According to Myers, when it comes to money, the relationship between ownership and control is unique. To gain the control of a vast majority of wealth, as well as the means for wealth production, an individual does not need to own everything. Much of the property owner can be distributed among different shareholders while still giving an opportunity for a minority to hold a predominantly large share. Individuals with the predominant shares gain the directorship of the wealth production channels and as such gain control of the diversified owners. The article also indicates that there is an interconnection between the different sources of money. Thus, when individuals with predominant shares in certain sectors use their directorship powers they control other areas too.
Canadian banks have a central role in the economy. In Canada, the banks are highly centralized, and they have immense power to control the operations given that they can introduce privately-issued money. Historically, when the centralization of one sector began, it was followed by a spillover of the effects in all the primary money sources. Canadian banks also play the role of controlling finances in all economic spheres that are financially dependent. The banks also set the pace of close organization in most areas and distribute financial services given the fact that they have branches all over the country. Myers asserts that the bank ownership also gives some individuals more control over Canadian wealth.
According to Myers foreign investments, plays a crucial role in fostering the economic development in Canada. Myers asserts that receive enormous amounts of capital from different countries. Britain is the primary source of foreign investments in Canada. According to one editor, British investment amounted to millions of pounds. Most of the funds went into industries such as railways. Other areas of Europe also made the capital contribution in different economic areas of Canada. The United States had significant capital contributions in Canada to the tune of millions of dollars. The capital contribution of the US was mainly in factories especially factories that were affiliated with American Trusts. The entries of the significant funds also lead to a lot of amalgamations that spurred economic growths.
The author demonstrates that there is an interconnectedness between political power and economic power. Politically it is shown that the biggest beneficiaries of the centralization of money are the individuals with control over the money-making processes. The political contexts in which economic operations and realignments occur play a significant role. As such the ruling class needs to familiarize themselves with the current economic forces. Individuals, as well as nations, can only have real chances of averting the concentration of money into the hands of a few men by first understanding processes that generate money. The political class has the role of ensuring the documentation of all transactions that take place. The records of the transaction are important in determining the processes of generating money. Such documents are the basis by which problems related to money can be solved.
At the time Myers was publishing his work, the control of a third of Canada’s wealth lay in the hands of less than fifty men. There were many assumptions promoted by social historians who were popular at the time. Social history focused on individuals rather than the economic forces that drove the individuals to make certain decisions. Myers expressly states that the historians of the time did not focus on trying to address the questions related to the accumulation of such wealth. The cash investments that took place in Canada at the time of Myers were a result of continued wealth-generation processes that had been working in the previous economic times. To create better money-producing channels most economies results in mergers and acquisition that in the end grant some of the individuals at the helm more control over money.
According to Myers, the disregard for the economic factors was not justified. At the time, there were enough sources that had detailed information regarding how wealth grew. Myers states that it was wrong for historians to present personalities as the sole forces that determined events that took place. Historians were guilty of subordinating the economic forces that Myers describes as being more powerful than the statute laws. The article acknowledges the fact that transaction records were somewhat deficient. The deficiency emanates from the fact there were no measures to regulate documentation of transactions, as well as the incomplete publishing of the public returns. However, even the few transactions that were available were never consulted since the historians turned to shallow misrepresentation of facts.
The study uses the qualitative comparative method. Myers applies secondary sources as well as running records in his methods. The author examines the work of other authors and ascertains that it is deficient in the manner in which economic facts were represented. Myers asserts that the understanding of the events is fundamental in rejection of the old standards. It is from the running records that Myers learns that most of the government documents on transactions were deficient in terms of the number of transactions documented.