that sums it all up, but these two get close:

More info on Canada’s embarrassingly obvious extreme neoliberal bias against Venezuela here and here. Now, that’s not to say Venezuela didn’t make some missteps and do some shady things, but it must be understood, in a globalized economy nothing happens in a bubble, and any nation not following the neoliberal playbook will be punished by other nations, as the US has done to Venezuela.  And when I say “neoliberal playbook”, I mean, as one BIG example, the (supposedly non-binding) dictates of the Bank for International Settlements.  Here’s it is from the horse’s mouth:

“Concerning the first aspect, monetary policy autonomy may be at risk if the central bank can be obliged to lend to the government or provide it with implicit or explicit subsidies in other ways, for example by supporting the price of government debt. Where financial markets are well developed, this risk is the principal reason why lending to government is typically prohibited when the central bank law is modernised, for example to comply with the Maastricht criteria in the case of actual or prospective euro area participants (Table 4 provides a snapshot of the frequency of such prohibitions). In emerging market economies, it is also important to address this risk, but there is a second reason why it is desirable to limit access to central bank credit by the government. This is to provide an impetus for the development of local money and bond markets, which will benefit from the government being motivated to develop a local market-based source of credit, and the critical mass the government’s borrowing needs may provide. 

At the same time, practical experience shows that it can be very difficult to convince governments, particularly in low-income countries, to agree to a reform of the central bank law that includes the wholesale prohibition of lending to government. To address this problem, great efforts have been made to draft central bank laws that limit government access to or facilitate a gradual weaning of the government off central bank credit, but not much is known about how effective such provisions are in practice.”

This shows clearly the favouring of private financial markets over public money creation, ensuring that the ideological claims of public money creation being problematic become a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing nations that stray from the playbook, while developing nations are forced to rely on foreign capital and end up indebted to foreign interests.  Interests that will force austerity, privatization, and cheap resource extraction onto developing nations if they don’t get their pound of flesh. 

The irony here is that during the Great Depression, WWII, and the post-war period, what we now call developed nations were doing all kinds of public money creation to build themselves into the powerhouses they are now, but that kind of activity has been virtually banned since neoliberalism took firm grip in the 70s.  So what allowed those nations to prosper and grow and advance then is denied to developing nations now.  Criminal.

This policy entrenches the supremacy of private financial markets in providing the funding of the economy, which also means that the entire economy becomes built on the notion of earning profits.  This is further reinforced by the fact one of the main daily functions of central banks is to neutralize the spending and taxation flows of the federal government, so it doesn’t impact the precious private banks and markets.  The ENTIRE financial system is designed to cajole and appease and coddle and facilitate financial markets (and by extension the rent extraction and wealth vacuuming of the corporate elite), regardless of the negative impacts on the general public.  Is my disdain too subtle?

For some extra context on how neoliberal policies are based on false assumptions, here’s a great book by Warren Mosler.  You don’t need to read the second half about his life story, but I highly recommend reading the Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds:

It has become obvious since the financial crisis that the global economy is stagnating, growth and inflation are low, they’re even having trouble keeping inflation to target, so much so a Deputy Governor at the BoC made a speech about it:

The answer is obvious:  MORE MONETARY FINANCING!  Not only is deficit spending proven to grow economies (while austerity shrinks them), if the neoliberal assumptions about inflation and monetary financing are meant to be true, then we could use a little monetary financing to keep inflation to target.

But even those inflation assumptions are not accurate.  It is well understood that inflation is poorly understood, and that a confluence of variables, known and unknown, contribute to it.  Here’s a paper showing empirically that past higher levels of monetary financing in Canada did not prove inflationary:

Bill Mitchell, one of the fathers of MMT, advocates for overt monetary financing, even claiming (incorrectly in my view) that governments should not fear the reactions of financials markets and should do as needed to finance the needs of the public (within reason of course, there are limitations to resource and labour supply that if strained would cause inflation):

Now, the reason I find his dismissal of the private sector reaction troubling is because of what happened when Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario and brought in a super progressive agenda which then caused a private sector revolt to resist his policies:

Of course, that was not a federal government and the province does not have a central bank or the ability to create money, but employing such monetary financing could prove difficult depending on market reactions, possibly causing a divestment of Canadian industry, a reduction in our credit rating, a depreciation of our dollar in exchange rates (making the MANY imports we rely on more expensive, especially food), and worst case scenario a la Venezuela, economic sanctions and/or tariffs for daring to make money creation work better for the public good.  And whether a baseless assumption or not, it would affect the inflation expectations of the Almighty Market which would wreak havoc in capital markets. 

Now, none of that is a reason not to enact some increased monetary financing, and it could be done gradually while assuring markets that stability and predictability and target inflation can be maintained, but none the less, there will be ideological opposition based solely on the fact banks and the financial industry do not want governments competing with them to finance public works.  Really, the ONLY thing standing in the way of increased public money creation is neoliberal ideology.

When the Liberals created the Canada Infrastructure Bank I wrote a letter to MPs about it.  It was also a reaction to Morneau’s flippant baseless dismissal of increasing monetary financing as inherently inflationary despite that being an entirely ideological assumption belied by historical empirical evidence:

There are numerous recent papers exploring the idea of monetary financing, especially since QE experiments showed pumping untold amounts of money into propping up the economy did not have the disastrous results many naysayers claimed. Here, even one of the largest most powerful banks in the world, Deutsche Bank, is practically advocating for monetary financing:

Lastly, even players from the IMF make the case for monetary financing, repeating more or less what I said above, that there is really no technical or physical reason we can’t do more monetary financing, it’s a political choice:

I will end with one of the most famous quotes about public money creation in Canada regarding the financing of WWII from the first governor of the BoC:

“In 1939, before the House of Commons’ permanent committee of banking and commerce, a question was put forward by Norman Jaques, M.P., and answered without hesitation by Towers. Here is the question and the reply as recorded on page 771 of the Minutes of Common’ Banking and Commerce Committee for 1939:

Jaques: Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible?

Towers: Certainly!”

I hope this wealth of evidence helps make the case the ONLY thing standing in the way of creating a better more equitable society is the machinations of the psychopathic wealthy elite.  They hold all the power and dictate the policies, and they have molded and shaped various institutions, especially post-secondary education in finance and economics, to their twisted selfish ideology. 

The system has always been a wealth vacuum for the rich, but the last 50 years it has been designed and tweaked and reformed to solidify and entrench the mechanics of that system as some undeniable and empirically proven best practice that should not be strayed from.  Well, as I’m fond of saying the last few years, the system is not based on some universal rules handed down by the gods nor did it emerge from the physical laws of nature; economics is not science and not based on empirical data and provable mathematical formulas.  It is a choice, pure and simple, and it is a choice made by a psychopathic wealthy elite to indenture and enslave the rest of us to their lust for profits and power.

We can do better, there are an infinite number of ways to run a more equitable and sustainable economic system. But the psychopaths and their puppets in power will not go down easily, we will have to fight hard for such reforms, which means educating the indoctrinated public so they can identify and debunk the neoliberal assumptions that have infected every corner of the economy and public discourse. We need to relegate neoliberalism to the same dust bin of history as a flat earth and intelligent design, because it’s just as laughably false but even more destructively enduring.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Useful links to monetary theory resources

This is an ongoing list of links that are useful in learning monetary theory in Canada.

The only place to start learning about monetary theory in Canada, the primers on the Bank of Canada website:

A couple of federal government pages that very plainly state the realities of our monetary system:

A paper from the Bank of England being much more candid and honest about the structure of the monetary system (ours is nearly identical to theirs):

For those who wish to travel deeper down the rabbit hole, here are the main technical papers from the Bank of Canada:

Here are some great links making the case that monetary financing for public spending (money printing) is not inherently inflationary and that resistance to its use is purely an ideological choice:

A VERY revealing speech from a BoC Deputy Governor about some of the cracks starting to appear in a monetary system not designed for low growth:

And here are some great MMT links:

Bank of Canada advances to federal and provincial governments

There is much contention surrounding the history of the Bank of Canada making advances to the federal government and provinces.  Some claim it never happened, that although there were provisions in the Bank of Canada Act (article 18 (i) and (j)) for advances, this provision was never used.  That is incorrect, it was indeed used, multiple times.  The reason it took so long to confirm this is because the information was not on the Stats Canada tables of the Bank of Canada balance sheet (which does not go earlier than 1953), it was buried in the Canada Gazette archives.  Below is a chart of every time the BoC made advances to governments, the last being in 1961.  As you will see, the BoC had no issue giving its biggest advance for the war effort.

Date Level of government Amount 2017 dollars Per Capita
April 1935 Federal $3,000,000 $54,000,000 $4.98
June 1935 Federal $4,301,562 $77,965,811 $7.19
July 1935 Federal $1,240,625 $22,486,328 $2.07
Aug 1935 Federal $1,246,563 $22,593,954 $2.08
Sept 1935 Federal $2,759,375 $50,013,671 $4.61
Oct 1935 Federal $15,724,750 $285,011,093 $26.28
Nov 1935 Federal $2,223,375 $40,298,671 $3.72
Dec 1935 Federal $3,465,812 $62,817,842 $5.79
Jan 1936 Federal $2,195,875 $38,724,552 $3.54
April 1936 Provincial $2,000,000 $35,270,000 $3.22
May 1936-Sept 1936 Provincial $3,000,000 $52,910,000 $4.83
Oct 1936 Provincial $1,000,000 $17,640,000 $1.61
April 1938 Federal $7,000,000 $117,120,000 $10.50
Sept 1940 Federal $32,000,000 $522,000,000 $45.86
Jan 1953 Federal $15,000,000 $138,830,000 $9.35
Nov 1961 Federal $9,000,000 $74,810,000 $4.10

If you’d like to see the balance sheets from the Canada Gazette for yourself, check them out here:

BoC balance sheet 1935-1952