Re: addendum for Leigh Harkness

["William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---- "Leigh Harkness" <Leigh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
> > That's because the government is subservient to the banking system.
> > The "printed money" is treated exactly as if they were checks by
> the
> > banking system in that they clear back to the Central Bank just like
> > Treasury checks.  The Central Bank then debits the Treasury's
> transactional
> > account and returns the "cancelled" or "withdrawn" "money" to the
> Treasury
> > as if they were ordinary checks.
> >
> > In principle, the government could assert its sovereignty and require
> > that the Central Bank hold the government disbursed currency that
> clears
> > back to it in its vault exactly like it holds securities purchased
> through
> > the "open market" on its own volition.
>
> I doubt if a government would refuse to accept its own money from the
> banks.
> To do so would be to make it worthless.
> It would be like holding a airline ticket that the issuing airline
> does not
> accept.
>
> Leigh
>
---

It comes down to this question: Who is the government?  Is it the government
we think is the government, or is it the Central Bank in consort with
its international cohorts that are subordinate to their own, often antisocial,
ideology?

The government would not be refusing to accept its own money.  It would
accept it in payment of taxes.

It would not be refusing to accept its own money from the banks, as businesses,
in payment of their tax obligations.

As a matter of ACCOUNTING it would require the CENTRAL BANK in the course
of its clearing operations to hold the government's money in its vault
as an asset, which, if it so chooses, the BANK may tender to the government
as a credit against its tax obligations.

--
William B. Ryan
william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxx - email
voicemail/fax - 1-866-678-3967 - toll free