"And what do you think of usury?" - "What do you think of murder?"
Marcus Porcius Cato
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Quotes by Cato;
"This corn is well grown and Carthage must be destroyed."
"Grasp the subject, words will follow."
"Anger so clouds the mind, that it cannot perceive the truth."
"Take no account of dreams."
"And what do you think of usury?" - "What do you think of murder?"
"After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one."
"Never am I less alone than when I am by myself, never am I more active than when I do nothing."
One must always consider that usury, in historical context, has always been inextricably linked to economic abuses, mostly of the masses and of the poor; but sometimes of the financier and royalty, as bankrupt royalty has led to many a demise, thus frowning upon lending at interest or for a euphemistic "just profit".
The main moral argument is that usury creates excessive profit and gain without "labor" which is deemed "work" in the Biblical context. Profits from usury do not arise from any substantial labor or work but from mere avarice, greed, trickery and manipulation. In addition, usury creates a divide between people due to obsession for monetary gain.
Most importantly, usury commodifies biological time for profit, which is linked to life, considered sacred, God-given and divine, leading to excessive worrying about money instead of God, thus subjugating a God-given sanctity of life to man-made artificial notions of material wealth.
output
Martin Luther - On trading and usury,1524
http://www.lutherdansk.dk...
To all Christians, I think
To all Christians, I think we all need to start taking sin more seriously -- starting with our own lives. I have begun reading an excellent book entitled, "Respectable Sins" by Jerry Bridges where he points out that we have allowed the "respectable" sins to go unchecked which is what has lead our church and ultimately the nation to wander toward ungodliness and unrighteousness. We cannot hold our government and banks accountable for usury when we have not held ourselves accountable for our own sins.
I highly recommend that we all read this book and take the time to get our houses in order. Political change will only come once we have a heart change in our people. We need to pursue integrity and honesty in our own lives before we can hope to influence those around us.
Respectable Sins [Amazon.com]
Death penalty...
For Both!
Also through in stealing my horse!
I have no problem with usury, I have problem with tyranny
From Merriam-Webster
usury
1archaic : interest2: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use ; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates3: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest ; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money
I don't like exorbitant rates; nobody does. However, what I hate is ANYONE being allowed to act like God, create something from nothing, then use that something to coerce me. The Federal Reserve and other central banks do this around the world, then use their extortionists, the tax collectors (IRS) to coerce and enslave me. That's tyranny, and it deserves capital punishment.
Everyone quotes the Ten Commandments about murder, but conveniently forget that the Old Testament Jews had death penalties for a lot of crimes.
The only time I remember anyone ever "whuppin' up" on the Money Changers was Jesus, and our "Bible Thumpin'" friends constantly remind us that he was perfect. Well, if he was perfect, shouldn't we follow his lead?
Meaning of Usury
The Merriam-Webster desk dictionary is correct, but incomplete. The old meaning is a fixed rate of interest (ie "usance"). Legal interest would mean a partnership by the bank in the enterprise for which the loan is being taken out, so if the enterprise fails, the bank loses its money. If the enterprise succeeds, the bank gets an agreed-upon cut. This puts the bank in the roll of supporting the enterprise, rather than hoping for a default so it can gradually acquire all the property in the area and create a monopoly. You will not understand the full meaning of this without doing some reading about it. It is not, in fact, widely understood, even among modern academics, even in the field of Economics. That is why Belloc's books are so important, even for the understanding of Jefferson and our Revolution.
Time to get control of the money away from the bankers.
Unfortunately when the bankers control the government it is going to make things a little complicated.
Ruralplain, I look forward to reading the books you suggest below. Thanks for you imput. The Servile State sounds very interesting.
grant
Reply to Bob-45
The Merriam-Webster desk dictionary is correct, but incomplete. The old meaning is a fixed rate of interest (ie "usance"). Legal interest would mean a partnership by the bank in the enterprise for which the loan is being taken out, so if the enterprise fails, the bank loses its money. If the enterprise succeeds, the bank gets an agreed-upon cut. This puts the bank in the roll of supporting the enterprise, rather than hoping for a default so it can gradually acquire all the property in the area and create a monopoly. You will not understand the full meaning of this without doing some reading about it. It is not, in fact, widely understood, even among modern academics, even in the field of Economics. That is why Belloc's books are so important, even for the understanding of Jefferson and our Revolution.
Let's look at the meaning of the word "usury."
Anyone interested in our ancestors' universal moral opposition to usury, not only by the Bible and formerly the laws of all Christian states, but in both Western and Eastern non-Christian religions, will do well to read the works of G. K. Chesterton, and especially those of Hilaire Belloc. Belloc's "The Servile State" (now in print) and "Crisis of Civilization," (not, I think, in print, but should be easily available at second hand from Amazon or Abe.com), read in this order, should give the quickest explanation in historical context.
In a nutshell, a primary aim of government is to ensure free enterprise by discouraging, and indeed prohibiting, the growth of large corporations and monopolies. As Belloc demonstrates, untrammeled monopolization leads to the concentration of property ("Property" in traditional thought, does not mean anything privately owned, but only ownership of a means, e.g. land, that can produce money for its owner) and ultimately totalitarianism. The more people have their own the means of production (the ideal being all) the freer they are and the more productive. Money is no indicator of wealth, unless it is money invested to generate other money. "Poverty" does not mean no money--it means no property, and therefore the necessity of "working for the man," aka
"wage slavery." As all traditional writers on economics have pointed out, it is impossible to have democracy, or even free speech, in a nation of wage slaves. Anyone who has been dependent on a job will understand this readily. The best authors on the American Revolution make it clear that this was the issue
driving our Revolution, and the meaning of "life, liberty, and property."
Belloc argues that "capitalism," by which he means corporate monopolism, and not socialism, is the direct opposite of free enterprise. Socialism is just a subcategory of capitalism.
Reading Chesterton and Belloc is likely to be a real eye-opener and to deepen your understanding and support for Dr. Paul's teaching. A flaw that weakens Belloc's and Chesterton's good work a little is that both, for no reason I can imagine, have subscribed to the discredited and completely false notion that Protestantism, especially Calvinism, support usury and monopolism. Anyone familiar with the work of the reforming divines, e.g. Luther and Calvin and Richard Hooker, will immediately see the falseness of this idea. If you are not, you might read Tawney's "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism", that shows that Protestant clergy and laity opposed the rise of monopolism and usury just as much as Roman Catholics. But look beyond this problem and read both books immediately, and you will want to read others by these authors at leisure.
I just want to preach the evil of it, I don't want to ban it.
But I don't think the government should be involved in it either. Not the responsibility of the government or state, giving us real money to work with is the real purpose of limited government.
If usury is bad, and I think it is; then it's best to simply avoid it voluntarily, freely. It does seem to help, however, when you can see the fools heading towards their own folly beforehand, as it does seem to help in making predictions about the future, which can be rather rewarding in the business world.
http://news.silverseek.co...
stuck button.
.
.
.
double double post.
.
Jesus and usury.
http://www.therationale.c...
and another.
http://www.gather.com/vie...
OK
"Usury has existed for thousands of years, and may have been perpetuated by every worldly creed. Untold multitudes have died in the perpetual struggle against usury. Jesus Christ Himself was crucified soon after His famous demonstration at the temple of the money changers.
http://www.aboutus.org/Mo...
Keep the mafia out of the state.
I mean if people want to go to a loan shark to get money that is their business, but government shouldn't be in the strongarm business. In fact people should be able to protect themselves against extortion and not have the government promote it.
Don't outlaw, but don't condone it either.
Your point is well taken, the government should not restrict usury, as it should not restrict gambling or prostitution or drinking.
But that shouldn't mean that the government should practice usury, operate lotteries, cathouses or pubs.
Let individuals make these decisions for themselves.
Again, I am not in favor of the government prohibiting usury. I am just not in favor of the government participating in it and subsidizing it's existence...
grant
did it again
Have to get this button fixed.
.
.
double post
.
With the creation of the
With the creation of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, the government became a partner in the practice of usury. The Constitution says nothing about protecting the right to charge interest, it just establishes that gold and silver are money. As such the only real money is gold and silver, not interest, which is a form of creating money that does not exist.
grant
The purpose of the
The purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the powers of the federal government. The Constitution wasn't intended to exert any limitations on the people, only limitations on the government.
I point this out because your comment about the Constitution saying nothing about protecting the right to charge interest is an incorrect understanding of the role of the Constitution.
Usery is one thing, fraud is another
If I need to borrow money from my neighbor for something, does he deserve a little interest in return? I don't see why not. He has to give up something he's worked for to have. But our banking system is all about "giving up" something they didn't have to work for. Therein lies the fraud - charging interest on something that didn't "cost" you anything. And then they take it into the statosphere, with only fractional reserve requirements. And now, we're being told that that's not even enough!
Exactly Right
It's all about opportunity cost. If you or I fork out a loan, our capital is tied up with somebody else's project, or whatever. We can't use it until it is paid back. So it is legitimate and just to ask for interest to essentially "rent" the use of our property. It is just like renting a car to somebody.
On the other hand, the only opportunity cost that the central bank forfeits is based on some practicable limit on the volume of counterfeiting that it can get away with. In other words, to the extent that it rips off you or me, that is one less person that it can rip off because if the situation gets too far out of control, their house of cards may collapse.
Incidentally, I believe usury means "excessive" interest. Of course, any interest is excessive when it's based on a fiction. So the Fed is a usurious institution by default.
---
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - should be a convenience store, not a government agency!
I don't use credit, and I don't believe the government should.
I certainly wouldn't want the government to make a law prohibiting usury, but at the same time, I think it is wrong for the government to protect those who use usury as a means of income, such as the financial markets and bankers. It is just like gambling. When gambling is done in a person's basement it is considered illegal, but when it is done for the profit of government it is considered legal. The same pertains to usury. In my and many people's opinion it is wrong. I don't believe it could ever be successfully outlawed, but that is no reason for government to condone and partake in robbing people with this sort of scheme.
grant
Don't like usury?
If you don't like usury, don't borrow. See how easy that is?
As another poster explained, without interest, capital formation will be slowed to nearly a standstill. The economy will be crippled. MUCH less competition. No factories, no cars, no airplanes, no electric grid or water system, essentially no manufactured goods because nobody will be able to save up enough money on their own to build their own factory.
Don't like murder?
Then don't get murdered.
Is it really that easy, or is it just a glib answer?
While it may be true that capital formation will slow, dig deeper: Is it possible that we have enough capital?
Consider, in the past decade, there has been so much capital sloshing around the globe "looking for a return." In other words, there was nothing for it to do. The result has been a number of bubbles - in stocks, houses, and now U.S. Treasury bonds. It is these bubbles that are crippling the economy, certainly not a lack of capital.
No factories, cars, airplanes? Last time I checked, we had plenty of these things. There are so many airplanes, they abandon them in the desert and use "capital" to build new ones.
Your point may be valid...
but your example (abandoned airplanes) is not.
Many airplanes are built primarily of aluminum. It's strong and light. But it fatigues and cracks with essentially every flex. (Unlike steel which can flex a lot before it starts to yeied, thus making good springs, but which rusts.) This limits the lifetime of the airframe. Once it's getting near that end-of-life you have to retire it (or you get stuff like the airliner that landed in Hawaii after the top of the passenger cabin tore off in flight.)
That "parking lot" is where such airplanes go, along with others that would cost too much to operate profitably or whose missions are no longer occurring. They're still worth more than their value as scrap metal, so they get occasional use (for tests, as movie props and sets, etc.) before finally being stripped and melted down.
So find another example if you want your argument to be strong. B-)
Usury is Good
This topic was discussed on another thread a couple months ago. Here is my post from that thread.
Usury is good
On September 1st, 2008 marlow says:
The dictionary definition of usury is the practice of lending money at an exorbitant or unlawfully high rate of interest.
As I would expect Ron Paul supporters to advocate freemarkets we should agree the law has no legitimate business dictating what amount of interest is "unlawfully high". Any amount legally set as usurious results from the arbitrary and subjective opinions of the legislators - hardly a defensible argument for usury laws.
Likewise, what is "exorbitant"? There is no objective standard to give such guidance. Borrowers will have an incentive to view all interest above zero as exorbitant.
Usury then simply breaks down to an objection to paying interest on money loaned. But what so many people on this thread apparently do not realize is that loaning money imposes a cost on the lender. Specifically, the lender is denied immediate use of money loaned. As people prefer immediate satisfaction of wants to future satisfaction the interest the lender contracts for is the price the lender recieves for the deferred gratification of using his money in the present. If I loan you $100 today on the condition you repay me $110 in one year the $10 interest is what I receive for foregoing use of the $100 for one year.
So what is a fair rate of interest? Whatever the market will bear. Like anything else in free markets the rate is set by supply and demand. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with any given rate of interest on money loaned - or even no rate of interest if you can find a lender generous enough to grant a no interest loan. Interest is the price paid for use of another's money and rises and falls in response to the demand for money.
Further, without the ability to obtain interest the loan market would dry up, borrowers would be unable to finance projects unless they worked and saved all necessary funds themselves, the economy would dramatically slow down, massive unemployment would result as projects could no longer be financed and society would be much poorer.
As to those posting about fractional reserve banking using fiat money - wherein banks charge interest on money they simply create - that is another issue. Your complaint is legitimate - but it is with the banking and monetary system, not with the practice of lending money at interest.
marlow
Your analysis is true for free markets
In a free market, the flow of money will tend to gravitate to the most promising investment opportunities. If a potential lender has a opportunity superior to the holder of the money, there will be an incentive to loan it out. The interest the borrower pays is worth the cost of the loan; and the interest the lender receives is worth more than using the money elsewhere. So they come to a fruitful agreement in which both parties gain, which is the basic incentive behind all commercial transactions. Interest rates under this system will not be usurious because if someone charges too high of an interest rate, the borrower will seek another lender. That's the beauty of the free market.
The problem arises when the holders of the money find a way to monopolize, perhaps by a little friendly legislation. Then they can begin to restrict credit, increasing interest artificially by reducing supply. This becomes more of a zero sum gain situation, in which the monopolists benefit to the detriment of everyone else.
So usury is not good (unless you are the banker). Market interest set by the laws of supply and demand, free from manipulation, are good.
---
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - should be a convenience store, not a government agency!
Usury comes from the
Usury comes from the Medieval Latin usuria, "interest" or "excessive interest", from the Latin usura "interest") originally meant the charging of interest on loans. This would have included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. After countries legislated to limit the rate of interest on loans, usury came to mean the interest above the lawful rate.
The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the Act 'In restraint of usury' of Henry VIII in England in 1545 (see book references).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
yes but charging interest on money created out of thin air is
wrong and that's what the fed basically does
We agree. My last paragraph
We agree. My last paragraph said essentially just that.
marlow
what is your problem?
I have screwed up and done multiple posts by accident, but 4 of these threads?
He deleted them -- Sometimes DP gets "hung"
And the poster thinks it didn't get posted... since each of the threads was identical... well, give the guy a break.