Pierre Parisien



The Bank
Reflux
for the
Uninitiated
Loans
and the
Bank Reflux
Credit Cards
and the
Bank Reflux
The Bank
Reflux as a
Systemic
Phenomenon
The
Rehabilitation
of Seigniorage
Biography
Contact
Info
Home


The Bank Reflux for the Uninitiated

 

Pierre Parisien


 It was a revelation that profoundly affected my intellectual life. One of my daughters was taking a high school course in economics. I had purchased the textbook, Understanding the Canadian Economy (by W. Trimble, published by Copp Clark Pitman) and, since my daughter seemed reluctant to open it, I decided to read it, so as not to waste the few dollars it had cost me.

I had never had any interest in economics, but that changed when in Chapter Six, "Money and Banking," I read these few sentences:

"The most important kind of money is credit. The most important kind of credit is the credit created out of thin air by the banking system. Eighty percent of the volume of business in Canada uses this money that isn't there. Banks lend it out of nowhere to people, and when it is paid back it returns to nowhere."

It was a revelation that launched me into a deeper study of economics. But it was only some time later that I noticed that the book allotted many pages on the mechanism of money creation from nothing, but not one word on how money returns to nothingness when it is paid back.

I searched far and wide for the missing information. I looked for it in academic textbooks such as Money, Banking and the Canadian Financial System, by H. H. Binkhammer and Economics of the Canadian Financial System, by Sharer, Chant and Bond, but I found nothing that explains how money created by banks returns to nothingness. I finally came to the conclusion that banks make their income chiefly from the reflux of this fabricated money, interest being but icing on the cake.
 
 

To understand the bank reflux one must understand the principle of double-entry bookkeeping:

When you borrow $1,000 from a bank, the latter writes $1,000 in your account, which, in effect, creates one thousand dollars that didn't exist before. This sum is an asset for you since you can spend it, but a liability for the bank since it must surrender it to you on demand (by withdrawal or by check). Considering that this bank grants thousands of loans per year, it is obvious that all these liabilities would soon bankrupt the bank if there were not a counterpart for every liability. This counterpart is the asset which is the property of the bank. When you borrow $1,000 therefore, the bank creates the money twice, once for you – as liability for the bank – and once for itself, the loan – which is an asset for itself and a liability for you. (In accounting, the loan is already the property of the bank, even before being paid back. That's why, if you cannot make payments on your mortgage, the bank will sell your house and will keep the amount of the loan.)

Now, you have not borrowed this thousand dollars to leave it idle in your account. Let us say that you spend it all at once to buy a piece of furniture from Mr. X and that you paid by check. Mr. X will deposit this check in his bank. The latter will add $1,000 to Mr. X's account, a liability for the bank, and will create $1,000 for itself, an asset that will be added to his reserve. But your bank has just been relieved of a one thousand dollar liability (since you have sent your entire loan) therefore the banking system as whole neither gains nor loses. What is merely a shift of liability from one bank to another is presented as brand new liability. It would be necessary for your bank to erase $1,000 from its assets for everything to be correct by double-entry bookkeeping principles. I have found no evidence that banks do that, and I am convinced that no supervising agency checks on this.
 
 

If we mentally consolidate all the private commercial banks as though they were one Big Bank – the bank reflux becomes simple and easy to understand:

To respect the integrity the double-entry bookkeeping, changes in liabilities and changes in assets must always be mutually reflective. Both must increase or decrease together by the same amount.

When a sum is subtracted form the liabilities of the Big Bank by a payment by check, credit card or debit card, an equivalent amount of assets must leave the system.

That is not the case!


Conference of the Canadian Economics Association
Conference Paper (2002)

Loans and the Bank Reflux

 

by Pierre Parisien


 Let me begin by giving you an abstract of my paper: I will try to show how chartered banks (and commercial banks, outside Canada) create the money they lend out of thin air, and then recuperate most of that capital, so that the money they make from the interest is mere icing on the cake. I will show how the clearing-house system is instrumental in the process of recuperation (what I call the bank reflux.). Then I will suggest some changes that could make the system more fair and more rational.

But first, let us look at loans. There are basically two types of loans: distributive loan sand generative loans. When you lend your lawn mower to a friend, or when a credit union lends money, something already in existence is redistributed temporarily, hence the term distributive loan; but when a chartered bank makes a loan, it does not redistribute anything: it fabricates the money out of thin air. The money does not come from the bank's resources, nor from the funds entrusted to it by its depositors; it comes from the ink in the banker's pen. Such loans I call generative loans.

If there are some of you who find this hard to believe, you may want to read Chapter 6, "Commercial Banks as Creators of Money," in H.H. Binkhammer's Money, Banking, and the Canadian Financial System. Also let me quote from Economics of the Canadian Financial System, by Sharer, Chant and Bond: "While other financial institutions create money, our analysis will show that, because of their dominant position in the payments system, the chartered banks are the heart of this process."

A bank's capacity to create money is not, however, infinite. It is limited by its capital. The Guidelines of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions limit the assets of any bank to 20 times its capital as defined in the document (Chapter A, "Capital Adequacy Requirements," Tab 1, Section 1-1). These rules follow international guidelines according to the Capital Accord of 1988, arrived at under the aegis of the Bank for International Settlements.

Okay! We are now ready to take up the core of my presentation, the bank reflux, that is, the return of bank-created capital to the bank.

But before delving into the mechanism of the banking system, allow me to "cut to the chase" by resorting to a scenario that bolsters my argument while sidestepping technical minutiae.

Suppose you own a business and borrow $1 million from a bank to market a new product. The bank creates the million dollars out of thin air, and secures the loan with collateral: a factory, a warehouse full of products, or even a private residence.

Suppose, though, that a competitor comes up with a new product or strategy that dooms your endeavour, and that you are also late for your first payment. The bank promptly recalls the loan, but, since you have already spent most of it, you can't repay it. So the bank takes over your business or whatever collateral you put up, and recovers the value of the loan.

This happens all the time, and underlines the fact that the banks have title to the capital created by themselves in the act of lending.

Apologists for our financial system may admit that the banks create the money they lend, but argue that the loaned money will be "destroyed" gradually as the loan is repaid, and that the bank will profit only from the interest it collects. To refute this argument, we have to delve into the murky realm of double-entry bookkeeping, now the predominant form of accounting. (I know most of you are familiar with this, but I beg your indulgence, as I would rather err on the side of thoroughness.)

Every time you deposit cash or a cheque in your bank, the bank credits you with a deposit This sum, from your standpoint, is an asset, but for the bank it's a liability because you can withdraw it whenever you wish. The bank must therefore credit itself with an equal asset that is called a reserve (in fact, an addition to its reserves).

A common misconception is that reserves are money squirreled away for a rainy day. But only a small percentage of what are identified as a bank's reserves are actually retained. Prior to 1992, such reserves had to be entrusted to the Bank of Canada, but since the Bank Act was amended that year to remove this requirement, the chartered banks now voluntarily keep only those reserves they consider necessary or prudent. The actual cash reserve generally does not exceed 10% of a bank's financial assets, since this is considered sufficient to meet its clients' demand for actual currency.

What do the banks do with the rest? They invest it, they use it to support more loans, they use it to pay salaries and bonuses; they even use it to pay dividends to their shareholders (within the limitations imposed by section 129, subsection 4 of the Bank Act). The bank's reserves are no hoard held in a vault, but rather a stream of money that passes through a portal, and in the process becomes the property of the bank.

Sometimes that property (an asset) is balanced by an obligation (a liability), and sometimes it isn't. To really understand bank balance sheets, one should mentally replace the term reserve with the term property of the bank.

When a bank grants a loan, it credits the borrower with a deposit for that amount, while simultaneously crediting itself with an asset in the form of the loan. Such a deposit, created out of thin air, is call a secondary deposit, or a derived deposit. Deposits that are not bank created are called primary deposits. (It is unfortunate that these terms have gone out of fashion in the last few years because they make clear an important distinction.) It is the relation between primary and secondary deposits that makes possible the bank reflux – the return of credit-created capital to the bank.

Let's use an example to illustrate the mechanism that is involved:

Joe borrows $1,000 from Bank A which we will assume to be a monopoly bank, that is, the only bank in the country. The latter creates the money out of thin air and enters the sum as a deposit in Joe's account, and as an addition to its assets. (To simplify things we will disregard interest and fees.)

Next day, Joe uses his deposit to write a $500 cheque to Harry, who deposits it in his account in Bank A. This is a primary deposit, which automatically adds another $500 to the bank's reserves.

On the second day, Joe writes a $500 cheque to Ted, who also deposits it in his Bank A account. Now let's put the three transactions on a balance sheet:

                                                    Balance Sheet Change for Bank A

Assets Liabilities
Loan                         $1,000

Reserve                       $500 

Reserve                       $500

Secondary Deposit        $1,000

Primary Deposit               $500

Primary Deposit               $500

Total Assets               $2,000 Total Liabilities               $2,000

The bottom line shows assets and liabilities as equal and opposite, mutually canceling each other out. The bank will therefore claim that the money created by making the loan (the bank's liability) has been offset by the asset of the repaid loan, and that only the interest remains as the sole source or income from this transaction.

This spurious reasoning, however, is nothing but a shell game. It hinges on the fallacy involved in adding the liabilities of the primary deposit to the liability of the secondary deposit.

When Harry, in our example, deposits Joe's $500 cheque, Joe loses $500 of his secondary deposit. When Ted deposits Joe's other $500 cheque, Joe loses his entire loan-created deposit: he has spent his loan. The bank's liability of $1,000 to Joe has been replaced by two $500 liabilities to Harry and Ted– but Joe still owes $1,000 (plus interest) to the bank. Subsequently, every time Joe makes a payment on his loan, the payment will be entered as an asset by the bank (as an addition to its reserves), but there will he no counterbalancing liability. The payment will represent a capital gain for the bank.

The bank's assets recorded in our balance-sheet should therefore remain at $2,000 (the $1,000 loan plus two $500 additions to the reserves), but the liabilities should be listed as only $1,000. Why? Because the two primary deposits represent a shift of liabilities rather than an addition to the original $1,000 liability. Since reserves are the property of the bank, the bank in this example has in effect created $1,000 for itself out of thin air. The interest is merely the icing on the cake.

This return of credit-created capital is what I call the bank reflux. Some of you may feel that no monopoly bank would try to get away with such an obvious stratagem, and that, in fact, individual banks do not handle thusly cheques that are transacted between two parties that bank at the same institution. I ask those skeptics to consider my example as a heuristic device that will help us understand a point I will make shortly.

Note, however, that, if Harry and Ted had insisted on exchanging their cheques for hard currency, Bank A would have had to dig into its reserves to satisfy their demands. This payout would have cancelled the reserves created by their cheques, and in that case the bank would profit only from the interest on the loan.

Currency, because it short-circuits the reflux, is the bank's deadly enemy. Fortunately for the banks, the vast majority of cheques are deposited rather than cashed, and most transactions also occur through computerized exchanges rather than in actual legal tender passed from hand to hand.

Of course, in our example, Harry and Ted could have deposited Joe's cheques in another bank, so Bank A in that case would have had to forfeit reserves to the receiving bank. Cheques, however, are not cleared one by one, They are handled through a daily clearing-house whereby Bank A presents all the cheques it has received that were written against deposits in Bank B to that bank, and Bank B does likewise to Bank A. If, say, Bank A receives $800,000 of Bank B's cheques, and Bank B receives $700,000 of Bank A's cheques, then Bank B loses $100,000 of reserves to to Bank A. The next day, however, it could be Bank A that loses to Bank B.

The process is repeated every day between all the banks, Only the difference is actually transferred from reserves of one hank to the reserves of any other bank. Since all banks keep accounts at the Bank of Canada, the transfers are implemented simply by moving numbers between accounts. In the long run, all the banks end up more or less even on these transfers. So, in effect, they do not really lose reserves every time one of their customers writes a cheque that is deposited at another bank. Thanks to this process, the mechanism that applies to a monopoly bank (as in my heuristic example) applies, grosso modo, to the banking system as a whole, and to individual banks within it.

In short, there are two possible clearing operations:

1. a direct, bank to bank and cheque by cheque operation, which, with modern computers
    and electronics, would be practicable, and

2. a clearing house operation as a I have described.

There is a subtle but important point to make here:

In a cheque-by-cheque clearing operation, the paying bank loses reserves in the amount of the cheque, and the receiving bank gains reserves in the same amount. (We must remember that banks must necessarily credit themselves with an amount equal to any primary deposit, said amount going to reserves otherwise individual banks would soon go out of business and the banking system would collapse.) But in a clearing-house operation, since only the daily difference between any two banks is transferred, most of the reserves of a paying bank are protected. In the long run, almost all of these reserves are protected, although bigger and better-managed banks may consistently have a slight advantage. Through the clearing house process, any two banks act like two priests confessing to each other and giving each other absolution.

"So what?" This is what I hear too often when I discuss this matter with family, friends and, on occasion, businessmen. "As long as I get the credit I need when I need it, who cares," they say. Let me try to show why they – and you – should care.

According to the Council of Economic Advisors, the U.S. money supply expanded more than sevenfold between 1970 and 1994. Since all economists, right or left, agree that banks create more than 95% of new money, it is mathematically evident that much of that new money ends up as a permanent addition to the money supply. There is simply no other source that could account for the increase.

Now, bank reserves are not an official part of the money supply. One reason for this is that, often, these reserves are balanced by a bank liability, and to count both would be double-counting. But these reserves are spendable and investible, therefore they are money, whether they are officially recognized as part of the money supply or not. This explains why even leftwing economists often say that loan-created money is extinguished as a loan is repaid: since bank reserves are not part of the official money supply, they do not exist officially. I say that regardless of whether or not they are part of the official money supply, since they can be spent and invested, they are money! The bank reflux is!

It can be argued that part of the sevenfold increase is due to credit inflation: since credit-money creation does not include interest, additional loans are always needed to pay previous loans. That is a legitimate point, but does not, I strongly believe, account for all the money supply increase. After all, currency held by the public has also increased sevenfold, and that money is not credit money. I seems to me that as the banks spend and invest the reflux – in government securities, among other revenues – the reflux re-enters the official money supply. Let me point out that it is not money that creates wealth, but rather the passage of money through your hands. The banks have been unfairly enriched by the process just described.

The banks are the lynchpins of the financial sector. All that cloud of speculative money that floats over our heads, out of our reach, and that is disconnected from the real world of goods, services and work – all of that money – was first created by the banks. It is by controlling the banks that the financial sector can be controlled.

Let us look at some mechanisms of control that could be implemented, and let us start with one that would not necessitate any drastic change in the present system and then proceed to more radical suggestions.

We could begin with a fiscal policy that would regard any increase in bank reserves as a capital gain and tax it as such. (Perhaps a special, lower rate could be used, as banks occupy a special and very important niche in our economic system.)

Another control method would be to implement what I call the JLC procedure – Just Like Currency. Any cheque deposited would have the same effect in a bank's reserves as cashing the cheque. Any banker who claims that interest is the only source of profit from lending operations should have no objection. The JLC procedure – as a law or regulation – would simply ensure that the present system be honest and work as claimed. If banks can balance any increase in liability by an equal increase in assets, they should accept that any decrease in liability be balanced by an equal decrease in assets. An equivalent scheme would be to eliminate the clearing house system altogether and let the banks deal with each other directly, bank to bank and cheque by cheque. With modern computers and electronics, I think that would be possible. The main function of the clearing house, I suspect, is to protect the reserves of banks, as I have demonstrated.

Finally, we come to an option that would be a more radical departure from established procedures. I suggest that the federal government be granted the exclusive right to create new money, whether in the form of currency, book entry, or even computer data. The Bank of Canada would be mandated to accommodate the chartered banks in the granting of credit, create the necessary funds, and loan them at zero interest to the banks. The banks, however, would have to repay this capital, thus giving the government the full benefit of the reflux.

It might be argued that the banks, thus deprived of this capital gain, might have to increase their interest rates, and that this in turn would slow down the economy. That tendency, however could be countered by the use of negative interest which would be deducted, rather than added, to the debt of a bank to the Bank of Canada.

For example, a million dollars borrowed at a negative interest rate of 10%, to fund a loan in the same amount, would be liquidated by the repayment of $900,000. The negative interest would, in effect, be a subsidy to both lender and borrower, and would act as a powerful economic incentive.

The reflux would also generate a very large sum of money for the federal government, which could be used to improve social programs, and to lower federal taxes without reducing services.

It is important to say what you have to say eloquently and clearly, but sometimes it is almost as important to point out what you have not said. I have not denied that banks are necessary institutions; I have not proposed that they be nationalized; I have not denied that private banks, on the whole, must make a profit; I have not suggested that cheques and other non-cash forms of money be eliminated – in spite of the great potential for abuse inherent in their usage – because non-cash money is just too convenient and too ingrained in our social fabric. What I do want to say is that the representatives of the people must exercise judicious control of financial activity, because sovereignty resides in the people, not in the market, and not in the instrument of money.

I would like to close my presentation by sharing with you my fond hope that someday, somewhere, some government – and why not ours? – will hold a board of inquiry on banking practices, so that the light of rational and critical thinking may fall on this murky realm; and so that long overdue changes may be implemented. Thank you.



 
The Bank
Reflux
for the
Uninitiated
Loans
and the
Bank Reflux
Credit Cards
and the
Bank Reflux
The Bank
Reflux as a
Systemic
Phenomenon
Seigniorage in
the Age of
Scriptural
Money
Biography
Contact
Info
Home



Credit Cards and the Bank Reflux

by Pierre Parisien

During the late nineties the proportion of investments financed by bank loans diminished considerably, to be replaced by initial public offerings (IPOs).  Instead of going to the banks for money, corporations went to the primary sector of the stock market. Since lending by banks is the main generator of new money, what has replaced the missing loans?  Part of the difference has been made up by an increasing use of credit cards.

The wanton abandon with which banks offer credit cards to anyone regardless of credit worthiness has always intrigued me. I have known individuals who have declared bankruptcy, others who have had long periods of unemployment (one who, by the age of twenty-four, had never worked one day), others who had run into arrears with credit card companies, all of whom were offered super-duper "Emerald" and "Platinum" credit cards. I too received an offer that included a $100,000 line of credit. Frankly, I am not worthy! I have also been puzzled by the banks' uncharacteristic generosity in forsaking interest on new purchases paid by the due date.  Granting that 18% interest (plus 4% from the merchants) permits a certain amount of risk taking, there is still no reason to provide credit to very questionable borrowers.
One day, posing as a small merchant who wished to provide credit-card convenience to his clients, I called Visa and asked them how long after their reception of a merchant's draft (the proof of payment by credit card) could that merchant write checks against the money represented by that draft. I was told, "one day, two at the most."

It immediately became clear to me that credit-card advances are a form of a bank loan to merchants, and like all bank loans from commercial banks, involve the creation of money from thin air. (Note that these loans are unusual in that they will be repaid by a third party, the users of the credit cards). It seems obvious that banks can afford to be liberal in their extension of credit-card  privileges because they cannot lose!
 

Let us analyze the mechanics of a typical credit-card transaction:

Jane buys a $500 dollar table from Acme Furniture and pays with her Viscount credit card. Acme deposits the money in its account at Bank A, either electronically or by mailing or bringing a draft. Bank A charges Acme 4% for its services and enters $500 in Acme's account (a liability for the bank) and $500 as an addition to its reserves (an asset for the bank), both sums being fabricated from the ink in the banker's pen.

At the end of the month Jane receives a statement from her bank, Bank B, which is owner of a Viscount concession. [It is important to realize that both Acme Furniture and Jane deal with their respective bank, not with Viscount. The relationship between banks and credit card companies is analogous to the relationship between individually owed McDonald's restaurants and McDonald's Corporation.] The statement combines previous balances with current purchases, including the $500 spent for the table. Every dollar of that statement, disregarding interest, is a counterpart of a dollar previously added to the bank's reserves.  Does the bank subtract the payments by its credit-card customers from its reserves?

Does anyone check?

I have posed these questions to a few officers of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (Canada) and the only answer I got was, "We do not micromanage." I then asked, "Does any institution do that?" I was told, "No." As in the case of standard bank loans, interest is icing on the cake: banks, it seems, make most of their money – in their role as lenders – from the reflux of capital created by themselves.



 
The Bank
Reflux
for the
Uninitiated
Loans
and the
Bank Reflux
Credit Cards
and the
Bank Reflux
The Bank
Reflux as a
Systemic
Phenomenon
Seigniorage in
the Age of
Scriptural
Money
Biography
Contact
Info
Home



The Bank Reflux as a Systemic Phenomenon

by Pierre Parisien


Even if every loan-created reserve left the lending bank as cheques drawn by borrowers are deposited in other banks, these assets would not leave the private commercial banking system: they would simply keep shifting from bank to bank. Some days, Bank A would lose reserves in the game and, some days, it would gain; but in the medium or long run all banks would share in the growth of assets.
If we mentally consolidate all the private commercial banks as though they were one Big Bank, the bank reflux becomes simple and easy to understand:

1.  Changes in liabilities and changes in assets must always mirror each other in quality (increase or decrease) and quantity. Borrowing form Albert Einstein we may call this the principle of equivalence.

2.  Whenever liabilities are subtracted from the Big Bank through payments by cheques, credit cards or debit cards, an equivalent amount of assets must leave the system.

3.  This can be effectuated in one of three ways:

    a) The subsidiary branches of the Big Bank (the Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, etc.) use their virtual eraser and erase the equivalent sum from their reserves. (If a sum of money can be created by writing a number with a plus sign in front, it can be destroyed by writing the same number with a minus sign in front. BUT YOU’VE GOT TO DO IT!)

    b) The bank of Canada, our central bank, uses its big virtual eraser and erases the equivalent amount from the reserves that every commercial bank must keep in their account at the central bank. This is an extremely simple thing to do: most of the required numbers are calculated daily by our clearing house, the Canadian Payments Association.

    c) The central bank takes the equivalent sum from the account of the concerned bank and passes it on to the treasury who uses it to pay for government expenses, thus considerably reducing the tax bite (Economists call this profit from the creation of money seigniorage).

But, do the above institutions really erase the equivalent reserves every time they erase a liability?
The burden of proof is on those institutions. Some public supervising authority, such as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, must check the books of the banks to make sure that the subtractions are done. This information should be included in the banks’ annual reports. Outside auditors should be mandated to include this dimension in their audits. The banks must not be allowed to use the tradition of bank secrecy to hide this information.

Although the present paper makes reference only to the Canadian banking system, there is little doubt that the same mutilation of double-entry bookkeeping is prevalent in all the banking systems of the developed world. If banking is thusly corrupted, then the economic system of which it is such an important and basic element must also be unsound.
Clearly, something fundamental is missing in "generally accepted accounting principles."

PERSONAL NOTE:
For four years, off and on, I’ve been pursuing this investigative line. Not being an academically trained economist, and having never worked in the banking sector, I have been aware of my limitations and I have kept in mind the old saw that "The Devil is in the details."

Therefore, seeking confirmation or infirmation, I have sent dozens of letters and e-mails, and made many phone calls to the accounting and economics departments of banks, to the Bank of Canada, to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, to the Canadian Bankers’ Association, to the Ordre des comptables agrées du Québec, to some professors and textbook writers, and to a few chartered accountants in private practice. Throughout I have asked to be proven wrong: if I’m barking up the wrong tree, I want to be taken out of my misery and saved embarrassment! Many have asserted that I must be wrong – somehow – but all have failed to identify what actual book entries or accounting algorithms would effectively erase the matching assets when liabilities are erased.

My challenge to the above institutions and individuals is thus: "Show me the money!" Or rather, show me the book entries – the actual book entries that kill the ghost money that banks create for themselves when they create or accept a liability.
 



 
The Bank
Reflux
for the
Uninitiated
Loans
and the
Bank Reflux
Credit Cards
and the
Bank Reflux
The Bank
Reflux as a
Systemic
Phenomenon
Seigniorage in
the Age of
Scriptural
Money
Biography
Contact
Info
Home



Pierre Parisien: Biography

I grew up in Ottawa but spent most of my adult life in Brooklyn, N.Y., where I worked as an adult education teacher and as a jazz musician.

Since returning to Canada I have devoted much time to reading, thinking and writing in my main areas of interest: philosophy, economics and physics.

I am in the process of finding a publisher for a book, It Ain't Necessarily So: An Outrageously Rational Approach to Ethics, Politics and Economics.

I had three articles in the CCPA Monitor (of the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives) and one each in The Montreal Gazette and, translated, in Le Devoir. I have been interviewed on the CBC program Daybreak; I have delivered a paper on banking at the Save Canada Conference (August 1999); I have also made a presentation before the Commission sur la Fiscalité of the Québec Government and a submission to the Technical Committee on Business Taxation of the federal government.



 
The Bank
Reflux
for the
Uninitiated
Loans
and the
Bank Reflux
Credit Cards
and the
Bank Reflux
The Bank
Reflux as a
Systemic
Phenomenon
The
Rehabilitation
of Seigniorage
Biography
Contact
Info
Home



Pierre Parisien: Contact Info

8065 Sagard

Montreal, Quebec H2E 2T4

Telephone: (514) 721-7818

E-mail: [email protected]

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1