ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 07, 2019

Aquinas on usury

As is so often the case, it profits those of us whose understanding of a given topic is insufficient to consider what Thomas Aquinas has to say on the subject:
To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.

On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.
The Philosopher is Aristotle. And it's worth noting how, centuries ago, Aquinas logically concluded the inevitable consequences that we are empirically observing, which is that taking usury for money lent will lead to an unjust form of inequality.

Contrary to the assertion of economists like Murray Rothbard, the gradual acceptance of usury across the West was not a civilizational advance, but rather, a slow descent into misrule and barbarism.

Labels: , ,

360 Comments:

1 – 200 of 360 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 11:07 AM  

Crystal clear.

Blogger Nate October 07, 2019 11:07 AM  

"To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."

Oh... so Thomas Aquinas was a commie. Cool.

What I notice is... places with modern banking systems have things like indoor plumbing and sewage treatment plants.

You folks jabbering about usury can always look at the places that ban it. Syria and Iran look like great places to live after all.

Here I thought we were the side that liked indoor plumbing...

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 07, 2019 11:12 AM  

The real takeaway here is that Aquinas invented the timeshare.

Blogger IBOgre October 07, 2019 11:13 AM  

"Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice."

Does this not also sound like many of the modern digital licensing business models of Big Tech?

Blogger Talios Hammerfist October 07, 2019 11:14 AM  

Nate wrote:Oh... so Thomas Aquinas was a commie. Cool.

Communism is not the recognition that wealth inequality is unjust. That is merely one observation which it rests upon. You made a totally illogical jump. Nice try on the rhetoric, but it won't fly here.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 11:15 AM  

"What I notice is... places with modern banking systems have things like indoor plumbing and sewage treatment plants."

Like everything else, parasites go where the food is.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 07, 2019 11:15 AM  

You tell him, Talios! Tell that Nasty Nate!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 11:16 AM  

"You folks jabbering about usury can always look at the places that ban it. Syria and Iran look like great places to live after all.

Here I thought we were the side that liked indoor plumbing..."


You keep drawing a correlation with zero ability to determine causal influence or lack thereof.

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 11:17 AM  

The logic is sound but the premise is not.

the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange

Money as a medium of exchange is never consumed or sunk (or alienated, when one considers a closed system).

If money were consumed, then it would be impossible to return and therefore the argument would also be invalid.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 11:17 AM  

Contrary to the assertion of economists like Murray Rothbard, the gradual acceptance of usury across the West was not a civilizational advance, but rather, a slow descent into misrule and barbarism.

The entire economics profession exists to rationalize global con-artistry. We are clearly ruled by an oligarchy, who own both the banks and the governments that charter them, and use this system to farm us like we're batteries in their little Matrix movie. To those people, The Matrix is a comedy; they laugh their asses off at us.

As I see this converging on an cataclysm, I further suspect that all of the political, racial, sexual, religious, etc. conflict being fomented is a vast case of "let's you and him fight," so that the oligarch-families thin the herd they farm, getting rid of the most aggressive and troublesome first. (What's coming looks to be a vastly larger version of World War parts 1 & 2, which culled human cattle of the herd's most courageous and honorable DNA.)

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 11:20 AM  

@ Nate, so correlation is causation! Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

In case you missed the relevant quote from eighteen years ago: Theory is no substitute for history, of course, yet without a firm grasp of theory, serious errors in the interpretation of historical data are unavoidable. For instance, the outstanding historian Carroll Quigley claims that the invention of fractional-reserve banking has been a major cause of the unprecedented expansion of wealth associated with the Industrial Revolution, while countless historians have associated the economic plight of Soviet-style socialism with the absence of democracy.

From a theoretical viewpoint, such interpretations must be rejected. An increase in the paper money supply cannot lead to greater prosperity but only to wealth redistribution. The explosion of wealth during the Industrial Revolution took place despite fractional-reserve banking. Similarly, the economic plight of socialism cannot be due to the absence of democracy. Instead, it is caused by the absence of private property in factors of production.

"Received history" is full of such misinterpretations.


Blogger CS October 07, 2019 11:21 AM  

Given the reality of endless inflation, interest rates at or below the inflation rate are not usury, merely ensuring that the money returned is of equal purchasing power to the money lent.

Today's real evil is the printing of money by governments, banks and other credit issuing corporations, which thereby creates unearned wealth for the money creators or those able to borrow money at below-inflation interest rates.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 11:26 AM  

"Money as a medium of exchange is never consumed or sunk (or alienated, when one considers a closed system)."

By an individual it is.

Even worse, if you consider it systemically, usury is a one way valve with no effort involved.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 11:28 AM  

"Given the reality of endless inflation, interest rates at or below the inflation rate are not usury, merely ensuring that the money returned is of equal purchasing power to the money lent."

Quick, name me the lenders who have interest rates that low.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 11:28 AM  

BTW, notice that Aquinas noticed the difference between capital formation (and use) and consumption. Put another way, borrowing someone's prior (actual, market-sale-proved) capital to expand other capital, then using the expanded capital's product to retire the original debt, is a completely different thing than is borrowing prior-produced capital to purchase something for consumption (which is literally an act of capital consumption.)

Of course, where this gets insane is when the "capital" one can borrow is created out of thin air by the banking system. No prior production of a real good or capital has occurred, the entire system is a fraud on its face, proving that the industry superior to all others is banking, and it is banking that owns every "government." It turns out that the "Machine Overlords" in the Wachowski Bros' Matrix are ATM's.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 11:28 AM  

Don't get jewy on us, Nate. Opposing usury is completely unrelated to communism. Usury is obviously bad because it's wealth extraction. Iran has economic problems unrelated to the ban on usury. They would be in worse shape if they had usury. What Iran has right is that banks should not be the primary lenders of money. Loans are within high trust family groups where there is accountability.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 07, 2019 11:29 AM  

Nate wrote:"To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."

Oh... so Thomas Aquinas was a commie. Cool.

What I notice is... places with modern banking systems have things like indoor plumbing and sewage treatment plants.

You folks jabbering about usury can always look at the places that ban it. Syria and Iran look like great places to live after all.

Here I thought we were the side that liked indoor plumbing...


What's the use of indoor plumbing when buying a house with indoor plumbing requires 2/3 of your income as a down-payment?

Not the full payment of the house, just a standard 20% down-payment.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 11:36 AM  

Maniacprovost, you should read Aristotle's metallism theory. If we stick to a metallist theory of money, then the money supply must be strictly controlled in order to avoid issues of inflation. Money cannot be created from thin air because a physical metal is required. Today, money is created out of thin air and can be destroyed into less than dirt. We cannot apply metallist logic to our money system. Aquinas is more correct now than he was in his time. Money is consumed, so there should not be an additional charge on consumption. Borrowing money in order to consume is always a bad idea because it's wealth extraction. Borrowing money for productive business endeavours is wealth expansion, and often known as investing.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 11:37 AM  

Bunk, just pure bunk. Look at the Austrian school-- there is a value to money now as opposed to money later. Pretty hard to dispute that point-- but A there tries poorly with outdated even by then views of what money is. One doesn't need money for usury. But yes, A didn't like usury. ,He also didn't like soap and a host of other modern things.

Whether or not our system allows profit form time difference in money is a moral question and a question of historical experience (think Burke). No one here has adequately tried to build a moral case. A few points to OT without any structure, and quite a few opinions-- but nothing like a moral framework that laces usury within the structure.

On the historical side-- the Burkean experience side-- there are a few good points to be made for unmitigated usury-- but not for no usury. And no one has bothered to make them yet. so blather on with I thin I think I think. so do the 330M other people in the US and everyone thinks differently.

Blogger bible scholar October 07, 2019 11:37 AM  

It's sound biblical advice...

"One who increases his possessions by usury and extortion Gathers it for him who will pity the poor." Proverbs 28:8 NKJV

https://biblehub.com/proverbs/28-8.htm

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 11:38 AM  

> Given the reality of endless inflation, interest rates at or below the inflation rate are not usury,

Correct. Nor is a return sufficient to cover expected losses by those who can't repay their loans. It can even be argued (I'm not going to do so) that giving up the use of your money for a time deserves some compensation.

But those don't add up to current pay day loan rates.

Blogger The Masked Menace October 07, 2019 11:39 AM  

Can a sound monetary system of full reserve banking based upon stored capital keep from degenerating into a fiat monetary system of fractional reserve banking based upon ever increasing debt?

Blogger Ransom Smith October 07, 2019 11:41 AM  

Nate had developed a copypasta.
A little too al dente.

Blogger HouellebecqGurl October 07, 2019 11:41 AM  

Oy vey ist mir, goyim!

How could you forsake the Lolbertarian right wing economists we gave you, like (((Maury Rothbard))), (((Walter Bloch))), and (((Milton Friedman)))?
Have you cattle decided to reject the high priestess of money worshipping, (((St Ayn Rand)))?
What about the beautiful (((fractional banking))) and (((free markets))) we graciously allow you to participate in?
Oy gevalt.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 11:44 AM  

CS, you're missing the point. Usury specifically benefits the lender at the expense of the borrower. The lender sets terms so that upon the maturity of the loan, they have, at least, fully accounted for the time value of money, and at a bare minimum will have lost no value over the time period. Usually, they will have made money over the time period by receiving more than they lent. The borrower always loses because he pays significantly more back than he borrowed. It's even worse than that because whatever income he earns cannot be used efficiently and productively until his loan has been paid off.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 11:49 AM  

James Dixon, there should be no reward for lending money. Investing equity has been practiced for thousands of years, functionally. The return on equity is profitable. If someone wants to make money with money, investing is the optimal way to do that. Money lending is inherently predatory unless done within a high trust group with accountability. Usury is behind half of the economic crises, with inflation responsible for the other half.

Blogger CF Neal October 07, 2019 11:50 AM  

Usury used to be unusual. Once upon a time, my credit cards' rates were so low as to induce me to string along payments at the minimum. I even "borrowed" credit, at 0%, bounced MinPay between accounts, collected a little interest of my own, spent a little, charged some more, and eventually owed a lot.

Twenty years wiser, I am both debt free & free to give. At first, I loaned at very low rates & with very generous terms. However, time & time again, I learned a lesson of the Lord's Prayer:
"...forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
Charity begins at home, extends abroad, and winds its way to heaven --where neither robbers can steal the joy of giving, nor rust the trust & moth the loss of simply doing the right thing.

Blogger Oswald October 07, 2019 11:50 AM  

The socialists are banking on the ability to print endless amounts of paper money to pay for their social programs. Their strategy is not half bad, as long as the people continue to accept money as payment. Of course, one minor scare could screw the whole thing up. Odds say that will happen sooner or later, but by then they may have such controls over us, we won't be able to do anything about it.

Blogger S1AL October 07, 2019 11:52 AM  

"You folks jabbering about usury can always look at the places that ban it. Syria and Iran look like great places to live after all.

Here I thought we were the side that liked indoor plumbing..."

That depends on the definition of "usury". It's not difficult to structure a system that avoids it... Namely, loans that generate no interest except as profit-sharing (essentially investment). This provides the secondary benefit of forcing out stupid loans.

Blogger The Masked Menace October 07, 2019 11:53 AM  

One of the most successful long lasting civilizations in human history was Byzantium (i.e. Byzantine Empire). Anybody understand the role/history of usury within its borders?

Blogger VD October 07, 2019 11:53 AM  

Oh... so Thomas Aquinas was a commie. Cool.

You're reading a comma that isn't there. He's not opposed to inequality, but rather, "inequality which is contrary to justice". He's referring to a type of inequality, he's not basing his argument on the idea that all inequality is sinful.

Summary version: usury is injustice.

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos October 07, 2019 11:54 AM  

If I borrow your lawn mower, after I use it, I still have a lawn mower, and I return it to you. If I borrow a bottle of wine, after I use it, I have no wine, and cannot return it to you. If I borrow a fiver, after I use it, I have no money, and cannot return it to you.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 11:55 AM  

The monetary system based on fiat currency is not the same as usury.

Blogger VD October 07, 2019 11:56 AM  

Bunk, just pure bunk.

You're literally retarded.

Blogger bible scholar October 07, 2019 11:56 AM  

"BTW, notice that Aquinas noticed the difference between capital formation (and use) and consumption..."

Matthew 25:14-30

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 11:57 AM  

#25: if you believe that there is a market for lending-- then it is not the lender who sets the rate, but the borrower. Lots of discussions on how Fed can't set rates now because international rate is based on market no fiat. If lender wants X% but another one will lend for less- then...

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 11:58 AM  

Well, first, let's go to the dictionary and define what we're talking about.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usury

Definition of usury

1 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
2 : 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
3 archaic : interest

Is "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use" wrong? I don't think anyone can reasonably make that absolute claim. As CS notes, there is inflation to take into account.
As I noted, there is also risk involved. Some people won't be able to pay their loans back. Finally, as I noted, giving up the use of your money for a time may deserve compensation (note, banks do not give up "their" money; they create it out of thin air).

On the other hand, "an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest" is clearly wrong. The problem becomes determining what exactly constitutes a "fair" interest rate. Given the difficulty in doing so people can possibly be forgiven for writing the whole thing off as a bad idea.

I should note that the legal limit in many states was 18% for years.

Blogger peacefulposter October 07, 2019 12:03 PM  

A couple of points regarding creating money "out of thin air".

1. Money is only one side of the balance sheet. When money is created "out of thin air" so is a liability which is very real.

2. Banks cannot create an unlimited amount of money "out of thin air". They are restricted by their own balance sheet, their capital ratios, the quantity and quality of borrowers etc.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 12:06 PM  

The problem of money may be insoluble because money acquired by multiple means all spends the same.

A bank creates credit "money" from literally nothing, allowing the borrower to enter the market with purchasing power that does in NO WAY represent prior product. This is a naked violation of Say's Law, which logically demands that in order to enter the market you must FIRST have produced something of market value with which to trade (monetary systems make the product/purchase mismatching of barter moot, but that SURE AS F! don't mean you get to walk in empty-handed and walk out with others' products!)

Even without credit-from-nothing banking systems, there remains the problem that money derived from producing capital goods is identical to money produced from producing consumption goods. The former are, as Aquinas noted, fundamentally different from the latter, but this distinction gets homogenized in a monetary economy. This is a defect that cannot be remedied except--possibly--if the creation of credit is deemed solely the province of higher-order-goods producers, and said credit is exclusively created for the purpose of moving goods from higher to lower orders of the structure of production (and ultimately on to final sale to end-users.) Credit in this sense is limited, defined and short-lived.

We all seem to get confused when we think, "Hey, if I build a car and sell it for a profit, I should be able to lend out the money I netted and charge rent on it, same as if I rented the car rather than sell it." This is true on its face; the car is a capital good, so its use is not its destruction. Now if I produced wine, not a car, and I sell it, I should still be able to "rent" the value I produced if I choose not to consume it, but I couldn't "rent" the wine to others rather than sell it. But there should be a means to distinguish these two activities as they are two very different things.

But if I get a bank charter from the politicians I bought with campaign donations, and I give "credit" of $10,000 to Larry-the-Cable-Guy, who then uses it to throw a huge party for his buddies, and the $10,000 comes back to my bank in the form of deposits from the party providers, from what production did the original $10 come? Nothing. It was a naked expansion of the money supply with no corresponding increase in product. The market was a net $10k in the hole ($10K worth of beer and burgers were consumed) but literally NOTHING was traded to their producers except a monetary-system-debased IOU.

The history of the last 50 years is that as asset prices (stocks, bonds, real estate, farm land, etc.) skyrocketed and the quantity of both tangible and intangible assets swelled to galaxy-sized obesity, it was all a 1st or 2nd order effect of debasing the money supply with a credit tsunami. And who got rich, FILTHY rich, from that?

Who wins Monopoly(tm) when the player who is ALSO the banker starts simply adding more $500 bills to the game, starting with HIS OWN ACCOUNT?

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 12:06 PM  

> James Dixon, there should be no reward for lending money.

Please note that I said I wasn't making that argument, merely that it could be made.

Blogger Nate October 07, 2019 12:06 PM  

"To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."

to sell what does not exist.

commie commies commieingly.

perhaps if I rephrase... no work was done to produce the money... therefore...

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:07 PM  

#34: No, I just want a reasoned argument. Not a destroyed strawman, not random OT quotes. Established theology and economic theory for a couple of centuries have seen that there is a time preference/value to money. Literally no one who had indoor plumbing has ever espoused the views here--that is how long ago these ideas were discarded if they were ever used (quite hard to see how Europe didn't have usury) . How to treat lending can be debated but I haven't seen anything to rebut the assumption that has stood the test of time that lending interest helps civilization.

That doesn't argue that the current mess with student loans (no jubilee/bankruptcy isn't a mess) or as Mises showed, fractional reserve banking creates push-pull messes but the modern arguments are on how to smooth out the fluctuations-- not destroy the system.

Getting rid of interest lending (which is all lending) destroys the current system-- please don't try to think that it doesn't.

So-- yes to different regulations, but no interest-- then no one lends and no indoor plumbing.

Blogger Newscaper312 October 07, 2019 12:07 PM  

@38 Fractional reserve banking means the bank can loan money which they do not have, and literally did not exist prior. The fact there is some restriction on that, an upper limit on ratio of loans to reserves, does not mean it is not what happens.

Blogger VD October 07, 2019 12:08 PM  

to sell what does not exist.

Would you have a problem if it was phrased "to sell what will never exist?"

Because that also applies here.

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 12:10 PM  

> When money is created "out of thin air" so is a liability which is very real.

Not when you count on the government to bail you out it isn't.

> Banks cannot create an unlimited amount of money "out of thin air". They are restricted by their own balance sheet, their capital ratios, the quantity and quality of borrowers etc.

Then why have so many banks gone under over the years?

Blogger The Masked Menace October 07, 2019 12:10 PM  

@33 Doesn't a monetary system based on fiat ultimately promote a system based on debt because a fiat system debases capital (i.e. stored value)?

Blogger c0pperheaded October 07, 2019 12:12 PM  

Vox, have you ever written anything on Distributism? I looked, but couldn't find anything.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 12:15 PM  

Peacefulposter, banks create money out of thin air, not limited by balance sheets. They issue credit, then write in your debt as a debit. They can do this as much as they want, and have been doing it for decades. Balance sheets do nothing to stop this.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 12:16 PM  

@38 A couple of points regarding creating money "out of thin air".

1. Money is only one side of the balance sheet. When money is created "out of thin air" so is a liability which is very real.

2. Banks cannot create an unlimited amount of money "out of thin air". They are restricted by their own balance sheet, their capital ratios, the quantity and quality of borrowers etc.


1. And the liability is counted as an ASSET on the lender's balance sheet, even as the credit-money comes back to the lender as a deposit. Tell me this doesn't look like a perpetual motion machine. Borrow-to-Spend is the system that produces BOTH a dollar (or more) in GDP (BY DEFINITION!) plus a dollar asset (as a receivable on the balance sheet) for each dollar borrowed and spent. It looks like a wealth producing money tree planted in the backyard. IT is a FRAUD.

2. You don't know what is "overnight sweeps," do you?
https://research.stlouisfed.org/aggreg/swdata.html
tl;dr version? Banks are running on zero capital, zero "factional reserve." The only limit to how much a bank can lend is on the demand side, which is why they're practically begging you, me and anyone with a pulse to borrow money from them.

Blogger Bobo #117 October 07, 2019 12:17 PM  

I'm with Nate on this one (and I take a back seat to no one in my anti-semitism)

If I loan you, a stranger, $10,000, that's money I could be buying land & cattle with, or planting crops with, but I can't...because you have it.

Pay me the juice for the use. You use it to make money, pay up.

Family, friends, etc., different story.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:18 PM  

"Bunk, just pure bunk. Look at the Austrian school-- there is a value to money now as opposed to money later."

If that's what the Austrian school thinks, then the Austrian school is a dishonest, satanic shitcan.

What value? The money is the same now as it will be later. More, we we are not in a zero sum system, but a degenerative one. The same amount of money later is worth more than it is now because it is expected to degrade with time.

The only way you can say that money now is worth more than later is by not only taking opportunity cost into account, but also by assuming that opportunity will be correctly identified and exploited more often than not. You're demanding more than even a zero sum system could produce, let alone our degenerative one. Frankly, you're demanding resources more than you put in with no effort of your own applied. You're demanding access to a generative system which, to be plain, is God, through exploitation of a human being.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 12:18 PM  

maniacprovost wrote:If money were consumed, then it would be impossible to return and therefore the argument would also be invalid.

It is impossible to return. Much like returning water, though the water you return is not precisely the water you used, with labor, you can get more water. Even so, the initial money is consumed, and the labor used to gain it, cannot be reclaimed.

Money was intended to be a proxy for labor, thus requiring more labor of someone in return than they borrow from you, is indentured servitude.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:19 PM  

"perhaps if I rephrase... no work was done to produce the money... therefore..."

Apply your own claimed logic to your own paradigm and realize that no work is done to extract usury. Then stop being dishonest.

Blogger Nate October 07, 2019 12:20 PM  

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Blogger peacefulposter October 07, 2019 12:21 PM  

@JD - Then why have so many banks gone under over the years?

The fact that banks have gone under supports the point that money creation has certain restrictions. If violated, banks will fail.

At least if the govt doesn't bail them out. Point taken there.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:22 PM  

"If I loan you, a stranger, $10,000, that's money I could be buying land & cattle with, or planting crops with, but I can't...because you have it."

Money doesn't flipping reproduce. You put effort in if you use that money yourself to get more. If you're giving it to someone else and demanding more back you're demanding the fruit of their labor without losing anything yourself. Dishonest.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 12:22 PM  

Can we stop and imagine, for one minute, what our standard of living would be like if we weren't being robbed blind, deaf and dumb by financialization and taxation (both of which eventually lead, like all rivers lead to the ocean, to those who own all the major banks and operate all central banks?)

TARP, et. al. Banking is the ultimate "Heads I win, tails you lose" game. When the economy is rising, they fund both sides of every transaction. When peace turns to war, the fund both sides of every conflict. When economies turn down, they get bailed out from public treasuries.

Shakespeare was misdirection. It's not the lawyers we should first hang.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:23 PM  

#51: then please loan me your net worth... I'll pay you back at 0% interest. Of course there is value to money now as opposed to value later. Lots of ways to show this-- but value is subjective...

If someone is actually saying that they do not think that there is value to having $ now as opposed to money later-- then they are not arguing in good faith. Something about bird in hand versus bush etc...

But the last several centuries of experience says that people think there is a value for money now as opposed to money later. so argue against the west where this was used to modernize.

Blogger xevious2030 October 07, 2019 12:23 PM  

“To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist”

“Oh... so Thomas Aquinas was a commie. Cool.”

Not literally. In a manner of speaking, as applied to the propensity of growth and indoor plumbing, like Cuba. This rule has been applied to profit as well. A retailer is not selling with value added, except as the convenience of moving a good closer to a consumer. If I buy a product from a wholesaler, and sell the product three blocks over, putting a minimum of 30% markup, not only am I sane, I have also charged 30% for something that does not exist, and well beyond any 8% rules of the past (as profit to a percent that was once considered usury).

Bible. The servants who were lent their masters money (uncollateralized debt). The one who held it and returned it strictly intact (zero interest/yield) was looked on unfavorably. And the ones that used it to gain more value (a return) were looked on kindly. It’s not simply lending, interest, and debt. Nor is it being a servant. Usury is the exorbitant amount, beyond reasonable expectation of being able to be paid back in a reasonable timeframe. An extreme example are the contracts of ancient Egypt, whereby a person would sign a contract to become a servant for 99 years, in order to obtain something in return. Enslavement by debt. As opposed to being contracted with the freeing of contracts to occur after no more than a seven year period. It also is related to a fee charged in the exchange of one currency to the currency of the Temple, the currency of the Temple being used to purchase animals to sacrifice at the Temple, the exchange being done inside the Temple grounds. In other words, the money changers that were working in a profit (a onetime percentage, interest, unspecified amount but guessable as being more than a bit more) related to sacrifice, the tables of which Jesus overturned, and the changers of which Jesus chased out with a fashioned whip.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 12:24 PM  

Bobo, why the fuck would you be giving your money to strangers? Surely, you see the problem with this.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 07, 2019 12:24 PM  

Azure A, what's the difference between charging rent on a truck I own and charging rent on money derived from selling a truck I owned?

Blogger Salt October 07, 2019 12:24 PM  

"Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange:"

Operative word is chiefly, not solely. There then falls another use for money; time preference. It's time preference that usury addresses for no usury exists where any exchange is immediate (time preference zero).

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:25 PM  

Let me state another way. IF you have money available to lend, THEN you don't really need it, do you? You may want it, but what is wanting more than you need other than greed?

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 12:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:27 PM  

"Azure A, what's the difference between charging rent on a truck I own and charging rent on money derived from selling a truck I owned?"

Degenerative system. The truck degrades in value over time, and even moreso with use. The money does not degrade anywhere near as fast, or in a fiat system, at all, since it's imaginary anyway.

Blogger rcocean October 07, 2019 12:27 PM  

Bank interest = usury? Annuities = usury? What is difference?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:28 PM  

"#51: then please loan me your net worth... I'll pay you back at 0% interest. Of course there is value to money now as opposed to value later. Lots of ways to show this-- but value is subjective..."

Not without assuming effort will be applied, which is what is ACTUALLY producing more value. This is not flipping hard.

Blogger Salt October 07, 2019 12:28 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:If you're giving it to someone else and demanding more back you're demanding the fruit of their labor without losing anything yourself. Dishonest.

So time is nothing. Really?

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:28 PM  

#57. The evil of taxation are legion. There is a reason why the progressives wanted an income tax. There is also a reason why the campaign was based on it will not affect you, only the rich trust us... and then... It is one of the many evil visited on us by progressives. So much of their stuff is based on one set of promises (I'll eat my hat if this civil rights bill results in quotas) and then-- of course quotas are needed-- it is right there in the law. (to use the one from 1965-- but the XIV Amendment works too-- just o no one remembers or bothers to look up how it was passed.

Blogger rcocean October 07, 2019 12:29 PM  

Financial system and "Capitalism" had zero to do with indoor plumbing. You're confusing correlation with causation. Like Jonah Goldberg.

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 12:29 PM  

Nate, Marxist economics is the logical extension of Ricardian and Smithian Labour Theory of Value. LTV ignores the latent value of land, which medieval thinkers certainly did not. Interesting that Smith and Ricardo had no issues with money lending, and that their usurious descendants cannot differentiate between debt and equity. Marxian economics is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We know you can quote commies, but please shut up about them.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:29 PM  

"Operative word is chiefly, not solely. There then falls another use for money; time preference."

So you're literally saying that money is also a tool for people with low time preference to exploit those with high time preference. And you don't see a problem with that?

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 12:29 PM  

> The fact that banks have gone under supports the point that money creation has certain restrictions. If violated, banks will fail.

Your statement was that it couldn't be violated. "Banks cannot create an unlimited amount of money "out of thin air"."

If you wish to amend it to say banks which do so risk failing, that's fine, but please recognize that it's not the same statement.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:30 PM  

"So time is nothing. Really?"

Why do you think I said "degenerative system"?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:33 PM  

The only reason banks fail in a fiat system is because they aren't in control of the system.

This is not to say that no bank or banks control the system. Ones that fail however, observably do not.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 12:33 PM  

Nate wrote:Oh... so Thomas Aquinas was a commie. Cool.


Don't be intentionally stupid Nate.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:34 PM  

"Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."


He who does not work shall not eat.

Blogger Bobo #117 October 07, 2019 12:35 PM  

Unsecured? Who said that, you?

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:36 PM  

70: There really aren't very many theories that think that the West grew rich which equals indoor plumbing without capitalism being one of the main components of that growth. Now one can argue which aspects of free market capitalism that helped-- but no one thinks that Marxism or Socialism helps the West grow rich.

Blogger peacefulposter October 07, 2019 12:37 PM  

@Double Dave - Peacefulposter, banks create money out of thin air, not limited by balance sheets. They issue credit, then write in your debt as a debit. They can do this as much as they want, and have been doing it for decades. Balance sheets do nothing to stop this.

The debt they "write in" is typically backed by a real asset like a house or a solid income stream.

At least that has been my experience. Maybe the banks I haven't dealt with are less prudent.

Blogger Salt October 07, 2019 12:38 PM  

Jack has $1000 to use. He can turn that 1k into 1.5K over the next year on his own labor. Bill needs 1K now or wait a few years till he has it, but if he had it now he could turn it into 2.5K over the next year. So Bill goes to Jack and asks to be loaned 1K. Jack says I have only 1k and I need it to make 1.5K. So, what should Bill do?

Pay back Jack 1.5K, what Jack could have gotten, and have 1K himself he would not have but for Jack. Cost of getting today what he could not get without Jack.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:39 PM  

To get rid of interest on lending-- you have to explain how is there going to be any lending? No one is going to lend without getting something for the time and risk. Let's see: I have investments that are growing-- but I have to forgo those to lend-- so I end up poorer for lending-- yeah I'm really going to do that.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:39 PM  

"There really aren't very many theories that think that the West grew rich which equals indoor plumbing without capitalism being one of the main components of that growth."

Capitalism is a sham catchword the same as communism.

What is today defined as capitalism is nothing more than a resource extraction mechanism, but with no controls. It'll extract resources from mines, farms, living human bodies, blood-sucked-dry human corpses, you name it. If you think capitalism is the best system or the only working system, you need a second think.

We were here and living and working and trading before the concept of capitalism and we'll still be here after it's gone.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:40 PM  

"Jack has $1000 to use. He can turn that 1k into 1.5K over the next year on his own labor."

Key words: He, can, turn.

If you can't understand this, you need to stop talking for your own good.

Blogger Unknownsailor October 07, 2019 12:41 PM  

Banks pay interest to depositors to entice them to deposit funds. They loan that money out to creditors, and in turn receive interest from same. Interest rates for loans by their nature must be higher than that given to depositors because that interest must cover both the risk of loss and the interest paid to depositors.

The problem comes when banks are allowed to loan more than total depositor assents on hand.

When it comes to inflation, if the Federal Reserve were to actually fulfill its mandate to create a stable money supply, inflation would not exist. Congress never put an "or else X" punishment for failing to fulfill that mandate.

Karl Denninger goes over all of this stuff in his book Leverage.

I am not opposed to interest, but the games being played in the finance industry...

Well, lets just say that there should be just as many bankers in prison as there are drug dealers.

Blogger dienw October 07, 2019 12:42 PM  

Whether or not our system allows profit form time difference in money is a moral question and a question of historical experience (think Burke). No one here has adequately tried to build a moral case. A few points to OT without any structure, and quite a few opinions-- but nothing like a moral framework that laces usury within the structure.
1. Burke built his political moral philosophy from classic Roman Catholicism. His moral arguments are still valid Current Year.
2. No one here has adequately tried...
Don't be rediculous; no one but the perverse and reprobate try to reinvent the cosmos. How many times does that have to be historically demonstrated?
3. A few points to OT...
He who created the cosmos inspired the Old and new covenants: he declared his commandments and statutes; it is proper in a Christian framework of the West to structure one's arguments and polity on God's Word.
4. but nothing like a moral framework that laces usury within the structure. In a Christian civilization, that is a silly statement; it is also silly in regards to Islam; hell it is even silly in that blasphenous oddity called Judeo-Christianity; so just what religious cosmos do you inhabit?

Blogger Dave Dave October 07, 2019 12:43 PM  

Salt, high school understandings of finance are not helpful. They have no relevance in the real world and dont begin to unravel the web of infinite credit.

Blogger dvdivx October 07, 2019 12:43 PM  

I haven;t seen a good detailed write up of usury and modern finance since zippy catholic died. It would be nice if Vox would take up the subject in more detail as it's a complex one.

Blogger Up from the pond October 07, 2019 12:44 PM  

"You folks jabbering about usury can always look at the places that ban it. Syria and Iran look like great places to live after all."

Have you visited either Syria or Iran? They have indoor plumbing.

It's the military forces of the usury system that are responsible for any major disruption of services in those nations. These forces are dropping bombs on Christians in Syria, imposing sanctions and other blockades, and generally converging all to usury by using lethal force.

An increasing number of people are aware that "freedom and capitalism" is not more than the latest war-whoop of the Jews. It's the perfect acid to dissolve nations and ruin the goyim.

Blogger dienw October 07, 2019 12:45 PM  

My comment is meant for #19.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:45 PM  

#83: I think that we have very different definitions and views of freedom, capitalism, free market, and what is a free exchange. Do you think that we owe those in the future a fair chance? Does everybody get the same chance to succeed? Small questions-- big differences from answers.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:45 PM  

"Banks pay interest to depositors to entice them to deposit funds. They loan that money out to creditors, and in turn receive interest from same. Interest rates for loans by their nature must be higher than that given to depositors because that interest must cover both the risk of loss and the interest paid to depositors."

Why should depositors expect more back than they put in either? You're saying that banks expect usury because their financers expect usury. So what?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 12:47 PM  

peacefulposter wrote:Banks cannot create an unlimited amount of money "out of thin air". They are restricted by their own balance sheet, their capital ratios, the quantity and quality of borrowers etc.
What is the reserve ratio of your bank? Now take structured derivatives, which are a scan to steal money from bond investors off the table and what is the reserve ration? Generally in the US, it's less than 0.1%.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:47 PM  

#89: I think that Syria and places like that have indoor plumbing because they were colonized and governed by the West until very recently. The longer form Western rule-- the les and less indoor plumbing for most societies. Unless you are chinese/East Asian or have a significant similar minority.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 12:48 PM  

Salt wrote:Operative word is chiefly, not solely. There then falls another use for money; time preference. It's time preference that usury addresses for no usury exists where any exchange is immediate (time preference zero).

That's incorrect. Interest addresses time. Usury exploits the ambiguity time presents. You're conflating all interest with usury.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 12:50 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Banks pay interest to depositors to entice them to deposit funds.
No, generally any more they don't. Oh sure if you have a few tens of thousands that probably should be in an equity fund somewhere you can get 1% or something, but the overwhelming majority of funds deposited in banks are in checking accounts and not earning interest. The money is there for transactional facility, not interest.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 12:51 PM  

Nate's argument boils down to "Fiat money and usury have conquered the world, therefore they are responsible for the good aspects of Western civilization."

Blogger Up from the pond October 07, 2019 12:51 PM  

...and if the goyim don't swallow the acid, "freedom and democracy" bombs will be dropped on them.

Starving half a million children or more was "worth it" - according to Madeline Albright and her bosses - because the goal is global debt slavery.

Blogger Sam October 07, 2019 12:52 PM  

@83
Capitalism is when individuals can make agreements with each other and they are enforced by a third party. It is several thousand years old. It wasn't named for the same reason heteronormative is a recent word.

Our current system is capitalist in exactly the same manner churchians are Christians.

Blogger Salt October 07, 2019 12:53 PM  

Beardy Bear wrote:Interest addresses time. Usury exploits the ambiguity time presents. You're conflating all interest with usury.

So at what interest rate does it cross into usury? What interest rate is "reasonable"?

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 12:54 PM  

Salt wrote:So at what interest rate does it cross into usury? What interest rate is "reasonable"?

The rate of inflation.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 12:54 PM  

@19

"But yes, A didn't like usury. ,He also didn't like soap and a host of other modern things."

Even soap from 400 years ago was pretty nasty stuff. There are many legitimate reasons why up until about 200 years ago, most people considered taking a bath in a bathtub to be a risky adventure. Lack of purification and parasite removal facilities being only one. It's also why people mainly drank wine, beer, tea, coffee, or broth. Plain old water taken from a pond or stream was (and still is) dangerous.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:55 PM  

"I think that we have very different definitions and views of freedom, capitalism, free market, and what is a free exchange."

Yes, we almost certainly are using different definitions.

When I hear "freedom" today, what is more often than not being said is actually "non serviam".

Capitalism is a systemic conception with regard for only what can be produced financially. It doesn't care about human life because that is not the point of it, and your brain on pure crackitalism results in greed, because again, you now have no regard for human life, for the sacred, etc.

Free market means "no rules". Slavery, prostitution, sales of french infant fries, your mother for a dollar, all on the table.

Free exchange is free market just on a smaller scale.

"Do you think that we owe those in the future a fair chance?"

Yes, and this is exactly why usury has to go. The guy having to pay it may not be your descendant, but he's literally in the future.

"Does everybody get the same chance to succeed? Small questions-- big differences from answers."

If someone needs money they lent back with interest, why the f*** are they risking lending it to a stranger? People with innately high time preference are going to fail more often than those with low time preference under a usury system. Playing exactly the same way as the foul serpent himself.

Blogger luisonmcbiel October 07, 2019 12:56 PM  

@97
True. We cannot concieve of western civilization without usury because we have been painted a false reality I would said from the enlightment onwards. Of course If you look who is puishing these lies nowadays you will find out that they are of the small hat tribe.

Blogger Sam October 07, 2019 12:56 PM  

@97
Fiat money is bad because it let the one ring people always give into temptation and print until it is worthless.

Usury is not self destructive like that. If you mean lending money for interest, I'm going to have to agree with Nate. If you mean cases where the lender has an incentive to make the borrower fail so they can seize the collateral, lending for consumption or lending where people are collateral I agree with you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 12:56 PM  

Usury used to be controlled by hard local limits on interest rates. In my state, it was illegal to charge more than 12% interest, and out-of-state companies were not allowed to offer loans of any kind.
Then the Fedgov decided that it was unconscionable that the people here were not available as prey to the banks and finance companies, and simply outlawed local controls on lending.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 12:56 PM  

"Interest addresses time."

No, interest addresses time in an innately generative system that we don't live in.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 12:58 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:Even soap from 400 years ago was pretty nasty stuff. There are many legitimate reasons why up until about 200 years ago, most people considered taking a bath in a bathtub to be a risky adventure.
Dirk, don't be even more retarded than justaguy. This is just a lie. Repeating lies doesn't make you clever or interesting. It means you're stupid.

Blogger Bobo #117 October 07, 2019 12:58 PM  

So for most of you, getting interest on a loan is the exact equal to fiat money and the Federal Reserve?

Fascinating.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 12:58 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:No, interest addresses time in an innately generative system that we don't live in.

True, but my statement was an abstraction. Trying to fix the system we live in, will require much more of a discussion than we are having here.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 12:59 PM  

#86: It is obvious that you don't understand-- so don't try.... I'm saying there are two ways to approach prohibitions: morals arguments built from a reasonable moral framework (either built up entirely or directed to an already established one); or historical experiencial ones as Burke refers in the idea that society enshrines what works over time. The Burke reference says look to experience, the moral one says look to existing moral structures, many of which exist. The note on OT quotes says that random OT quotes do not point to an existing Christian moral structure because as most theology teaches-- the OT was "done away with" by the NT and can only go so far as pointers or ideas. Even "Thou Shall Not Kill" is not an absolute by the few NT verses that show it is okay to be a soldier (who kills) (Pauline) or that disciples should take their swords ((Jesus). So if one wants to build a Christian moral system without interest it takes more than a quote or misusing one quote-- Hence the comment that theology for a couple of centuries has not condemned lending interest. A pretty big hill for even VD to climb. These this framework is better than strawmen or grossing that our system is currently mucked up because we don't allow bankruptcy in student loans. A much different type of problem.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:01 PM  

"Capitalism is when individuals can make agreements with each other and they are enforced by a third party. It is several thousand years old."

Nice try no, liar.

Making deals enforced by a third party? Adjudication. Arbitration. Contract.

Now find me the word "capitalism" from several thousand years ago. Go into detail, break down the root words.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 1:01 PM  

@37

"Is "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use" wrong? I don't think anyone can reasonably make that absolute claim. As CS notes, there is inflation to take into account."

And where do you think the inflation comes from?

You're talking about two sides of the same coin.

Blogger Sam October 07, 2019 1:02 PM  

@103
Slavery, serfdom and other forms of unfree labor are consistent with Christianity. Prostitution was legal and regulated under the medieval church.

"If someone needs money they lent back with interest, why the f*** are they risking lending it to a stranger?"

Because the crops are harvested this month but the wool doesn't arrive to the looms until that month.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 1:02 PM  

#103: You realize the implications of your answers don't you... owing something to the future implies debt implies forced production. Obviously from your view of freedom-- you don't like it... So how do people exchange good of value in your slave system without freedom?

Terms are important-- and yours and mine are so far apart-- well...

Blogger Cobrates October 07, 2019 1:03 PM  

Salt wrote:So at what interest rate does it cross into usury? What interest rate is "reasonable"?

Doesn't matter if the ones setting the interest rates own the system.

Blogger PCA October 07, 2019 1:03 PM  

More to the point, can we stop and imagine a world with European civilisation still extant, viz. a world where WW1 never took place?

Because that's the real cause behind its destruction. One country which understood and honored labour (Germany) arousing the destructive instincts of one which did not (Britain).

Blogger Nation-Deprived October 07, 2019 1:03 PM  

Why should “time” be a reason for charging interest? If you aren’t going to use the money for any reason but to lend it out, isn’t that still usury because you make a profit?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:03 PM  

"True, but my statement was an abstraction. Trying to fix the system we live in, will require much more of a discussion than we are having here."

So what. It's both correct and relevant to point out that we do not live in a naturally generative system. Put money in a pile. Watch it. Will it ever increase of itself? No? There's your answer.

Blogger Up from the pond October 07, 2019 1:04 PM  

@94

Indoor plumbing has been around since at least the Bronze Age.

https://infogalactic.com/info/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 1:05 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:And where do you think the inflation comes from?

That is not true. Inflation does not arise from interest alone, and you should know that.

Blogger dienw October 07, 2019 1:05 PM  

@ 102
The Roman empire had public baths and even toilets in the bath houses with flowing water. I assume the Longer lasting eastern portion of the empire had the same. Civilizations older than Rome also had sewer systems.

Also, remember the ancient Israelites had baths.

After the fall of Rome the Roman Church banned public bathes as there was sexual immorality. Also, there arose a belief that washing one's flesh was unhealthy. Aaah Romanism.

Blogger Sam October 07, 2019 1:06 PM  

@112

From the same responce you quoted (99)

-It wasn't named for the same reason heteronormative is a recent word.-

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:08 PM  

"So for most of you, getting interest on a loan is the exact equal to fiat money and the Federal Reserve?

Fascinating."


Our fiat currency is actually produced by offering bonds on the state, then writing those as if they were assets and sending them though iterative multiplication via the same means at different locales. Interest is applied at all levels.

So, yes, it's the same thing.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 1:09 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Will it ever increase of itself? No?

It doesn't have to.

Blogger Pedro Rocha October 07, 2019 1:10 PM  

IMO interest for the use of an item is not wrong (since the item is partially consumed during use, having a cost for maintenance / damage / etc). Loaning the item also prevents the use by the original owner, which limits its production of wealth and services provision, so there is a time-cost associated with loaning an item. There is also a natural return due to the goods produced in the economy vs the amount of currency in circulation (assuming stable currency / not printable) due to natural deflation.

I think that the core problem is the (not) sharing of the risk between lender and borrower, and forcing the interest payment in the original currency that the loan was made.

I think @26 is saying something like this no?

Some thoughts:
Assuming the event is a contract between two people (lender and borrower), the risk of loss and gain should be shared by both parties, (currently, the lender always get full payment in the original currency used, even if the borrower's (mal)investment had low or no return). -> asymmetry -> injustice

If the lender becomes a partner with the borrower's investment (skin in the game) and demands principal plus interest payment in the form of a quantity of future produced goods, then I do not think that this is a problem. Same exposure to gain and loss, equivalent risk -> fair collection of interest.

The problem in the economic system is not just the interest, its also due to being based on debt, and being generated out of thin air.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:10 PM  

"You realize the implications of your answers don't you... owing something to the future implies debt implies forced production. Obviously from your view of freedom-- you don't like it... So how do people exchange good of value in your slave system without freedom?"

What is your name Straw Manning or something? What slavery system? There is freedom within righteousness, but righteousness isn't everything.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 07, 2019 1:13 PM  

maniacprovost wrote:Money as a medium of exchange is never consumed or sunk (or alienated, when one considers a closed system).

That was my quibble with the quoted passage.

Azure Amaranthine wrote:By an individual it is.

If the individual borrows to fund consumption, to buy wheat and wine, then yes, the money can be considered consumed. If the individual borrows to fund production, to buy seed wheat or a vineyard, the money is replenished when the crop comes in.

Don't make loans for consumption. If your brother needs to eat, give him food, and a job, not a loan.

We are thinking far too narrowly if we think only about renting money. You can wrong your brother in any kind of deal, and it's wronging your brother that is forbidden.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 1:16 PM  

Nation-Deprived wrote:Why should “time” be a reason for charging interest? If you aren’t going to use the money for any reason but to lend it out, isn’t that still usury because you make a profit?

There are plenty of situations where I would lend money, that were I to still have it, I would instead use it. If the price of what I would have used it for goes up over time, then you are competing for that money with the inflation of the item I'd like to purchase.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:16 PM  

"Slavery, serfdom and other forms of unfree labor are consistent with Christianity. Prostitution was legal and regulated under the medieval church."

False. That they weren't immediately put on the list for holy war doesn't make them consistent. If you'd actually read about what you're talking about you realize that prostitution was regulated as a "necessary evil". It's just like divorce, it wasn't that way in the beginning, but allowance was made for the hard and cruel hearts of men.

"-It wasn't named for the same reason heteronormative is a recent word.-"

No, "capitalism" is a exactly what I told you. It is a systemic conception with concern ONLY for financial gain. It is literally systematized greed. That some people have always operated that way does not mean that everyone did. It does not mean that the system is responsible for anything good. It does not mean that the system is righteous.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 07, 2019 1:16 PM  

I don't quite understand why charging for the use of a thing that you have returned to you is unlawful (in which case, running a movie rental or car rental service would also be evil), BUT, I do agree that compound interest is patently evil and should be abolished.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:17 PM  

"If the individual borrows to fund production, to buy seed wheat or a vineyard, the money is replenished when the crop comes in."

No, the money is replenished by the effort of the user and the grace of God. That is all.

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 1:18 PM  

> The debt they "write in" is typically backed by a real asset like a house or a solid income stream.

A wonderful theory. Too bad it's not backed up by recent history. See the housing bubble and resulting crash for details.

> The rate of inflation.

Plus an amount sufficient to cover loans which can't be repaid.

> There are many legitimate reasons why up until about 200 years ago, most people considered taking a bath in a bathtub to be a risky adventure.

So those Roman baths I've heard of (and seen copies of) were just figments of imagination?

> Plain old water taken from a pond or stream was (and still is) dangerous.

That depends entirely on where you live. The stream just outside our house is fine.

> Then the Fedgov decided that it was unconscionable that the people here were not available as prey to the banks and finance companies, and simply outlawed local controls on lending.

Exactly.

> So for most of you, getting interest on a loan is the exact equal to fiat money and the Federal Reserve?

That's a very nice strawman you made. Are you planning on using it for Halloween?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:19 PM  

"I don't quite understand why charging for the use of a thing that you have returned to you is unlawful"

Equal weights and measures. You're getting something for nothing. Over-unity. Violation of causality were it perpatuable.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:20 PM  

"There are plenty of situations where I would lend money, that were I to still have it, I would instead use it."

You would use it. Do you need to use it? Apparently not, else you wouldn't have loaned it.

Do you actually need it back? Apparently not, else you wouldn't have loaned it to a stranger.

Blogger Bobo #117 October 07, 2019 1:22 PM  

Non-usary-ists:
Who here will loan me $10k? I'll return it next Oct.

Cash is good, as is a cashier's check.
Thanks in advance.

Blogger andrisf October 07, 2019 1:23 PM  

This is not such a straight forward issue. Many argue, that usury is immoral for various reasons, many of whom are just idiotic, but many have some merit to it, however you have to look at it as a contract between two parties, that is first of all voluntary.
Nobody forces person to take loan, he takes it willingly (i am not talking about government debt, that is different matter as it is not voluntary).
Also then the question arises is it just to make profit from labor and if it is, then why is it not just to make profit from usury, because that also is a labor, you have to have many things in place to work in that business and it takes a lot of effort.
To argue that acceptance of usury has lead west in to misrule and barbarism is just wrong, because it was not usury that did that, it was central banking and fractional reserve banking first and foremost, not to mention lust for power and corruption caused by it.
Usury is just a tool, simplest example is if farmer needs to buy new horses, because he increased his plowing field, say he got land inheritance from some dead relative, he can go and borrow money and buy that horse and pay it back and everyone is happy.
Only two real problems with usury have been these
1)Many simple people did not understand math and terms of usury, Jews especially used to do this to simple folk, i would argue that it is fraud, not usury.
2)Many people borrowed money and used it for stupid things. That is people problem, not usury, as humanity is especially proficient in doing stupid things....

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 1:23 PM  

@41

"commie commies commieingly.

perhaps if I rephrase... no work was done to produce the money... therefore..."

Douglas Adams, in the 3rd book of the Hitchhiker's Galaxy series, tells of a group of "useless people" (hairdressers, telephone sanitizers, marketing executives, etc.) whose craft, "Ark B" crash lands on earth in such a way that was unrepairable. After a while they decide that they need a means of exchange, and since they don't have any papermaking equipment nor printing presses (people who do useful labor would be on Ark C), the settle on using the leaves on the ground as currency. Soon, everybody has their clothing stuffed as full as possible with leaves which they have collected off the ground.

Obviously, and unlimited money supply is ridiculous.

However, what we have now is an unlimited money supply which can only be accessed directly by (((certain people))), and everybody ELSE has to pay a premium for it. And why do people need loans? Because the price of everything has been goosed up by the always-increasing money supply. Why are various performance enhancing substances (even caffeine) now prohibited in Major League Baseball? Because once ONE guy starts using, he's forcing EVERYONE who faces him to do the same, or suffer a disadvantage. It's for the long term benefit of the players if they are NOT in a constant steroids arms-race by prohibiting ANY player from using steroids, because in the long term, just to stay in the game everyone then has to start using far past the point of long term health.

A league which allows players to use steroids and cocaine and amphetamines is setting up each and every player for failure due to the long term health effects.

I'd recommend asking Lyle Alzado for more specifics, but you can't, because he went to an early grave due to steroid abuse.

Fractional Reserve banking is no different. It's just a "stimulant" which some borrowers get, jacking up the price of EVERYTHING, thereby forcing everyone else into the same sordid mess, whether they want to be or not... OR SUFFER for not keeping up with the loan/drug consumption.

Even the Golgafrinchan's and their clothes stuffed full of leaves never had it THAT bad.

Conclusion:
A monetary system which literally uses leaves fallen from the trees as valid currency would be more stable, as the rate of growth CANNOT grow exponentially, as eventually you hit a hard limit on the number of new leaves introduced into the system each year, due to the number of productive trees in existance.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:24 PM  

"Non-usary-ists:
Who here will loan me $10k? I'll return it next Oct."


I don't know you from Adam, other than that he's dead. This is the way it should be. Family/familia/familiar = trust if the relationship is good and strong. Why would anyone lend money to anyone they don't know?

Blogger dienw October 07, 2019 1:24 PM  

It is obvious that you don't understand-- so don't try Oh, it very obvious that I understand: I read your post and responded appropriately.

You stated," No one here has adequately tried to build a moral case. A few points to OT without any structure, and quite a few opinions-- but nothing like a moral framework that laces usury within the structure."

Bluntly, no one here or in Western Civilization but for barbarians needs to create anew the moral cosmos God created. All that is needed is to allude to what are the religious and cultural foundations; that is how a people grounded in their civilization's moral/religious heritage argue and make their case.

Blogger LZ October 07, 2019 1:26 PM  

I don't see how borrowing money is different from renting a house. And I'm generally anti-usury, but I don't like this argument. If usury was banned, instead of lending my money (lets ignore modern banking practices) to the Homebuyer, who buys a home, I would buy the home and rent it to the homeowner, or perhaps set up a "rent-to-own" contract whereby after 30 years the house belongs to him, with associated amortization calculations over time.

Consider consumer debts. Instead of buying the $500 TV, the store will "Rent" you the TV for $50 per month for 12 months. The middleman industry of lending money is gone, but the economic arrangement will still exist.

Cosider mining. Gold miners can enter into contracts whereby their debts are repaid in their product. Bankruptcy courts also convert debt to equity, so by banning usury, you remove the intermediate step and there will be more equity and payment in goods from investment contracts.

More fundamentally, lending is credit. What is credit? At root, it is the "rich guy" in town telling you that Joe is "good for it" when he asks to borrow. Joe is building a factory to make widgets, but has no money. So he borrows stuff, and the rich guy in town vouches for him. If he fails, everyone one goes to the rich guy to get their money. The bank is the rich guy and they go after Joe when he can't repay. The credit relationship isn't going away.

The real villains are central banks which prevent clearing of bad debts.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:26 PM  

"however you have to look at it as a contract between two parties, that is first of all voluntary."

Found the pedo.

"Here little Susy, sign here, I'll give you this toy if you do."

Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way. Do you understand why that's where your line of reasoning must lead?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:28 PM  

"I don't see how borrowing money is different from renting a house."

This same retarded argument. You consume the house by using it, albeit slowly.

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 1:29 PM  

> And where do you think the inflation comes from?

I know where it comes from. Fun fact, it used to be standard practice tfor contracts to require loans to be paid back in gold. Why do you suppose that's not still done?

> Slavery, serfdom and other forms of unfree labor are consistent with Christianity.

Slavery is tolerated by Christianity. To say it's consistent with it would be an overstatement.

> That is not true. Inflation does not arise from interest alone, and you should know that.

That wasn't what he meant.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 1:29 PM  

@50

"If I loan you, a stranger, $10,000, that's money I could be buying land & cattle with, or planting crops with, but I can't...because you have it."

If loaning out the money is preventing you from doing what you need to do with it, such as buying feed for your cattle, then you have no business loaning it out in the first place.

Tell me, how many cattle went hungry because a midwest bank loaned out some money for someone to buy an over-priced house?

Blogger Nation-Deprived October 07, 2019 1:30 PM  

Then the only interest you would charge is inflation. I like that. You’re still only getting back the value that you lent out.

I’ve seen it argued that just paying the money over time instead of upfront is a justification for the lender to charge more than the actual value, and not simply for inflation.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:32 PM  

"I’ve seen it argued that just paying the money over time instead of upfront is a justification for the lender to charge more than the actual value, and not simply for inflation."

That makes no sense at all. It's the same argument just sliced up into smaller sections.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 1:33 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:

Do you need to use it? ... Do you actually need it back?



Yes. I need to use it.

Example: My family has plenty of food, but needs oranges eventually to avoid scurvy. We do not need oranges today, but we need them in the future. Another person needs food today, but does not have the money today. There is some flexibility with the time of use, but the need is very real.

Can I work later to purchase the oranges? Yes, but I have the money now, because of my past labor.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:33 PM  

"Yes. I need to use it."

So don't facking give it to someone else.

This is easy as shit. Come on....

Blogger xevious2030 October 07, 2019 1:34 PM  

“isn’t that still usury because you make a profit?”

Matthew 25: 18-30 14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. […] But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. […] His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away* even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:35 PM  

"Oh but he's hungry!"

Do you know him?

"Yes"

Then why charging interest.

"No"

Why are you retarded.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 1:35 PM  

dienw wrote:The Roman empire had public baths and even toilets in the bath houses with flowing water. I assume the Longer lasting eastern portion of the empire had the same. Civilizations older than Rome also had sewer systems.

Also, remember the ancient Israelites had baths.

After the fall of Rome the Roman Church banned public bathes as there was sexual immorality. Also, there arose a belief that washing one's flesh was unhealthy.

Dammit, dienw, two informed, intelligent comments, followed by two incredibly ignorant lies.
Public baths were NEVER outlawed by the Church. EVER. They were often preached against, on the basis that many were essentially brothels, but it had nothing to do with bathing.
It was not generally believed that bathing itself was unhealthy, but when you lose 60 or 70% of your population to the Black Death, as happened in many places in Europe, any place people congregate can become a locus for disease. The bathhouses survived the cruel Roman lash,and the zeal of the Reformers. They were killed by the Plague, and by the syphilis brought back from America by the Spanish.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 1:36 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> That is not true. Inflation does not arise from interest alone, and you should know that.

That wasn't what he meant.


I must have misunderstood, I apologize.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:36 PM  

"Matthew 25: 18-30 14"

God created all things, from him all things come and it is just that so they should return.

Is the moneylender God? Did he create you and the land and the harvest?

Blogger VD October 07, 2019 1:38 PM  

"There are plenty of situations where I would lend money, that were I to still have it, I would instead use it."

That's not how modern loans work. The way they really work is that the bank creates the money for the loan ex nihilo. Since it is the loan that creates the money, so you could not use it without the borrower taking out the loan from you.

Blogger VD October 07, 2019 1:41 PM  

I don't see how borrowing money is different from renting a house.

Borrowing money is no different from renting a house that does not exist.

Now do you understand?

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 1:42 PM  

> I must have misunderstood, I apologize.

De nada. We all make mistakes. He can go into more detail for you if he wants.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 07, 2019 1:43 PM  

Here's a scenario: I use my gold to buy 100 bushels of seed wheat, and loan the seed to a farmer. The deal is that he will pay me back the first 100 bushels of seed he harvests and 1% of any additional harvest. If the harvest is bad, I lose my seed and he loses his labor.

Change that scenario like this: I lend that gold to the farmer and he buys the seed. All else is the same. Is it morally different?

I say that who buys the seed doesn't change whether the farmer is getting screwed.

Azure Amaranthine wrote:So you're literally saying that money is also a tool for people with low time preference to exploit those with high time preference.

Money, and especially currency, is abstract enough that low IQ people are easily confused by it. Maybe that's why it's singled out for special treatment: because it is so easy to exploit dummies when money is involved.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:43 PM  

VD points out an even more obvious. Yes, banks are allowed to loan out more money than they actually have. Around ten times more if I remember correctly.

This is why banks fold. Eventually they get too lusty with the loans and loan out more than the combination of their base's faithfulness and faith in the bank can support.

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 1:45 PM  

Why should “time” be a reason for charging interest?

"Because otherwise people wouldn't lend" is a feature, not a counterargument. But let's tie this back to Aquinas.

Money's purpose is to facilitate exchange. That purpose is what Aquinas referred to when he said "things the use of which does not consist in their consumption." However, he did not realize that the act of exchange of money is a use which does not consist in its its consumption.

If I borrow money, perform a few dozen transactions, and then return it, I have gained value. I was able to use the money to do valuable things exactly like I would with a rented truck, without consuming the money.

Blogger xevious2030 October 07, 2019 1:46 PM  

The parable is about taking the gifts God gives, speaking in tongues, healing, and using them to increase the Body, even if you have to go to the Churchian building to “win souls” for God. Not to get the gift and fret about using it.

Even so, Jesus, God, gave the example, used the language Himself, to convey a deeper meaning. “Hath Xevious said” is not a winning argument. It’s a quote from God.

Blogger Jab Burrwalky October 07, 2019 1:46 PM  

Everyone who holds a checking, savings ataccount a bank or credit union. They are lending to the bank at about .2% interest.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:47 PM  

"Maybe that's why it's singled out for special treatment: because it is so easy to exploit dummies when money is involved."

That's exactly why it's singled out. They finagle until most people can't understand what's being talked about then get you to sign over your soul without you knowing. It's black magic or as Owen would say, wizardry. Smoke and mirrors and lies and theft and greed, no substance and no conscience.

Blogger Nathan Hornok October 07, 2019 1:47 PM  

Of all the transformational new ideas I've considered in the last year, the idea that usury is a poison that corrupts good capitalism is one of the most profound. Thanks for sharing this Vox. I first heard EMJ talking about the problems of usury, and since I take the Bible seriously, I immediately knew this was something that must force me to rethink and modify what I've learned from Sowell's books on economics.

Also Vox, or any other knowledgeable Austrian economists in this group, please explain to me (a guy who has read some books from Sowell and doesn't easily grasp all economic principles) why lending money at interest is bad (as usury) and yet it's also bad when the Fed drops interest rates too low. Is it because when the Fed sets interest rates, it is giving banks more ability to invent money out of thin air as usury to the non-banking entities (us people).

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 1:47 PM  

On a different track, Fiat currency gets its value from taxation, which is immoral. The government's various regulations on lending, borrowing, asset seizure and bankruptcy are mostly immoral to some extent. It's hard to disentangle the morality of interest from the immoral system in which it occurs.

Blogger Brett baker October 07, 2019 1:47 PM  

So you welcome our Indian, Chinese, and Islamic overlords?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:49 PM  

"I was able to use the money to do valuable things exactly like I would with a rented truck, without consuming the money."

No, you consumed it. Your labor, your wisdom, and finally the faithfullness of God saved your ass.

Blogger James Dixon October 07, 2019 1:51 PM  

> Around ten times more if I remember correctly.

I'm afraid it's far worse than that now. But good luck getting honest figures out of the system.

It looks like the current requirements are at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a57ba1f4d6261fe0ebc1459e89ee66f0&mc=true&node=se12.2.204_14&rgn=div8

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 1:51 PM  

VD wrote:That's not how modern loans work. The way they really work is that the bank creates the money for the loan ex nihilo. Since it is the loan that creates the money, so you could not use it without the borrower taking out the loan from you.

Absolutely, and I agree that modern loans are incredibly corrupt.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:52 PM  

"Even so, Jesus, God, gave the example, used the language Himself, to convey a deeper meaning. “Hath Xevious said” is not a winning argument. It’s a quote from God."

It's a quote from God about what is due God, not what is due the bank. This is not hard.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:53 PM  

"I'm afraid it's far worse than that now. But good luck getting honest figures out of the system."

True, that's just at one tier before the proceeds of that trickle down to the next for even further shell gaming.

Blogger Bobo #117 October 07, 2019 1:54 PM  

So none of you philosophical geniuses have ever borrowed money from a stranger (bank) to expand your business or take advantage of an opportunity?

If not, you're losers.
If so, you're hypocrites.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:54 PM  

"On a different track, Fiat currency gets its value from taxation, which is immoral."

What the f***? No. On all corners. No.

Fiat currency is "because I said so" of the locally significant monopoly of force. That is all.

Blogger rumpole5 October 07, 2019 1:56 PM  

I understand the criticism, but what is the alternative nonusury system. To my mind, the lending of money to the young, vigorous, and heathy to buy a starter house, a car, and a business is a positive thing for them and for society. If we don't have interest on the amount loaned, then how will the people providing the lending service be reimbursed for their time and effort? Perhaps we could limit loans to credit unions where members would loan to each other out of their accounts and fees paid to the member union? What do you propose to replace what we have now?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 1:56 PM  

"So none of you philosophical geniuses have ever borrowed money from a stranger (bank) to expand your business or take advantage of an opportunity?"

Not I.

"If not, you're losers."

You're a lying satanic scrub, and a willing victim to boot.

Blogger justaguy October 07, 2019 1:57 PM  

164: I would split fiat currency issues from usury issues. But then i haven't issues with interest lending but have issues with fiat currency. Above there is some combining of the two and it is hard to tell if the problem is "The system", the fiat currency, the banks, or actually the idea of time value of money. Usury, in my terms is interest lending recognizing the time value of money-- nothing more, nothing less. The regulation of banks, bankruptcy laws, etc are other problems the elites create.

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 1:59 PM  

"I was able to use the money to do valuable things exactly like I would with a rented truck, without consuming the money."

No, you consumed it. Your labor, your wisdom, and finally the faithfullness of God saved your ass.


I didn't consume the value of the money, any more than I consumed the truck when I handed it off to an employee to run errands.

It's certainly possible to borrow money, trade it for wine, and get drunk. It's also possible to borrow a truck, trade it for wine, get drunk, crash the truck and be in twice as much debt.

Your argument would lead me to believe it is the borrower who is at fault depending on how he uses the loan, not the lender.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 2:00 PM  

@121

"That is not true. Inflation does not arise from interest alone, and you should know that."

Interest is a necessary component of the inflation. Also, banks, so that money gets converted into an entry on a tally sheet before 10x or 20x more gets loaned out than what was deposited.

Interest is required for there to even be an incentive to enter into fractional reserve banking, unless the purpose is to get some deposits, and then preferentially loan to (((your fellow tribesmen))).

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 2:02 PM  

Fiat currency is "because I said so" of the locally significant monopoly of force. That is all.

Tell me, which government department requires you to use this Fiat currency?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:02 PM  

"I didn't consume the value of the money,"

You consumed the money. The value underwent transformation, and due to the three things I already said, came out the other side increased.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:05 PM  

"Interest is a necessary component of the inflation."

No. You know those little grooves on the edges of some coins? Know why they're traditional? It's only symbolism now, but they were invented in the first place for a reason.

"Tell me, which government department requires you to use this Fiat currency?"

Ours is kinder and gentler than most and only says that if you won't accept the currency then you don't have to be paid at all.

Unlike, say, Ghengis Khan who would decapitate you.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:06 PM  

What did you think "Legal tender for the discharge of..." meant?

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 2:07 PM  

@129

"There are plenty of situations where I would lend money, that were I to still have it, I would instead use it. If the price of what I would have used it for goes up over time, then you are competing for that money with the inflation of the item I'd like to purchase."

And the only reason that the price of most things goes up is due to the fact that fiat-money loans cause an expansion of the money supply. Some few things (primarily agricultural goods) have fluctuating prices. The prices of most goods decrease in the long-run, as less and less actual labor goes into creating them (which is to say, fewer people need to be supported to do the labor produce a ton of paper in one month today, than say, 300 years ago.)

Blogger steb October 07, 2019 2:07 PM  

Salt wrote:Jack has $1000 to use. He can turn that 1k into 1.5K over the next year on his own labor. Bill needs 1K now or wait a few years till he has it, but if he had it now he could turn it into 2.5K over the next year. So Bill goes to Jack and asks to be loaned 1K. Jack says I have only 1k and I need it to make 1.5K. So, what should Bill do?

Pay back Jack 1.5K, what Jack could have gotten, and have 1K himself he would not have but for Jack. Cost of getting today what he could not get without Jack.


Why wouldn't Bill use his own money to do whatever Jack was planning to use it for if it was such a sure fire return? Why is he limiting himself to only getting the 1.5?

The answer is that Jack's plan is risky - most of the time it will fail. So, instead of taking the risk himself, Bill lines up a hundred 'Jacks' and sets them all to work. That way he offloads all the risk to the loser Jacks and shares in the rewards of the lucky few. The end result is that the house always wins. The rich get richer, and capital increases inevitably.

Blogger Krymneth October 07, 2019 2:09 PM  

I don't think very many people have a clear understanding of the word "usury", and you can see at least three distinct definitions being used in this conversation.

Vox, which are you using?

Despite not being Catholic myself, i found the discussion at https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/ most convincing. For one, it eliminates the subjectivity of "excessive" interest by simply disregarding the interest entirely, and for another, I think it is easy to see how to extend the principles into today's modern financialized contacts that go far beyond mere interest on a loan, allowing one to label certain derivatives as "usury" in a meaningful, rather than merely slanderous, way. (Not that I mind the slander, but I still like something more objective if possible.)

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:10 PM  

"Interest is required for there to even be an incentive to enter into fractional reserve banking"

We got into it just fine without. It's just an incentive to keep the ball rolling longer.

Blogger VD October 07, 2019 2:10 PM  

To my mind, the lending of money to the young, vigorous, and heathy to buy a starter house, a car, and a business is a positive thing for them and for society.

That's because you're a Boomer and you don't understand the intrinsic Ponzi scheme.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:11 PM  

You got the names flipped, steb, but otherwise correct reasoning.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 2:17 PM  

@136

"Non-usary-ists:
Who here will loan me $10k? I'll return it next Oct."

Why should I loan you $10k?
Why should anybody here loan you 10k, even with interest?

@137

"Nobody forces person to take loan, he takes it willingly"


That is not true. The price of many durable goods have been goosed up ridiculously high due to lending. A house which costs $40k to build (land, permits, time, and materials) selling for $200k, primarily due to the interest providing incentives for banks to create as much fiat-currency as they possibly can.

And then you blame millenials for living in their parents' basements and not moving out of the house, because they're already $100k in debt from college, because even the coffee shop thinks that having a 4-year degree is a justifiable requirement for the ardous task of making coffee and serving it. An education which USED to be able to be financed on the income from a part-time job.

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 2:18 PM  

What did you think "Legal tender for the discharge of..." meant?

It means that if you provide a good or service, you can accept whatever form of payment you want and refuse to accept fiat currency, unless you are not payed at the time service is rendered. If you provide good such as trained goats with a later payment date, you have provided a loan, and the debt may be payed back by fiat currency even if you originally specified gold.

Furthermore, the price of the goats can be arbitrarily set by the seller; the price of the gold is set by a commodity market. Therefore the specific VALUE of the fiat currency does not derive from the *extremely rare* civil lawsuit scenario where the legal tender provision comes into play.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 2:19 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:The prices of most goods decrease in the long-run, as less and less actual labor goes into creating them

@183 Less labor increases supply, but population increases demand. Decrease in labor has diminishing returns, whereas population has exponential increase. As you know, the object of demand is fickle, but for those things that are necessary, inflation will occur naturally as population increases, independently of the systems you've described. Those systems only compound the problem many times.

Blogger maniacprovost October 07, 2019 2:20 PM  

even the coffee shop thinks that having a 4-year degree is a justifiable requirement for the ardous task of making coffee and serving it

To be fair, that's because Starbucks wants to discriminate and all other methods are illegal.

Also, gender studies grads need jobs.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 07, 2019 2:21 PM  

@148

"Yes. I need to use it."

Then if you need the money right now, WHY are you loaning it out?

Blogger xevious2030 October 07, 2019 2:21 PM  

“It's a quote from God about what is due God, not what is due the bank. This is not hard.”

That is a true statement, the part before the coma, for the deeper meaning. Now, what is the example God gave? God could have given any example. What are the words God used to tell the story, to relate the hidden understanding (parable)? “Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.” *And in another section of the Bible, it talks about driving certain exchangers (specific context) out, for a stated reason. What is the master in the parable? This as an aside to the practices going on today that are destructive and enslaving. Not an argument on that, at all.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:21 PM  

"And then you blame millenials for living in their parents' basements and not moving out of the house, because they're already $100k in debt from college, because even the coffee shop thinks that having a 4-year degree is a justifiable requirement for the ardous task of making coffee and serving it. An education which USED to be able to be financed on the income from a part-time job."

Excellent illustration, Dirk.

The harsh end of this sin is swinging around like a firehose in our economy, destroying market after market as they rupture by being tied into it in attempt to secure it. Once they're tied in it's just a matter of time before the next bubble and burst. Faster with each iteration unless another section of material value is tied in to momentarily satiate the black hole.

Blogger Up from the pond October 07, 2019 2:23 PM  

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be," was not said by a commie, but by Ben Franklin, an American Founding Father and successful businessman and inventor.

> Unlike, say, Ghengis Khan who would decapitate you.

Our government murders foreigners for refusing to adopt usury (and sodomy). Sometimes by decapitation. But it will try it here, too; it's already gearing up for it. The traditional enemy cannot tolerate resistance to its system of debt slavery.

Blogger Bible scholar October 07, 2019 2:24 PM  

"Interest is required for there to even be an incentive to enter into fractional reserve banking..."

"The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 07, 2019 2:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Beardy Bear October 07, 2019 2:26 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:Then if you need the money right now, WHY are you loaning it out?

I explained that. Read it again.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2019 2:27 PM  

A fiat currency system REQUIRES usury to keep from collapsing within a few years at most. c.f. Greenbacks. They are inextricably linked.

1 – 200 of 360 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts