If you were in business and it was too much work, or too risky or it didn't work out, you could be a consultant.

What a complete joke IMO. The Northern Trust (BC Rail carcass) Fund of some $200 million'ish is a complete lie from day one.

They said originally it was to develop business in the North... then in the fine print they say its only for non-profit organizations and economic development organizations... but not for actual for profit enterprise.

So now that they can't fund actual businesses they want to make it look like they are actually achieving economic results through 'consultation' of our tax dollars and royalties from BC Rail to further fund an already crowded field of economic consultant experts already working on our dime in parallel to these and other efforts telling us how they will save us, but not actually having anything to say about actual seed capital or regulatory consideration, or any of the other things the actual small businesses enterprise requires to break the mold.

I think any business that can take advantage of this need should, but I don't think its fair trade for the competitive option BC Rail provided to BC's main established industry. Ask Mackenzie that basically just lost 1000 jobs because CN had half the engines on the tracks and a previously unseen severe shortage of rail cars to get the product to market just in time. Much more efficient to just ship out of Eastern Canada, and inventory costs are what killed Mackenzie’s golden goose imho... via the sale of BC Rail of course... we get paid BDC Consultants to tell us how to invest your own money to do business is the trade off....

IMO give us back BC Rail and lets put our efforts towards free enterprise market solutions not corporate multinational bankster planning and in some cases dictate.

If its about consulting the City will keep them busy.It needs all the help they can get and tax dollars are readily available.

Just think we are now going to shore up an airline because consultants told them its a good deal.

Cheers

If its about consulting the City will keep them busy.It needs all the help they can get and tax dollars are readily available.

Just think we are now going to shore up an airline because consultants told them its a good deal.

Cheers

BANKSTER ... BANKSTER .... BANKSTER .... BANKSTER .....

say it it enough times and you too will believe!!!!!

http://www.heartcom.org/banksters.htm

conspiracy theorists ... anti-semites ... religius right ..... all part of the same group ....

Too bad Ewart is part of that. I thought he would have more objective credibility.

"Just think we are now going to shore up an airline because consultants told them it’s a good deal."

Let me see if I got this right.

Some time ago companies and cities had people on staff who advised them in various areas - finance, planning, policing, social assistance, zoning plans, building inspection, etc. etc. It was part of their regular day’s work and no one was really all that upset when those people put together a report to a manager and in some cases a manager passed it on to Council and everyone could make decisions on some studied matter.

Then there came a time when having so many people on the government payroll became a no-no. So we started downsizing in government. And then there came a time when business did the same because they were not making that much profit anymore as a result of tough competition. So they too downsized and got rid of all that extra money it costs to keep an employee above just the simple salary.

Did the work that needed to be done go away? Of course not. So, along came the consultants. They grew and grew and grew. Instead of paying the $30/hour or so for a planner, they now pay $90/hour for a planner plus travel, accommodation, photocopying, cell phone use, etc. etc.

Often it is even the very same people only a few days after they got laid off.

So, I think the time has come folks, for us to go to the next level of downsizing. Do not hire consultants. If you lay off staff, lay them off because you are going to get out of the business of planning, policing, city maintenance, etc, etc. Or, because you are simply going to make decisions by the seat of your pants and cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Its all about risk management people. And most of you are gamblers from the look of things.

As far as incentives. While I do not like them, they are a fact of the business world.

If the shoppingcetnres have free space and no one is beating down the doors to get in, they give incentives - cost oftenant improvements, a year's free rent on a five year lease .... whatever .... it is private business and we do not hear about it.

When you want to move a key employee into a business there are often negotiations for moving costs, vaction time, singng on bonuses .... whatever .... we do not hear about them ...

The airport is now operated by a local board and not by the feds. So there is more local control as to who gets paid what for moving in with flights, etc.

The City can decide whether they think it will be advantageous to them to move an airline in that will give them a direct international flight.

While there are pluses and minuses to such a subsidy, it cannot be denied that with a customs and immigration section at the airport, tht is what the ultimate goal was from the start of building that into the structure.

In order to get the first taker on that, it appears we may have to provide an incentive. So be it, if thst is how that industry works. It is not unusual in other areas. The city is just closer to the action now than when the feds were in direct charge.

So get used to it, or hand the airport back. The feds are not interested, so expect minimal operations if you do.

Well I guess we know that Owl is a consultant, thus doesn't like criticism of consultant slush funds, and also we know that as a consultant he will smear an alternate opinion through false associations in order to weaken the opposing argument in the lame hope that it makes his opinion more viable.

I've never heard of the web site you cited above, and after reading it I think it is mostly crap... probably false flag type kook stuff.

Owl writes:

"conspiracy theorists" - care to explain with specifics. Or how about a coincidence theorist? I'd like to think I'm simply a sceptic that can form his own opinion. Nice original smear association attempt though...

"anti-semites" - care to explain your accusation of association. I have never said a single thing that was anti-semetic, nor endorsed such a thing, and I challenge you to prove it. Criticism of the politics of Israel is not anti-semetic; and no political movement should be shielded from constructive criticism through such vile types of false smear that simply in the end diminish the real victims of real anti-semitism through the trivial use of it as a political tool. Shame on you Owl for being so low... or show me the specifics.

"religious right" - I agree those people are nuts... there completely crazy... but what do they have to do with me? If you're going to smear me it helps if I understand the smear association. This smear of yours is no better or effective than calling someone hitler over a difference of opinion.

"all part of the same group ...." - Please explain... does this reasoning of Owls also apply to his views of minorities, or people with minor civic problems, or just anyone that doesn't share Owl’s views?

IMHO

I see I hit a nerve......

"I've never heard of the web site you cited above, and after reading it I think it is mostly crap... probably false flag type kook stuff."

Well ... then quit using BANKSTER and the association will drop ..... the word has a meaning which was generated Geraldine Amato and proliferated by people thinking in a certain way .... if you don't want to be associated with that way of thinking .... find another word.

;-)

You said in one of several of your posts on the topic:

"The ones to keep an eye on are the British banksters in the 'City of London' financial centre run by the Rothchild's dynasty that manipulate central banks and thus the politics in those countries around the world over."

The Rothchild dynasty is a family dynasty. The family is Jewish. Has nothing to do with Israel.

http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/7289/1/invasion+of+the+moneylenders+%96+part+1+-+%93debt+is+good%94

Second post from bottom ....

For soem real wonkie thinking on Eagle1's thinking, there are few posts that are a better indicator of that than this one:

http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/7290/31/the+written+word:+rafe+mair+-++october+23rd

"Personally I think hitler was a ghoul and a half retarded dupe run by the nazi/zionist bankster for the illuminati (City of London Rothschild’s) Martin Bormann, a Jew, as well as an organizer, treasurer, and paymaster for the nazi party" .... etc. etc .....

near the bottom of the page ....

I rest my case .....

;-)

The word 'bankster', and its connotation with 'gangster', is not entirely out of place when used to describe the way banks often operate.

They are currently in a unique position of being able to claim the money that they create 'out of nothing' as their own. And by preventing repayment of that which they have lent, by refusing to adequately monetise the real credit of the community, use that money to claim wealth they would not otherwise be entitled to as their own.

How much of what they are able to do is the result of a conscious conspiracy, versus how much is simply the result of the way a system that operates on almost mechanical principles actually works, will always be open to conjecture.

The only way that any actual 'conspiracy' that exists might be revealed would be to attempt to modify those principles to make money what it properly should be, a servant of man and not his master, and note WHO objects, and WHY.

"claim the money that they create 'out of nothing' as their own"

What exactly is the "nothing" they create the money from?

All money is credit, Owl. Credit is an intangible. What a bank does is generalise the credit of the borrower. It transforms his personal, (or corporate), creditary instrument, his promissory note, his 'promise to pay' ~ something not generally acceptable as money in the overall community ~ into a Bank creditary instrument that is.

What makes money 'money' is solely its acceptability. Banknotes, Bank cheques, drafts, Interac cards, etc. are all 'money' to the degree they will be accepted as effective demand for goods and services.

Every bank loan creates an equivalent bank deposit. The promissory note is the Bank's asset. The deposit it has created in the face value of that note is the Bank's liability. It's books always balance, for the process of credit creation is simply bookkeeping.

Loans create deposits, (as do the purchase of securities by the Banks). The repayment of those loans (from the future earnings of the borrower), or sale of those Bank owned securities cancels those deposits. Modern banking is entirely creditary, and based, quite properly, on the fractional reserve system.
(Unlike what some nut on one of the links you provided has to say about that in his mindles assertion that money should be based on gold and silver again. Which it never totally was, and never ever could be.)

The 'problem' is that the Banking system, as a whole, can presently prevent repayment of the loans it has granted by its refusal to grant further loans (in general), causing borrowers to go into default. And one result of this is their collateral security is then forfeited to the Bank, which has then, in effect acquired it 'for nothing'. And has a fair amount of latitude in arranging for its disposal. This tends to concentrate control over major industries into fewer and fewer hands, since the banker, by nature, is a monopolist.

"The 'problem' is that the Banking system, as a whole, can presently prevent repayment of the loans it has granted by its refusal to grant further loans (in general), causing borrowers to go into default"

Let me see ..... I have a loan .... I default .... I try to arrange for a longer term ... I get approval ..... I default once more ..... I try to arrange for a longer term ... I do not get approval .... I try to get a loan somewher else ..... I am refused due to my poor credit record ... the bank takes action to force me to sell an asset or two (if I have one - I may have taken the money and brought it to Vagas and gambled it away)

So, you decide to blame the bank .....

I decide to blame the person or company who made a bad move in getting someone else to back up my plan for making money ....

In the meantime, you get after the bank for their plan on how to make money ....

Interesting ..... and you are an objective person I assume.

"(Unlike what some nut on one of the links you provided has to say about that in his mindles assertion that money should be based on gold and silver again. Which it never totally was, and never ever could be.)"

I aggree with you ..... but we still have enough people out there that believe in that and are driving the price of gold up to double what it was 5 years ago .... there is really not that demand on gold as an industrial product or personal jewelry product.

Same with diamonds .....

"the banker, by nature, is a monopolist"

I am not too sure if there are too many business people out there who would not like to have a monopoly in the business they conduct .......

WalMart ....Exxon ..... GM ...... Starbucks... McDonalds ... ... Home Depot .... Canuck Tire ... Weston ... Canfor ... Krupp ..... .... they all get rid of the "little" guy ..

BTW ... no bank in the top 10 ..... closest you can get to that is ING a company that makes money from those who wish protection .....

CITYgroup is, however right behind them as the first bank ....

Owl, can you explain how showing that zionists bankers based in Britain were instrumental in the creation of the nazi party, the rise of Hitler, and eventually the events of WW2 has anything to do with anti-semitism. Is the historical truth not more important than slander?

BTW George (you’re either with us or against us) Bush today in his visit to the holocaust museum in Israel commented that he admires those survivors that never turned away from their god in such a time of crisis. Ironic because GW's grand-father Prescot Bush financed hitler on behalf of his zionist bankster friends, as is clearly documented through J.Edger Hoover FBI investigations 'trading with the enemy' act documented violations. The George Bush senior hit on JFK and subsequent meeting with Hoover the following day succeeded in classifying this info for nearly 40 years and stopped Hoover from moving against those associated banksters (out of fear for his own life), but the historical record is there for anyone to see with a simple freedom of information request (Hoover made sure of that). Did GW Bush mean only those that were loyal to their god survived (implying the rest were collateral damage for a political end)? Kind of a sick implication IMO considering who it comes from and current circumstances. George was fanning the flames of fanaticism in the heart land of the fanatics, and perpetuating the idea of blackmail for an entire people, so as to captivate them into the zionist agenda through perversion of the Jewish religion and a created fear of others.

Owl, do you or do you not support political zionism (apartheid Israel and all), and if so why do you support that political ideology and for what political or personal reason? That is at the heart of your accusations, so you at least should come clean and state why it is that you smear people in order to advance the zionist cause and in the process piss on the graves of those that died as a result of anti-semitism by cheapening their memory for petty political points. Your use of the language is not appropriate, insulting, and denigrates the historical context.

Facts are not slander, but slandering facts is slander IMO

Owl, you have to look at what goes on in the economy as a whole in regards to the ongoing totality of bank lending over time. Not at the individual lender who gets an extension on his loan, and blows it in Vegas.

If there is a credit contraction, through a loss of confidence on the part of the banking system in general that the OVERALL rate of business profit from which loans will be amortized is falling, existing loans in TOTAL will not be able to be repaid. The repayment of loans in general is absolutely dependent on the Banks continuing to lend. You can see what's happening in the US right now when the rate of new bank lending dries up.

Most of Owls original post comes under the heading of BALDERDASH.

Lets look a what is really happening in regards to **enticing** Horizen Air to establish a direct flight between Seattle and Prince George.

1. Horizen which is a wholly owned subsiduary of Alaska Air, would have already established a service to Prince George if it thought that it was a viable operation. Proof of this is the fact that they have a daily service to Victoria, Kamloops, and Kelowna, all tourist destinations. The Kamloops service is primarily for skiers and the Sun Peak resort, and is operated for 4 months of the year, mid January to mid May. I suspect Kelowna has something similiar.

2. IPG implies that this type of enticement is somewhat common but fails to give us any specifics.

3. City Council were given a copy of the **plan** but wouldnt discuss it because negotiations were taking place, and the information was confidential, however they all voted in favour of the motion.

4. We are being asked as taxpayers to risk $400,000.00 dollars on a venture that the Airline obviously wouldnt do on its own.

5. We now have a situation where IPG approaches the City for a $400,000.00 gaurantee to an Airline, that should have been approached by the Prince George Airport Authority,as this clearly falls under their mandate. Why IPG and the City. I suspect because in reality the Airport Authority is borderline broke and couldnt gaurantee postage for next years mail.

6. What are the risks.

(a)If passenger numbers fall below 61% the City must pay Horizen the full $400,000.00.

(b)If passenger numbers fall between 61% and 72% there will be a penalty, however IPG and the City wouldnt say what that penalty would be. My guess would be in the area of $100,000.00

(c) If passenger numbers exceed 72% there is no penalty, and every one is happy.

(d) Prince George is no Victoria, Kamloops (Sun Peaks) or Kelowna (Big White) plus all their summer attractions and therefore will have a tough time attracting tourist from Seattle.
(e) If we dont have the inbound passengers, then we would have to rely on outbound passengers, that presently fly to Vancouver and beyond. If Seattle provides cheaper beyond (trans continental) rates they may get the business, however at a cost to those Airline presently providing the Vancouver service.

Who benefits;

(1) Horizen Air. They can operate for one year without the risk of losing any money, and if the operation is not viable, they can walk away.

(2) Prince George Airport Authority as they will get take off and landing fees from the Airline, plus they will get a 15.00 Airport Improvement Fee (headtax) for every passenger that flys out of Prince George, and they, like Horizon take no risk.
(3) The City of Prince George because Horizen would have a payroll of $1.4 million, plus some hotel,gambling, and tourist dollars spent in Prince George.

If the project fails then YXS and Horizon get one years revenue compliments of Joe Taxpayer without taking any risks. If it is a success they will also reap the benefits.
The major problem is, is that the taxpayers will take the risk, and get none of the benefits, but could be taken to the cleaners for a huge sum of money.

This actually looks more like an operation to kite taxpayers money to the Airport Authority, orchastrated by IPG, through City Hall, than a viable business venture.

Lets look at it a year from now and see where it stands.

Socredible, what about the multiplier effect? I borrow $3 dollars and spend it all in town, which in turn gets spent again in town and so on and so fourth until that $3 becomes ten or twenty dollars spent. Through the changing of hands that $3 now represents $20 in the economy and surely the $3 loan can then be paid back with $17 remaining in the economy.

I once heard a quote that in politics there are really only two things to consider. Those that recognize the issues, and those that solve the issues. Everything else is balderdash.

The monetary issue here is an issue of unfair monetary manipulation with targeted (subsidized) winners and losers that result from that policy.

The solution is not to lend more debt in order to liquidate the existing debt.

The issue is the hidden tax on savings and investments through the issuance of more debt (money) that distorts the markets for political, and worse yet greed of power market manipulations; and how to better control this so as to avoid manufactured asset bubbles that lead to recessions, wars, and the hidden tax on the responsible working class who save and invest in their future and are not privy to the money creation solutions for the bankster created problems.

Monetary inflation is a tax on everyone that saves, lives off a pension, or just wants to work for a living and save for retirement. Your solution of more debt is nothing more then monetary inflation and thus a tax on the responsible economy. To say nothing of the other mentioned vices it creates.

Its a huge mistake to base monetary policy on debt, rather then the transformational ability of resources, manufacturing, and human labour. I am sure that the bankers will once again lead us into war to cover for their flaws in monetary policy and thus perpetuate their grip on power.

As regards your first paragraph, Eagleone, any given sum of money can transfer goods from one person to another many times, but it can only liquidate one debt.

Eagleone wrote:- "Your solution of more debt is nothing more then monetary inflation and thus a tax on the responsible economy. To say nothing of the other mentioned vices it creates."

Socredible replies:- I agree with you completely, but that's not my solution.

I'm simply trying to explain that whenever we introduce 'money' into trading transactions there is always a debtor and a creditor. The original conception of money came about primarily as a means to allow for the difference of TIME in barter trading.

In straight barter your stuff is traded for my stuff at one and the same time. There is no debtor nor creditor. You get mine, I get yours, and presumably we're both satisfied or we wouldn't have traded.

But when I want your stuff today, which you want to part with today, but I don't have my stuff to offer you in exchange for it til, say, next week, or you don't need it til then, the only way we can effect a trade today is if you extend me credit.

I obtain your stuff now, and am in debt to you for my stuff until next week. I am the debtor, you are the creditor. And I give you some token or other means of acknowledging my indebtedness. Something we mutually agree will be payable by me on your presentation of it in the future by my handing over my stuff 'on demand'. That token is 'money'. All money is a debt in the hands of one party, and a credit in the hands of some other.

In the example given, when you present the token and demand my stuff a week after I've received yours, and I pay you 'on demand', the usefulness of the token is then akin to that of a movie ticket once you've gained admittance to the show. Zilch. As far as our transaction is concerned it's cancelled the debt I owed to you when I handed over my stuff, and everyone is happy.

Now if we extend that simple type of trade into our modern world, the principle remains the same, only the accounting gets more complex. Since instead of my issuing you some token, based fundamentally on my 'character' and your faith that I'm a man of my word and will fulfill my debt obligation to you as contracted, we use a token, or more likely now an exchange of account balances, issued by a Bank. This expands the scope and usefulness of 'money', since its 'credibility' is not based on your, or anyone else's knowledge of my 'character', but on the 'credibility' of the Bank, and entire Banking system.

Bank money is issued as a debt of the borrower to the Bank. When it is exchanged for goods and services by that borrower it then becomes a debt of the Bank to whoever has provided those goods and services to him. We do not generally observe this when we pay for something in 'cash' (Banknotes), but it is still so.

In the overall financial system today, money ebbs and flows, as well as circulates. In effect, it's 'born' with production, and 'dies' on consumption. The orthodox conception in the whole economy holds that credit issue by the banks will become, as it is spent, the COSTS of some business.

The equation is COSTS=INCOMES=SPENDING FROM INCOMES. We produce to consume, and money merely facilitates the process. Its purpose being the means of accounting and directing the production, distribution and consumption of actual goods and services. The system is supposed to be completely 'self-liquidating' financially as goods pass from production into final consumption.
Which it largely would be, if ALL goods were Consumer goods, and ALL COSTS were current Labor Costs (Incomes).

They aren't, however, and due to a systemic accounting 'flaw' that developed with Industrialism, as 'capital' increasingly displaced, and continues to displace, 'labor' as one of the factors of production, the system is not totally financially 'self-liquidating'.

And the only way current debts can be completely paid as they fall due is through the issuance of more debt. Which then must be repaid in the future.

My "solution", though I certainly don't claim credit for it, since it was not discovered by me, but by Major C H Douglas shortly after World War One, is to issue to CONSUMERS "debt-free" (not as a 'loan', nor "costed" into any production)credits in sufficient quantity to enable the financial system to be fully 'self-liquidating'. These credits are created in the same way the Banking system currently creates 'money'. They can be used to lower consumer prices, therefore their introduction will be non-inflationary.