政府债券或主权债券
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bond
政府债券或主权债券是政府为支持公共支出而发行的一种债券。它通常包括承诺支付定期利息（称为息票支付）并在到期日偿还票面价值。
例如，债券持有人将 20,000 美元（称为票面价值或本金）投资于 10 年期政府债券，年息票率为 10%；政府每年将向债券持有人支付 10% 的利息（在本例中为 2000 美元），并在到期日（即 10 年后）偿还 20,000 美元的原始票面价值。
政府债券可以以外币或政府的本国货币计价。经济不太稳定的国家倾向于以经济更稳定的国家的货币（即硬通货）计价其债券。所有债券都存在违约风险；即政府无法偿还债券持有人的可能性。经济不稳定的国家的债券通常被认为风险较高。国际信用评级机构对每个国家的债券都进行评级。债券持有人通常要求风险较高的债券获得更高的收益率。例如，2016年5月24日，加拿大政府发行的10年期国债收益率为1.34%，而巴西政府发行的10年期国债收益率为12.84%。
接近违约的政府有时被称为主权债务危机。
历史
荷兰共和国于1517年借用阿姆斯特丹市发行的债券，成为第一个通过债券融资的国家。当时的平均利率在20%左右波动。
第一个由国家政府发行的官方政府债券是由英格兰银行于1694年发行的，旨在筹集资金资助对法战争。这些债券的形式既有彩票，也有年金。英格兰银行和政府债券是由英格兰国王威廉三世（也称为奥兰治的威廉）在英国引入的，他模仿荷兰七省发行债券和筹集政府债务的方式为英国的战争提供资金，他以荷兰七省总督的身份统治这些省份。
后来，欧洲各国政府开始追随这一趋势，发行永久债券（没有到期日的债券）来资助战争和其他政府支出。永久债券的使用在 20 世纪停止，目前各国政府发行的债券期限有限。
在美国独立战争期间，为了筹集资金，美国政府开始发行债券 - 称为贷款证书。债券产生的总金额为 2700 万美元，为战争提供了资金。[3]
风险
信用风险
严格来说，以一国本国货币发行的政府债券是一种无风险债券，因为政府可以在必要时创造额外的货币以在到期时赎回债券。对于大多数政府来说，这只能通过发行新债券来实现，因为政府没有创造货币的可能性。（在“量化宽松”过程中，中央银行用新创造的货币购买发行的债券，可以视为事实上的中央银行直接向国家提供融资，独立中央银行对此已正式禁止。）有些政府选择拖欠本币债务，而不是创造额外的货币，例如 1998 年的俄罗斯（“卢布危机”）（参见国家破产）。
投资者可以使用评级机构来评估信用风险。在美国，证券交易委员会 (SEC) 已指定十家评级机构作为国家认可的统计评级机构。
货币风险
货币风险是指债券支付的货币价值相对于持有人的参考货币下跌的风险。例如，德国投资者会认为美国债券比德国债券具有更大的货币风险（因为美元相对于欧元可能会下跌）；同样，美国投资者会认为德国债券比美国债券具有更大的货币风险（因为欧元兑美元可能会下跌）。以没有保值历史的货币支付的债券即使提供高利率也可能不划算。[4] 货币风险由汇率波动决定。
通货膨胀风险
通货膨胀风险是指债券支付的货币价值会随着时间的推移而下降的风险。投资者预计会有一定程度的通货膨胀，因此风险在于通货膨胀率会高于预期。许多政府发行通胀指数债券，通过将利息支付和到期支付与消费者价格指数挂钩来保护投资者免受通胀风险。在英国，这些债券被称为指数挂钩债券。在美国，这些债券被称为 I 系列债券。
利率风险
除市场风险外，所有债券都受利率风险影响。利率变化会影响债券的价值。如果利率下降，则债券价格上涨，如果利率上升，则债券价格下跌。当利率上升时，债券更具吸引力，因为投资者可以获得更高的票面利率，从而可能出现持有期风险。利率和债券价格呈负相关。较低的固定利率债券票面利率意味着较高的利率风险，较高的固定利率债券票面利率意味着较低的利率风险。债券的期限也会影响利率风险。事实上，期限越长，利率风险越高，期限越短，利率风险越低。
货币供应
另请参阅：量化宽松
如果中央银行购买政府证券，例如债券或国库券，则会增加货币供应量，因为中央银行会向经济注入流动性（现金）。这样做会降低政府债券的收益率。相反，当中央银行对抗通胀时，中央银行会减少货币供应量。
这些增加或减少银行系统中货币量的行为被称为货币政策。
英国
在英国，政府债券被称为英国国债。较早发行的债券有“国库券”等名称，较新发行的债券则被称为“国库金债券”。[5][6] 通胀指数化国债被称为指数挂钩国债。[7] 这意味着国债的价值会随着通货膨胀而上升。它们是英国政府为筹集资金而发行的固定利率证券。[需要引证] 英国国债的发行由英国财政部执行机构英国债务管理办公室管理。1998 年 4 月之前，英国国债由英格兰银行发行。[8] 购买和销售服务由 Computershare 管理。[9]
英国国债的到期期限比其他欧洲政府债券更长，这影响了各个国家养老金和人寿保险市场的发展。
传统的英国政府债券可能看起来像这样——“国库券 3% 2020”。[10] 2019 年 4 月 27 日，英国 10 年期政府债券收益率为 1.145%。根据标准普尔的数据，中央银行利率为 0.10%，英国评级为 AA。[11]
美国
美国财政部提供了几种不同期限的债券。某些债券可能会支付利息，其他则不会。这些债券可能是：
储蓄债券：它们被认为是最安全的投资之一。
国库券 (T-notes)：这些债券的期限为两年、三年、五年或十年，每六个月提供固定的息票支付，面值为 1,000 美元。
国库券 (T-bonds 或长期债券)：是期限最长的国库券，从二十年到三十年不等。它们每六个月也会支付一次息票。
国库通胀保值债券 (TIPS)：是美国财政部发行的通胀指数债券。这些债券的本金根据消费者价格指数进行调整。换句话说，本金随通货膨胀而增加，随通货紧缩而减少。
投资者持有美国政府债券的主要理由是这些债券免征州税和地方税。
这些债券通过政府的拍卖系统出售。债券在二级市场上买卖，二级市场是交易股票、债券、期权和期货等金融工具的金融市场。
TreasuryDirect 是投资者可以直接从美国政府购买国库证券的官方网站。这个在线系统允许投资者节省传统渠道收取的佣金和费用。投资者可以使用银行或经纪人持有债券。
Government bond or sovereign bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bond
A government bond or sovereign bond is a form of bond issued by a government to support public spending. It generally includes a commitment to pay periodic interest, called coupon payments, and to repay the face value on the maturity date.
For example, a bondholder invests $20,000, called face value or principal, into a 10-year government bond with a 10% annual coupon; the government would pay the bondholder 10% interest ($2000 in this case) each year and repay the $20,000 original face value at the date of maturity (i.e. after 10 years).
Government bonds can be denominated in a foreign currency or the government's domestic currency. Countries with less stable economies tend to denominate their bonds in the currency of a country with a more stable economy (i.e. a hard currency). All bonds carry default risk; that is, the possibility that the government will be unable to pay bondholders. Bonds from countries with less stable economies are usually considered to be higher risk. International credit rating agencies provide ratings for each country's bonds. Bondholders generally demand higher yields from riskier bonds. For instance, on May 24, 2016, 10-year government bonds issued by the Canadian government offered a yield of 1.34%, while 10-year government bonds issued by the Brazilian government offered a yield of 12.84%.
Governments close to a default are sometimes referred to as being in a sovereign debt crisis.[1][2]
The Dutch Republic became the first state to finance its debt through bonds when it assumed bonds issued by the city of Amsterdam in 1517. The average interest rate at that time fluctuated around 20%.
The first official government bond issued by a national government was issued by the Bank of England in 1694 to raise money to fund a war against France. The form of these bonds was both lottery and annuity. The Bank of England and government bonds were introduced in England by William III of England (also called William of Orange), who financed England's war efforts by copying the approach of issuing bonds and raising government debt from the Seven Dutch Provinces, where he ruled as a stadtholder.
Later, governments in Europe started following the trend and issuing perpetual bonds (bonds with no maturity date) to fund wars and other government spending. The use of perpetual bonds ceased in the 20th century, and currently governments issue bonds of limited term to maturity.
During the American Revolution, in order to raise money, the U.S. government started to issue bonds - called loan certificates. The total amount generated by bonds was $27 million and helped finance the war.[3]
Risks
[edit]Credit risk
[edit]A government bond in a country's own currency is strictly speaking a risk-free bond, because the government can if necessary create additional currency in order to redeem the bond at maturity. For most governments, this is possible only through the issue of new bonds, as the governments have no possibility to create currency. (The issue of bonds which are then bought by the central bank with newly created currency in the process of "quantitative easing" may be regarded as de facto direct state financing from the central bank, which is outlawed officially for independent central banks.) There have been instances where a government has chosen to default on its domestic currency debt rather than create additional currency, such as Russia in 1998 (the "ruble crisis") (see national bankruptcy).
Investors may use rating agencies to assess credit risk. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has designated ten rating agencies as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.
Currency risk
[edit]Currency risk is the risk that the value of the currency a bond pays out will decline compared to the holder's reference currency. For example, a German investor would consider United States bonds to have more currency risk than German bonds (since the dollar may go down relative to the euro); similarly, a United States investor would consider German bonds to have more currency risk than United States bonds (since the euro may go down relative to the dollar). A bond paying in a currency that does not have a history of keeping its value may not be a good deal even if a high interest rate is offered.[4] The currency risk is determined by the fluctuation of exchange rates.
Inflation risk
Inflation risk is the risk that the value of the currency a bond pays out will decline over time. Investors expect some amount of inflation, so the risk is that the inflation rate will be higher than expected. Many governments issue inflation-indexed bonds, which protect investors against inflation risk by linking both interest payments and maturity payments to a consumer price index. In the UK these bonds are called Index-linked bonds. In the US these bonds are called Series I bonds.
Interest rate risk
Also referred to as market risk, all bonds are subject to interest rate risk. Interest rate changes can affect the value of a bond. If the interest rates fall, then the bond prices rise and if the interest rates rise, bond prices fall. When interest rates rise, bonds are more attractive because investors can earn higher coupon rate, thereby holding period risk may occur. Interest rate and bond price have negative correlation. Lower fixed-rate bond coupon rates meaning higher interest rate risk and higher fixed-rate bond coupon rates meaning lower interest rate risk. Maturity of a bond also has an impact on the interest rate risk. Indeed, longer maturity meaning higher interest rate risk and shorter maturity meaning lower interest rate risk.Money supply
[edit]See also: Quantitative easing
If a central bank purchases a government security, such as a bond or treasury bill, it increases the money supply because a Central Bank injects liquidity (cash) into the economy. Doing this lowers the government bond's yield. On the contrary, when a Central Bank is fighting against inflation then a Central Bank decreases the money supply.
These actions of increasing or decreasing the amount of money in the banking system are called monetary policy.
United Kingdom
[edit]In the UK, government bonds are called gilts. Older issues have names such as "Treasury Stock" and newer issues are called "Treasury Gilt".[5][6] Inflation-indexed gilts are called Index-linked gilts.,[7] which means the value of the gilt rises with inflation. They are fixed-interest securities issued by the British government in order to raise money.[citation needed] The issuance of gilts is managed by the UK Debt Management Office, an executive agency of HM Treasury. Prior to April 1998, gilts were issued by the Bank of England.[8] Purchase and sales services are managed by Computershare.[9]
UK gilts have maturities stretching much further into the future than other European government bonds, which has influenced the development of pension and life insurance markets in the respective countries.
A conventional UK gilt might look like this – "Treasury stock 3% 2020".[10] On the 27 of April 2019 the United Kingdom 10Y Government Bond had a 1.145% yield. Central Bank Rate is 0.10% and the United Kingdom rating is AA, according to Standard & Poor's.[11]
United States
The U.S. Treasury offered several types of bonds with various maturities. Certain bonds may pay interest, others not. These bonds could be:
-
Savings bonds: they are considered one of the safest investments.
-
Treasury notes (T-notes): maturity of these bonds is two, three, five or 10 years, they provided fixed coupon payments every six months and have face value of $1,000.
-
Treasury bonds (T-bonds or long bonds): are the treasury bonds with the longest maturity, from twenty years to thirty years. They also have a coupon payment every six months.
-
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS): are the inflation-indexed bond issued by the U.S. Treasury. The principal of these bonds is adjusted to the Consumer Price Index. In other words, the principal increases with inflation and decreases with deflation.
The bonds are sold through an auction system by the government. The bonds are buying and selling on the secondary market, the financial market in which financial instruments such as stock, bond, option and futures are traded.
TreasuryDirect is the official website where investors can purchase treasury securities directly from the U.S. government. This online system allow investors to save money on commissions and fees taken with traditional channels. Investors can use banks or brokers to hold a bond.
资本主义骗局 让政府借钱 大紧缩骗局
大紧缩骗局 The great austerity shell game
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game
Richard Wolff 2013 年 11 月 4 日星期一
资本主义骗局是这样运作的：让政府借钱来应对危机，然后坚持削减开支来支付。猜猜谁会输
英国和德国的中右翼政府这样做。法国和意大利的中左翼政府也是如此。奥巴马和共和党也这么做。他们都在必要时对经济实施“紧缩”计划，以摆脱自 2007 年以来困扰他们的危机。政客和经济学家现在实施紧缩政策，就像医生曾经在病人的皮肤上贴芥末膏一样。
紧缩政策假定当今的主要经济问题是增加国家债务的政府预算赤字。紧缩政策主要通过削减政府开支来解决这些问题，其次是通过限制增税。削减支出、增加收入确实会减少政府的赤字和借贷需求。
国家债务的减少或下降取决于每个政府的支出减少多少和税收增加多少。奥巴马在 2013 年的紧缩政策始于 1 月 1 日，当时他将每个人的年收入工资税提高到 113,700 美元。然后，在 3 月 1 日，“自动减支”降低了联邦支出。因此，2013 年的美国赤字将比 2012 年大幅下降。
奥巴马可能会实施更多紧缩政策：削减社会保障和医疗保险福利，以与共和党妥协。同样，欧洲各国政府也维持其“紧缩”计划。即使是官方上“反紧缩”和“社会主义”的法国政府，也有一份新预算，其中社会支出也进行了典型的紧缩削减。
积累的证据表明，紧缩计划通常会加剧经济衰退。那么，为什么它们仍然是大多数资本主义政府的首选政策呢？
当资本主义经济崩溃时，大多数资本家会要求——政府也会提供——信贷市场救助和经济刺激。然而，企业和富人反对对他们征收新税来支付刺激和救助计划。相反，他们坚持认为政府应该借入必要的资金。自 2007 年以来，世界各地的资本主义政府都为这些昂贵的计划大量借款。因此，他们出现了巨大的预算赤字，国家债务飙升。
因此，大量借贷是资本家应对其系统最新危机的首选政策。这对他们很有帮助。
借贷支付了政府对银行、其他金融公司和其他选定大公司的救助费用。借贷使刺激支出得以恢复对商品和服务的需求。借贷使政府能够支出失业补偿、食品券和其他抵消危机引发的痛苦的措施。
通过这些方式，借贷有助于减少那些被解雇、被赶出家门、被剥夺工作保障和福利等人群的批评、怨恨、愤怒和反体制倾向。政府借贷对资本家产生了这些积极的影响——同时还使他们免于纳税以获得这些结果。
这还不是全部。企业和富人利用他们通过阻止政府向他们征税而节省下来的资金来提供政府所需的巨额贷款。中低收入人群几乎无法向政府提供任何贷款。企业和富人实际上是用贷款代替向政府贷款，而不是支付更多的税。对于这些贷款，政府必须支付利息并最终偿还。
政府借贷给企业和富人带来了相当丰厚的回报。这对资本家来说是一笔非常划算的交易。
然而，这笔划算的交易又带来了一个新问题。政府从哪里找到资金，首先，支付所有借款的利息，其次，偿还贷款人？企业和富人担心他们可能仍需纳税来提供这些资金。他们决心避免缴纳此类税款——就像他们一开始就避免被征税来支付刺激和救助计划一样。
因此，紧缩政策是资本家首选的第二项政策，是在政府努力应对经济危机时避免提高税收的第二种方法。企业和富人通过大声坚持当今的主要经济问题不是失业、失去工作保障和福利、房屋止赎以及创纪录的收入和财富不平等来提倡紧缩政策。相反，关键问题是政府赤字和不断上升的国家债务。必须削减这些。
要做到这一点，应该适度提高税收或根本不加税（以避免“伤害”经济）。因此，关键的解决方案是削减政府在就业、社会福利和社会服务方面的支出。通过这些削减节省下来的资金应该用来支付国家债务的利息并减少债务。
因此，资本主义应对其反复出现的危机的方式是一个了不起的两步走。第一步，大规模借贷为刺激和救助计划提供资金。第二步，澳大利亚
资本家为借贷买单。
这种忙碌将资本主义危机的大部分成本转嫁到中低收入人群身上。这种转移通过紧缩计划实现的失业率上升、工资下降和政府服务减少而实现。持续减少税收增长也同样如此——尤其是对企业和富人的税收增长。
除了少数例外，世界各地的主要政党都实施了资本主义的两步忙碌。只有当中低收入人群的大规模反对足够有组织，可能威胁到资本主义本身时，资本家才会在借贷和紧缩政策上动摇和分裂。一些资本家随后与反对派合作，支持“新政”，而不是紧缩政策。
即便如此，一旦度过了眼前的危机，资本家就会恢复到他们偏爱的借贷和紧缩政策。美国从 1929 年到现在的历史很好地教会了我们这个教训。
资本家知道他们的制度是不稳定的。他们从来没有阻止过危机的复发。相反，他们依靠政策来“管理”危机。两步走的策略——借钱刺激经济和救助，然后紧缩政策——通常能起到作用。凯恩斯主义者提倡借钱，当紧缩政策随之而来时，他们似乎感到惊讶，甚至愤怒。
企业和富人本来就不应该逃避税收，因为他们帮助引发了危机；他们在危机前的几十年里致富最多；他们最有能力支付克服危机的费用。如果他们被征税来支付刺激和救助的费用，就不需要借钱或紧缩政策了。
对企业和富人征税也会产生后果，但它们产生的社会成本要小得多，而且主要落在那些最有能力应对这些后果的人身上。
但任何有组织的反对派，只要足够强大，让企业和富人为资本主义的危机买单，也可能会质疑资本主义本身。在经历了近六年的危机后，人们提出了一个问题：“我们难道不能比资本主义做得更好吗？”推动，要求讨论、辩论和民主决策。
事实不容辩论
《卫报》认为，获取可靠信息对民主至关重要，特别是在美国大选之前，这可能会对全世界产生重大影响。
在坏人、极端媒体和专制政客传播错误信息日益增多的时代，真实、可靠的新闻报道从未如此重要——我们很自豪能够广泛分享我们的新闻报道，这要感谢像您这样的加拿大读者的慷慨支持。
通过今天帮助资助《卫报》，您可以在打击那些散布谎言以破坏民主和煽动全球政治分裂的人的恶意和私利方面发挥重要作用。
The great austerity shell game
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game
Richard Wolff Mon 4 Nov 2013
Here's how the capitalist scam works: let government borrow for crisis bailouts, then insist cuts pay for them. Guess who loses
Center-right governments in Britain and Germany do it. So do the center-left governments in France and Italy. Obama and the Republicans do it, too. They all impose "austerity" programs on their economies as necessary to exit the crisis afflicting them all since 2007. Politicians and economists impose austerity now much as doctors once stuck mustard plasters on the skins of the sick.
Austerity policies presume that the chief economic problems today are government budget deficits that increase national debts. Austerity policies solve those problems mainly by cutting government spending, and secondarily, by limited tax increases. Reducing expenditures while raising revenues does cut governments' deficits and their needs to borrow.
National debts grow less or drop depending on how much each government's expenditures decrease and its taxes increase. Obama's austerity policies during 2013 started 1 January, when he raised payroll taxes on everyone's annual incomes up to $113,700. Then, on 1 March, the "sequester" lowered federal expenditures. Thus, 2013's US deficit will drop sharply from 2012's.
Obama will likely impose more austerity: cutting social security and Medicare benefits to compromise with Republicans. Similarly, European governments maintain their "austerity" programs. Even France's government, officially "anti-austerity" and "socialist", has a new budget with typical austerity cuts in social expenditures.
The accumulated evidence shows that austerity programs usually make economic downturns worse. Why, then, do they remain the preferred policy for most capitalist governments?
When capitalist economies crash, most capitalists request – and governments provide – credit market bailouts and economic stimuli. However, corporations and the rich oppose new taxes on them to pay for stimulus and bailout programs. They insist, instead, that governments should borrow the necessary funds. Since 2007, capitalist governments everywhere borrowed massively for those costly programs. They thus ran large budget deficits and their national debts soared.
Heavy borrowing was thus capitalists' preferred first policy to deal with their system's latest crisis. It served them well.
Borrowing paid for government rescues of banks, other financial companies, and selected other major corporations. Borrowing enabled stimulus expenditures that revived demand for goods and services. Borrowing enabled government outlays on unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other offsets to crisis-induced suffering.
In these ways, borrowing helped reduce the criticism, resentment, anger, and anti-system tendencies among those fired from jobs, evicted from homes, deprived of job security and benefits, etc. Government borrowing had these positive results for capitalists – while saving them from paying taxes to get those results.
Nor is that all. Corporations and the rich used the money they saved by keeping governments from taxing them to provide the huge loans governments therefore needed. Middle- and lower-income people could lend little if anything to their governments. Corporations and the rich, in effect, substituted loans to the government instead of paying more in taxes. For those loans, governments must pay interest and eventually repay them.
Government borrowing rewards corporations and the rich quite nicely. It amounts to a very sweet deal for capitalists.
Yet, that sweet deal raises a new problem. Where will governments find funds, first, to pay interest on all the borrowing, and second, to pay back the lenders? Corporations and the rich worry that they might still be taxed to provide those funds. They are determined to avoid such taxes – just as they avoided being taxed to pay for stimulus and bailout programs in the first place.
Austerity is thus capitalists' preferred second policy, a second way to avoid higher taxes as governments struggle with economic crises. Corporations and the rich promote austerity by loudly insisting that today's key economic problems are not unemployment, lost job security and benefits, home foreclosures, and record-breaking inequalities of income and wealth. Rather, the key problems are government deficits and rising national debt. They must be cut.
To do that, taxes should be raised modestly or not at all (to avoid "hurting" the economy). The key solution is thus to cut government outlays on jobs, social benefits, and providing social services. Money saved by those cuts should be used instead to pay interest on the national debt and reduce it.
Capitalism's way of dealing with its recurring crises is thus a remarkable two-step hustle. In step one, massive borrowing funds stimulus and bailout programs. In step two, austerity pays for the borrowing.
This hustle shifts most of the costs of capitalist crises onto the backs of middle- and lower-income people. The shift occurs through the higher unemployment, lower wages, and reduced government services achieved by austerity programs. It occurs as well in the sustained minimization of tax increases – especially on corporations and the rich.
With few exceptions, major political parties everywhere have imposed capitalism's two-step hustle. Only when mass opposition from middle- and lower-income people is sufficiently organized to possibly threaten capitalism itself do capitalists waver and split over borrowing and austerity. Some capitalists then collaborate with that opposition to support "New Deals", instead of austerity.
Even then, once past the immediate crisis, capitalists revert to their preferred policies of borrowing and austerity. US history from 1929 to the present teaches that lesson well.
Capitalists know their system is unstable. They have never yet prevented recurring crises. They rely instead on policies to "manage" them. The two-step hustle – borrowing for stimulus and bailouts and then austerity – usually does the job. Keynesians promote the borrowing and then seem surprised, even outraged, when austerity follows.
Corporations and the rich should not have escaped taxation in the first place because they helped to cause the crisis; they enriched themselves the most in the decades before the crisis; and they can best afford to pay to overcome the crisis. Had they been taxed to pay for stimulus and bailout, no need would have arisen for borrowing or austerity.
Taxing corporations and the rich would have consequences too, but they would generate far fewer social costs and fall mostly on those best able to cope with them.
But any organized opposition strong enough to make corporations and the rich pay for capitalism's crises would likely also question capitalism itself. Emerging from nearly six years of crisis, the question "can't we do better than capitalism?" pushes forward, demanding discussion, debate, and democratic decision.
Facts aren’t up for debate
The Guardian believes that access to trustworthy information is vital for democracy, particularly ahead of a US election that could have dramatic consequences for the whole world.In a time of increasing misinformation spread by bad actors, extremist media and autocratic politicians, real, reliable journalism has never been more important – and we’re proud to be able to share ours widely thanks to the generous support of readers like you in Canada.
By helping fund the Guardian today, you can play a vital role in combating the bad faith and self-interest of those who spread lies to undermine democracy and stoke political division around the globe.
