Is The Evil LUST For Money Destroying OUR World?

Submitted by Terence Blackett

moneyKhalil Gibran’s famous quote – “Money is like love; it kills slowly and painfully the one who withholds it, and enlivens the other who turns it on his fellow man” – pretty much sums up the two paradigms of man’s loci in regards to the proper or base use of what is a “medium of exchange”, an inanimate, non-sentient papyrus object whose sole purpose is a medium of exchange.

The question of what money is arises only when money ceases to function properly. In economic terms (properly understood), the answer to the question – what is money? – consists of four words: “Direct and Indirect Exchange.

The other question which arises is – can money be evil? This is where we enter the vale of profound morality and the praxis we place on how money affects those who have as against those who have not.

This issue is a complex paradigm to navigate as the swirling schools of opinion on the issue is as deep as they are wide. The epistemological arguments hinge on the age-old divisions of labor and the moral-philosophical theory of Biblical teachings coupled with the advancing forms of secular, political, ideologies which advocated a morality of rational egoism, free market liberalism and a new stratospheric level of greed, ambition and avarice in a world inebriated by “the love of money”.

To give some ontological meaning to this issue, one must look at how we got here in the first place and the real question is – what is the way forward?

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

1. It is the visible divinity – the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and nations.

Karl Marx said it best – “By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as an omnipotent being. Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.”

In the book, “Theology of Money author Philip Goodchild posits a philosophical inquiry into the nature and role of money in the contemporary world.

Philip reveals the significance of money as a dynamic social force by arguing that under its influence, moral evaluation is subordinated to economic valuation, which is essentially abstract and anarchic.

His rigorous inquiry opens into a complex analysis of political economy, encompassing markets and capital, banks and the state, class divisions, accounting practices, and the ecological crisis awaiting capitalism (the subject of another thread at a future point).

Engaging with Christian theology and the thoughts of Carl Schmitt, Georg Simmel, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and many others, Philip has developed a ‘theology of money’ based on four contentions, which he elaborates in depth.

  • Money has no intrinsic value; it is a promise of value, a crystallization of future hopes.
  • Money is the supreme value in contemporary society.
  • The value of assets measured by money is always future-oriented, dependent on expectations about how much might be obtained for those assets at a later date.
  • Money is created as debt, which involves a social obligation to work or make profits to repay the loan.

Since these values, when realized, will again depend on future expectations, the future is forever deferred.

Financial value is essentially a degree of hope, expectation, trust, or credit.

As a system of debts, money imposes an immense and irresistible system of social control on individuals, corporations, and governments, each of whom are threatened by economic failure if they refuse their obligations to the monetary system.

This system of debt has progressively tightened its hold on all sectors and regions of global society.

If we have learnt nothing within the last year is that the most ominous weapon outside of nuclear armament are those who are the custodians of our money (i.e. banks). For they have at their behest the power to withhold loans and dry up credit, thus driving economies into the ground in a hurry where people suffer in all walks of life.

Personal and corporate bankruptcies, lost jobs, disintegrating social programs and other unpleasant consequences are a direct result of these policy initiatives. There is no government that can afford to offend its Central Bank given that the Bank of International Settlements will put any amount of pressure on anyone to influence them in their way.

In a 1924 Bankers Association meeting – this ominous treatise was put forward (not intended for the public ear):

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”

So again, as Marx put it, the proletariat would always be subservient to the bourgeoisie, no matter what, because they are the ones who control the means of production – hence capital flows according to their dictates and is constrained according to their fancy.

This evil lust for the control of money has permeated from the head to all the dysfunctional organs within society where greed and wanton excess are the tools of modern 21st century society.

Under this absurd, flaxy, fragile, Keynesian economic system, the real wealth of the world is being confiscated from the true wealth creators, (you and I) and transferred to the bankers who then in turn pay themselves exorbitantly huge salaries and bonuses – free from any censure, regardless of who says what.

So for hundreds of years, since the days Rothschild was trading on the waters-edge of Vienna, bankers have accumulated untold wealth while  gaining power and control over every person, business and government on the planet.

Today, it is no longer about the money; it is their lust for control of the masses which drives them on. They have used this great wealth and power to buy and control the global oil companies, the media, transportation, the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry and they will even buy off our elected politicians through the financial control exerted my the wealthy elite over the federal and provincial political parties in individual countries.

Many are asking the question – what is the way forward?

Sadly, under our current debt monetary system, all countries and their peoples have suffered through recessions, depressions, wars, record personal and corporate bankruptcies, family breakups,  unemployment, growing environmental concerns, increasing taxation, less and less government programs and services,  and increasing personal, corporate  and public debt.

Food banks are a growth industry in America (where most churches have them), homelessness is virulent and more prevalent and our children are ill-prepared (intentionally) by our educational system to survive in an increasingly uncertain world.

Most young adults cannot even reconcile a bank account. All of these happenings are a direct result of the debt money system we are under and the few people who control it.

So, where does it all end?

The destruction of evil in our world will happen sooner or later. That is a pre-given! What we do in the meantime is crucial in regards to accountability and this is incumbent on every man, woman, boy and girl in their individual societies.

Let me close by citing a few choice passages from Francisco d’Anconia’s money speak from “Atlas Shrugged” – some argue that his philosophy seem to run counter to Christian teachings about money, but I believe they can be reconciled. He argues:

“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.”

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You are.”

“That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by someone’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.”

“When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”

So there you have it folks!!!


  • I, for one, am getting tired of this steady diet of religious force feeding by T. Blackett, Zoe, Dictionary, GP et al. It is like being chained to a pew with no control over the pulpit and every da is Sunday.


  • @Anonymous(2)
    There are blogs which straddle many topics of interest on BU. Why the fixation with the guys who debate the religious/morality topics? If you don’t agree with the message say so or move on.

    Better still submit a view!


  • TM Blackett

    I have a simple question; where is your mother ship parked? I want to go into space and I thought I could hitch a ride along with you since NASA wouldn’t take me and I don’t have the dough so I can’t afford a ticket on Branson’s rocket ship.


  • My friends, I am fed up with T. Blackett and alter egos as well.

    However, David is right. If you do not wish to read him, don’t. Just move on. You did not move on on the last one and he scored almost 200 comments. For someone with rinocerous hide like T. Blackett, it is the quantity and not the contents of the comments that matter. They prove he and his little bundles of joy have a congregation (sorry, audience).

    So, as I find the man an intellectual phoney with no redeeming merit whatsoever, I am moving on. I must tell you that I did not even read this latest, because it is the Lord’s day and don’t want to call His name in vain – at least today. So I switeched straight to comments. Also, because of the crashing bores I have come across in my lifetime, T. Blackett is No. 1 on the list.

    In the same way that I switch channels if a TV show bores me, me out of this thread and not coming back.

    Peace amigos. We will meet on a happier BU thread which, with luck (but I wouldn’t hold my breath as he seems to have an opinion on everything) will be Blackett-free – and, of course, free of the beings that go with him.


  • Money is created as debt, which involves a social obligation to work or make profits to repay the loan.

    If this concept of “money as debt” is a new concept you haven’t heard before, check out the video “Money as Debt” (47 min) at
    for a more detailed explanation.


  • @ Sargeant
    “I have a simple question; where is your mother ship parked? I want to go into space and I thought I could hitch a ride along with you since NASA wouldn’t take me and I don’t have the dough so I can’t afford a ticket on Branson’s rocket ship…”

    Hey Sarge – I bust out laughing after reading your comment – AWESOME, off the chain….Now that’s what I’m talking about!!!!


  • @Amused

    Though you are bored…. I appreciate you stopping by to offer your bit of salt….That what the pot needed!!!



    On another thread – there is reference to the fact that Canada may hold the key to Barbados’ economic woes due to its fiscal stability having not been compromised to the extent other countries were in the global meltdown of last year.

    But as much as there is a grain of truth in that, the underlying fiscal seismology in the Canadian economy (with all its resources) mask a growing and mounting challenge in the area of DEBT burden…

    This is something folks do not want to deal with…

    As a sidebar note – “Who own the BANK OF CANADA” anyway? Is it the Canadian people or is it HER ROYAL MAJESTY – Queen Elizabeth?


  • Your quote ‘“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.”

    That is much of the world today, certainly Barbados.

    A good decent, hardorking family cannot easily afford a small piece of land, let alone build house on it.

    How can this be honourable and just?

    The wealth is in the hands of a few who hoard.

    I have seen greed, in family as well as working life, people who have much but want more, more, more, to the expense of others who have less.


    One issue, Land Tax. Why are second and rental properties taxed the same rate as main residences?

    Land Tax rates should vary. Homes the family lives in should be at a lower rate for second (even third for some) homes and rental properties.

    This is easily controlled by comparing land tax rate billing classifications to the declared income of individuals and ownership of properties.

    Why is capital gains tax not yet in Barbados?

    Government scrabbling around for money, when a tax common in major places like US and England is not used here, why?

    Capital gains tax is merely a tax on income, as any other. You do not get taxed on the rise in value of the property due to inflation, just the excess.

    So, if your house is valued for land tax in 2008 at say, 400,000, when you sell it in 2011 for 500,000, an adjustment is made to the cost base for inflation or price index. So, the tax would be on only a portion of the gain, less costs and indexing.

    So, 500,000 less legal fees, real estate costs, and adjustment to the base price based on inflation means you may only pay tax on say 50,000.

    Tax on 50,000 at 25% or 35% would be only a maximum of 17,500.

    Not a large portion of the proceeds, but when accumulated for all property sales, would amount to a tidy sum for Government.

    Secondly, by basing capital gains on the land tax value, it would ensure that overseas owners pay their fair share rather than ‘undervaluing’ property on sale (officially), to avoid taxation.

    Lastly, legislation to provide for the disclosure of the beneficial owners of property, that seeks to go behind any corporation or trust veil, would ensure that transfers of property owned by a corporation would be addressed and taxed accordingly.


  • Sorry, paragraph above should read ”Land Tax rates should vary.
    Homes the family lives in should be at a lower rate THAN THE RATE for second (even third for some) homes and rental properties.


  • The Bank of Canada is a Canadian government institution. Her Royal Majesty owns nothing in Canada except for the royal swans she donated in 1967.


  • Above should read ‘Land Tax rates should vary. Homes the family lives in should be TAXED at a lower rate THAN THAT for second (even third for some) homes and rental properties’


  • @Crusoe

    You make some good points but you must know governments this side of the world because of the huge debt burdens are ALL about revenue generation, then they create social safety nets by creating the several welfare stations(handout departments) to help the indigent.


  • Understood. Ensuring that the wealthy are able to continue pushing business and revenue generation, may be one approach in easing recession, unfortunately without balance in the socio-economic status, any relief will ultimately be temporary, or merely serve to extend the day of reckoning, economically.

    The capital gains tax is not only fair from a point of view of taxation of income, but stands to address issues related to historical buildup of assets, without depleting those assets by penalising, but a the same time by addressing income form those assets, by a fair tax on income earned.

    In terms of revenue generation, I would suggest that such taxation as marginally increased vat and capital gains will bring much needed additional revenue to Government, possibly even assisting in other activities that create income for the nation and real increases in GDP.

    For example, increased such taxation may assist in enabling hotel assistance schemes to reduce room rates.

    The first thing any tourist looks at, or the second with airfares, is room rates.

    So, reducing room rates will encourage tourists, while increased VAT will not affect their decision in the least, but increase Government revenue.

    Say, a beer is $4 at a South Coast Hotel.

    17.5 percent on the beer is only 70 cents.

    You think the tourist cares about 70 cents?

    My point is that maximising ancillary service revenue, which seem small but add up, must be one priority in our revenue stream, while ensuring that our major visitor costs, such as airfares and room rates, are reduced to be competitive.

    Sure, people who stay at Snady Lane are the elite who do not mind paying USD 500 plus per night.

    But, they are a minority, everyone else likes a deal.

    We have got to be competitive but maintain revenue. The answer lies in ancillary services.

    And to those who balk at this, I remember once visiting Paris and my jaw dropping at the then price of a beer, equivalent of Pounds Sterling 4.

    There must come a time when commonsense must reign and now is the time.

    We have got to understand that we need revenue generation that is equitable.

    Instead of the bits and bobs increasing road tax and land tax etc, increasing VAT and putting in place a fair capital gains tax will contribute much more to tax revenue, while being socially acceptable, both from a moral and practical viewpoint.

    One cannot simply keep placing more burden on the majority, yet ignore such taxation methods as capital gains.

    Side benefits include the partial deterrent in holding property for the sake of it, without any contribution to GDP, thus making the opportunity cost of funds more expensive in property holding, hopefully encouraging other forms of investment such as business and public share investments.

    Further, a capital gains tax on share holding appreciation (for shares in publicly held companies, other will be too difficult to manage), will make the investment somewhat less risky, because losses in bad companies or tough years will be available for set-off against other revenue, thus the net effect of the loss after tax will be reduced by the tax rate being charged.

    It makes sense.


  • By the way, from Government’s viewpoint, now is the time to iontroduce capital gains tax, because the markets and prices are low, due to the recession.

    So, by starting now, by the time properties and shares bought now are being sold in a few years, the appreciation should give returns, hence tax, as opposed to a situation where one is starting from a price high.


  • Terence MB
    Season’s Greetings to you n yours from Me n mine.

    ‘have a jolly merry christmas……..’


  • @Crusoe

    Tell us about the downside of implementing a capital gains tax? Would it discourage commercial activities? The fact that Barbados does not have an overly active investment climate outside of real estate may make the question moot.


  • I guess some would argue that a tax on capital gains would make investment here less attractive, thus reduce money coming in to invest in real estate and hotels etc. Possibly, that it may make it less attractive to build for sale and rentals, for local investors and foreigners, as the potential return is reduced.

    But, what of the other ‘65%’ profit remaining after tax is taken. Still a good chunk to keep, no?

    Note again that this tax is on profits after relevant time indexing of the gain, reducing the gain to real terms before taxation is applied.

    We may not have an overly active investment climate, and if for administrative ease and transparency, the tax is only applied to those on the stoock exchange, the pool is fairly reduced.

    But, even that must surely be a decent periodic windfall for the Government, particularly if buyouts etc take place?

    Who owns these large corporations? Someone makes profits and thus income. Yes, dividends are taxed, but what about the real capital gains over time?

    Even if the suggestion is thrown out of the window, although I would disagree with abandonment, it still bears analysis.



    Salut mon joli.. .

    Tu me manques tellement, ma chèrie.

    Il est si magnifique de vous voir de nouveau.

    JOYEUX NOEL à vous et votre famille aussi…

    Faites attention et Que Dieu vous bénisse…

    Enchante ma cherie….


  • @ CRUSOE

    Your comments ought to be put into a completed MS Word doc. and published in the NATION & ADVOCATE Newspaper tomorrow morning as an editorial piece asking the kinda’ questions you are posing to the current Administration….

    The reason I suggested the “broadsheets” is for the mere reason that the 85 thousand people or so who read the daily print media ought to be made aware of what we are dealing with in the way you so succinctly laid it out…

    BU is still pretty much the forum for the ELITE* & the GLITTERATI*…


  • @ Pat
    “The Bank of Canada is a Canadian government institution. Her Royal Majesty owns nothing in Canada except for the royal swans she donated in 1967.”

    Pat, I’ve got 2 questions real quick:-

    (1) Is the BoC a private or public bank?

    (2) What does the history of your Central Bank say about it today?


  • Terence MB
    Translate, translate. Before I translate it into some ‘vice’.LOL
    Never liked French which this seems to be. And then again, it looks like Spanish too. LOL


  • Money:There is nothing wrong with having money,the problem is the one ones who control the vast amounts ofit is the problem they are the ones wh have the world in an conomic tail spinwith the uncontrolablegreed. They the ones who decided how much money they are going to put out into market.The make decisions which can make or break a system which is in fact happening now via the ecocomic down fall.
    They are at the top of the pyrmid , manwhile the ones at the bottom continue to struggle daily work ing very hard with little or nothing to show for it.
    They make life very hard for the average working Joe.My point being is that until those being in charge understand the real value of money in any society and it is the the blood that makes a system works properly and if only a few is going to have it the sytem would continue to fail. Having said that let them start by giving people a decent wage. At the end of the day the more people having money the more money would be filtered back into the system.On the other hand the less people having money
    would make it very difficult for a system to function correctly.


  • Please excuse my typng errors.In a hurry .But I hope my point was understood.


  • Any comments on the suggestion made on a previous blog the government could look at reforming the tax policy by decreasing direct tax and increasing indirect tax. There is a large population we are told who are in the self – employed category who don’t pay or manipulate their books to avoid paying accurate taxes. Lawyers, doctors, and other high-flyers come to mind. Of course we have your professions/tradesmen at the other end of the earning spectrum.


  • While indirect taxation such as VAT will automatically tax anyone earning income, on the spending of that income, we still have to acknowledge the extensive public service wage bill and societal committments.

    Therefore, my own belief is that ( generally ) the rates for direct taxation should remain as is, save for periodic increasing of the lower limit that relieves low income earners from payment of tax and possibly some other incentives, such as incentives to invest in local companies.

    For example, by giving some allowance against tax for investment in small and medium size Barbados listed companies, this will hopefully over time bring some mobility to our stock exchange.

    However, stock exchange controls will have to be brought to bear on such companies and review of their corp[orate governance etc will have to be implemented, to encourage investors to have the confidence to invest, particularly as many have been family run until now.

    Secondly, the ability to write investment losses on such companies against other revenue, will also have some effect on the inclination to invest in new or newly listed companies.


  • @ Terrence Blackett

    The Bank of Canada IS the Central Bank of Canada. It sets the interest rates, buys back $ and carries out other functions to maintain order in the financial market.

    The Governor of the Bank of Canada indicated yesterday that interest rates will be going up in the NY. He is concerned that people who bought houses in the depressed market will not be able to carry them. Housing is the only inflationary segment of the economy today.

    The Minister of Finance annouced this morning that he is bringing in new financial regulations whereby you have to have more than a 5% downpayment on the purchase of a house, and no more 30-35 years mortgages.

    The Bank of Canada is an Agency under the Department of Finance.



    Greetings My Lovely…

    You missed me that much, my darling…

    It is so wonderful to see you again…

    MERRY CHRISTMAS* to you and your family also …

    Take care and God bless you…

    Keep sweet, my darling…



    Can you explain in anyway why the vagaries of the Barbados Tax Laws are such?

    Also, as David rightly intonate – why are certain categories in our society allowed to skirt the periphery of the tax system at will without any form reprimand or censure?

    Is this a joke or what?


  • Terence MB
    Awwwwwwwwwwwwww, you make my heart go titty-bum.
    You’re so swoiteeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
    Keep the flame burning.


  • @PAT

    The Bank of Canada actually began as a privately owned institution and at the time of its inception (1934) when Alberta was in the midst of a revolution of sorts.

    A small group of people came to understand the origin of recessions and depressions and the corruption of bankers and were moving with plans to control the vitriolic policies of these same bankers.

    Big finance moved to have itself established as a central bank in Canada through the passage of the BoC Act, giving it exclusive authority over the money supply of Canada. (This was and still is in contempt of the so-called constitution, Section 91.14 and 91.15.)

    It didn’t take long for people everywhere, especially Alberta to recognize this same group of unscrupulous individuals (bankers) as the ones behind the passage of the BoC Act.

    The depression was to continue unabated through the 20’s and early 30’s, but Alberta was determined to get control of what it believed was the ultimate social responsibility of a government – to provide a mechanism of debt free money creation as a means for the people to live and prosper without having the private banks stealing the wealth of those who create it in the first place.

    The Alberta Credit House Act – An Act to provide the people of Alberta with additional credit, was passed and led to the setting up of a number of Treasury Branches throughout the Province. (This law has never been disavowed by any government in Ottawa.)

    Alberta acted according to the terms of the laws of 1867 (The Constitution), which allowed the provincial legislatures to “borrow money on the sole credit of the Province”. That is to say, upon the real wealth of the province, which means that there is no doubt that there is actually a provincial credit. And the Province can certainly establish its own mechanism to use this credit directly, without mortgaging its wealth or going into debt to individuals or corporations like the private banks.

    The BoC responded by changing its shares from class shares to completely benign shares and depositing them with the Minster of Finance in exchange for a sum of tax dollars ($5 million to be exact).

    This idea gave the illusion that the bank was now owned and controlled by the government.

    So how could a privately owned corporation, with the power to bring a government and a country to its knees within hours, be taken over without as much as a whimper?

    Could it be that the Bank of Canada preferred to appear that it had been taken over (nationalized) while it maintained its independence and powers?

    Unfortunately, with the start of the World War 2, the Province of Alberta suspended implementation of their credit plan and it was ultimately abandoned.

    Well, those who knew and understood the bankers and how their monetary policies and system operated weren’t fooled.

    Hundreds of pages of evidence was brought before a Standing Committee in 1939 which showed clearly how deeply indebted the Provinces were to the private banks as a result of the depression and the monetary policies in effect at that time. (The first Governor, Graham Towers was also present at these hearings to answer questions as well.)

    The provinces had been seeking loans from the BoC but were being denied and forced to borrow from the private banks and abroad. The reason finally given for the BoC’s unwillingness to lend to the provinces was that the provinces were not willing to enter into an arrangement with the BoC similar to that of the arrangement the BoC had with the Federal government.

    This arrangement gave the BoC the lofty position of being the government’s fiscal agent.

    Only the BoC sells government securities – bonds and T-bills. The BoC also “sells” notes at face value to financial institutions for circulation throughout the country.

    If the Bank of Canada wants a tight monetary policy, the Bank of Canada can limit the amount of money the government can borrow by decreasing the number of securities it sells.

    The BoC uses other measures to tighten the money supply as well, such as increasing the interest rates and making it more difficult for borrowers to borrow money. Through these actions, a recession is born.

    The effect is the government receives less in taxes at every level and, of course, the demand for government assistance rises.

    To compound the problem, the government has no ability to refuse the high interest rates the BoC imposes on it and the taxpayers.

    The government has no ability to circumvent the decisions of the BoC.

    All revenue to the government flows through the Receiver General, who happens to be a servant of the BoC and not the government.

    The Bank of Canada appears to have other controls over government. While reading the evidence of the Standing Committee on Banking and Finance held in 1939 and Hansard, members of the committee raised the issue of the bank’s control over spending decisions of the government.

    There was reference to questions by low-profile backbenchers of the House of Commons about why this was so. Or, why any other policy was not being carried out even though it would greatly assist the economy.

    The response in the House of Commons would indicate that, although the government wished to proceed, the money was not available because of decisions made outside of government!!!

    This was confirmed many years later when the governor of the BoC told the government on more than one occasion that Canada was in no position to kick-start the economy. (As if the government could have done it without the blessing of the BoC.)

    During the Standing Committee on Banking and Finance in 1939, Graham Towers admitted the only thing that would limit Canada’s involvement in the war was manpower.

    Money would not be a problem!

    Yet the Bank of Canada refused to put out money for any job creation, infrastructure expansion, or aid for the poor, the old, the sick, the framers, the unemployed, small business or any other policy suggestions that had been put forth by the federal or provincial governments.

    The reality is that the Federal government can’t by pen and paper without the permission of the Bank of Canada, and all money the public considers “waste” is willingly and culpably paid out by the Bank of Canada.

    When Canada is in a recession (created by the BoC – as with other banks around the world), the Bank of Canada will do nothing to help the country out of it until it considers the timing to be right and the solutions offered are usually a further detriment to the economy over the long run for most of us except those on the “inner circle” who really know what is going on and can profit from it….

    These are the EVILS* which sadly are oftentimes too subliminal for the average JOE* to see far less comprehend…



    Can you explain in anyway why the vagaries of the Barbados Tax Laws are such?

    Also, as David rightly intonate – why are certain categories in our society allowed to skirt the periphery of the tax system at will without any form reprimand or censure?

    Is this a joke or what?

    Terence, firstly to be clear, I am not a tax expert per se.

    But, in answer, if you mean why (1) does Barbaods not have capital gains tax and (2) why many elude the tax system, here goes:

    I do not believe that there is a specific reason the the capital gains tax issue, other than no Government thought it necessary or prudent to implement such an amendment to the tax legislation, despite the millions that could have been derived from the 70’s to current day.

    Maybe, the horse has already bolted, that the large landowners havealready gained funds and walked away smiling, without any contribution to the coffers.

    But, there is always time to implement such an amendment, there is still much property and development that will be done.

    On the second issue, surely it comes down to avoidance or evasion of tax, as happens everywhere.

    Remember, tax avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal.

    Avoidance is merely managing your assets and income in such a way as to pay as low tax as possible, within the confines of the relevant legislation.

    Evasion usually amounts to deliberate non-declaration of income, to avoid tax that is legislated and due on that income.

    Obviously, those who work for an employer and are paid by PAYE, are fairly incapable of evading tax, because their salary is recorded, their relevant details copied to the Inland Revenue and NIS.

    But those who operate owner managed businesses or sole proprietors, manage their own records.

    This is particularly so for cash businesses, say water sports operators or small shops (just for example, not blamaing or alleging any such activity on their part).

    Who knows what they take in as revenue, but them?

    So, the easiest way is simple non-declaration of income.

    Declare a percentage, say 60% (if that much) and pay tax on that.

    The rest is used to fulfill cash obligations such as groceries and other living expenses, house repairs, etc, thus is not easily traceable. Untaxed.

    It is nigh impossible for authorities to verify or deny the revenue reporting on these businesses.

    So, it comes down to honesty.

    Now, in some countries, the tax authorities will actually come and audit you.

    They will watch your business and when your customer attendance does not match your revenue reporting, you are made to explain.

    I doubt that happens here, due to lack of adequate resources.

    Further, appropriate legislation would surely have to be implemented to allow for the estimation of a person’s income and then an assessment based on such monitoring of a business.

    It will be cumbersome and entail lenghty legal work which, as we know, will take years.

    So, looks like we are stuck with the reliance on honesty of individuals.


  • So remember, if you run a small business and someone asks how things are going (unless you are marketing of course), remember to answer ‘things tight man, tight’. Lol.


  • Lastly, there is an interesting lesson here also.

    See this push to a ‘paperless’ society?

    What does it really mean? It means that EVERYTHING could eventually be traceable, everything!

    So, who does that benefit. If you have a certain viewpoint, it means that the ‘small man’ will forever be chasing his tail, unable to get a ‘lil ease’.

    It will ensure control is maintained on the banking sustem and monetary exchange. Ultimate control.

    Oops, have I opened the door here ……re Revelation etc and numbers?



  • @ Terrence Blackett

    I dont know where, or from whom, you got your information. But I can tell you that the Bank of Canada is a government institution. All its employees are classified as public servants and move freely within Industry, Finance, Revenue Canada and other economic based departments.

    The Receiver General of Canada IS the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and is elected to Parliament. He has been since I came to Canada in 1967, when the department was called Supply and Services. He signs all civil servants cheques and controls government monies and is responsible for the preparation of the Public Accounts.

    The current Governor of the Bank (like all the others) was appointed by the Prime Minister and prior WAS a senior officer in the Department of Finance. He is the youngest Governor of that bank ever.

    One of Barbados’ brightest economic minds worked at the B of C and then transferred to Finance in a very senior position. Sadly he died of a massive heart attack on the plane, on his way back from the OECD, while yet in his early 30’s, leaving a wife and two young kids. He was a Combermerian, I understand, got his Ph. D. in Economics at 24. I knew him from the Bank and after he was at Finance, he was big and tense. His name was Barry, I think last name was Cozier.

    By the way, I studied some economics, including Money and Banking, Financial Institutions and Capital Markets.


  • @ Terrence Blackett

    Another thing, the Bank of Canada does not set all economic policy in this country, neither does the Bank of Canada dictate to government. The Minister of Industry has more clout with the economic policy agenda. The Bank is all about money supply and interest rates.


  • is so sad our state Our world our poor


  • If I was a woman I could pictuir myself crying from birth to death and filling up the ocean If I was a man I could picture myself fighting to fix all of this you listed above as you are. If I was god I would be setting on the furthest moon wondering when you would all see that I have let you do things your way. And hope one day you would all quit looking the other way so I can come take what good people that are left to eternity… far far away!


  • If I was a woman I could picture myself crying from birth to death and filling up the ocean If I was a man I could picture myself fighting to fix all of this you listed above as you are. If I was god I would be setting on the furthest moon wondering when you would all see that I have let you do things your way. And hope one day you would all quit looking the other way so I can come take what good people that are left to eternity… far far away!


  • What if Cindy was right if so your all going to soon be put in check mate!


  • Pingback: Detoxification Immediate Detox Centre Master Cleanse | The Effects Of Detox With Lemon Diet Program

  • I got this web page from my buddy who shared with me concerning this
    web site and at the moment this time I am visiting this site and reading very informative articles at this place.


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s