>>>> The United States government only gets credit > to its account for the face value of the coinage it > delivers to the Fed. It gets credit only for the > "cost of printing" the notes it delivers. I keep > reading in the crank literature (COMER, Rowbotham, > etc.) that in Canada and Britain government gets > credit for the face value of the notes. Perhaps you > will verify if that is in fact true. It certainly > isn't true for the United States.<<<<<<<
A recent edition of the Canada Year Book says that "The Bank of Canada...issues the nation's currency... ." I notice that Federal Reserve Notes are signed by the Treasurer of the United States and by the Secretary of the Treasury. By contrast, Bank of Canada notes are signed by the Governor and the Deputy Governor (of the Bank, that is, not the government). There are two bank note (prinitng) companies in Ottawa, and when I worked at The Bank in 1965, they were the only two places which produced bank notes for use as money. They would arrive in bales at The Bank, and were then printed over with the signatures. After that the bales (about a yard square and six-to-eight inches thick) were chopped into stacks of individual bank notes. I can remember always having nothing but brand new currency in my wallet while worked therre, and that we all got the stuff from a cashier's wicket in The Bank, but I do not remember that I got my whole salary that way. On the other hand, I do not remember ever having a cheque in my hand which says it came from Bank of Canada. I do remember someone saying to we newbies on one occasion that The Bank like to put currency in our hands as a way of circulating it, but my memory is very fuzzy on that, and the total number of Bank employees in the country would not be enough to make a ripple in the total currency supply. Further to your comment above, the government does not deliver currency to The Bank at all. I am not sure how coinage gets into circulation. The Mint is owned by the government, but then so is The Bank. I will check in more authoritative places. >>>>>>> But even if it > were true, the initiative in each case--I'm quite > sure--is with the central bank not government,<<<<<<<< Same source as above, "The Bank holds responsibility for Canadian monetary policy". It is the government's fiscal agent and manages gov't cash accounts, gold reserves, foreign reserves and manages the federal debt. >>>>>>> which > delivers the notes only when ordered to do so by the > central bank. Government isn't allowed to deliver > the notes at will to fund its programs.<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>>>> That is to say, > sovereignty in terms of financial policy is entirely > in the hands of the banks even more so than was the > case eighty-three years ago.<<<<<<<<<<<<<< There is a kind of "Accord" between The Bank and Dept. of Finance. They make an agreement on the inflation target and The Bank tries to hit it. > > > ----original message---- > This is not a direct answer to your question, but it > may have some bearing on its origin. > > In The Grip of Death, pp. 260-61, Michael Rowbotham > says: > > ...since 1963 cash currency in the UK money stock > has declined from 21% to 3%. Why should this mean > that the difference should be made up by banking and > debt? If the economy runs principally on numerical > money--credit--then a government has a duty to > introduce some of this into the economy without a > background of debt, JUST AS WITH COINS AND NOTES. > > The reforms proposed by Lincoln and Douglas were > founded upon the supply of a medium of exchange by > government, circulating debt-free... .Applying this > principle to a modern economy, the responsibility on > government to p[provide a nation's money stock > CLEARLY SHOULD NOT BE RESTRCITED TO JUST ITS CASH > CURRENCY. It is ridiculous for modern governments to > identify their money supply duties with the issue of > coins and notes when the use of cash is steadily > declining. > > There is nothing inherently wrong with number money, > just as there is nothing wrong with paper money. > ...At one time paper money was perceived to be > unstable and inherently defective. NOW, SINCE IT IS > CREATED DEBT-FREE BY THE GOVERNMENT, PAPER CURRENCY > FORMS A VALUABLE PART OF THE TINY DEBT-FREE INP[UT > INTO THE ECONOMY. As credit, or number money, is now > the dominant form of money, some credit must be > created must be created debt- > free and introduced into the economy. END OF > QUOTATIONS FROM ROWBOTHAM > > Now I don't know how things work in the UK, but I am > pretty sure that the Bank of Canada does not spend > currency into the economy gratuitously--nor does the > government pay cash (except possibly through graft to > friends of powerful ministers). Banks collect old > bank notes and send them into the Bank of Canada for > incinerating, in exchange for brand new notes. And > for any excess over the exchange, I am pretty sure > they write a cheque. The idea of the central bank > dishing out currency for free to commercial banks is > utterly ludicrous. What was Rowbotham smoking when > he wrote that? > > Keith > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! > http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 > > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
