[annalex]

This is related to a discussion I posted yesterday

Is capitalism Catholic? A priest defends free-market economics

This topic is extremely relevant to the financial crisis of four years ago, still very much with us. It is also relevant to the question of Catholic support of conservative causes, which as we can now be certain, is not automatic in the least.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

B.S.

Usury is just another name for interest that sounds evil.

The legitimacy of interest comes straight from the bible, with the master who left on a journey and left money in the care of his servants. The master tells the one who buried his in the ground that he should have at least invested it with the money changers so he could have gotten interest.

Money is a proxy for man's ability to produce. When you lend money, there is a chance you will never get it back. Interest is what compensates you for that risk.

Ann Barnhardt covers it beautifully in her videos on the coming collapse.

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.1 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.2 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.3 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.4 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.5 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.6 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.7 of 8

The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.8 of 8

[ClearCase_guy]

Belloc was a great thinker. He knew that we could not snap our fingers and make Interest disappear overnight. But he also saw that Interest was a concept that carried certain problems with it. My understanding is that the world today carries about $600T in debt because of derivatives and related instruments. That's wealth that has not really been earned, but it is wealth which is now owed. The situation is utterly unsustainable.

At some point, our civilization will have to think long and hard about economic truths. I believe that much of the 20th century has seen economics explored from a Marxist standpoint (look at Krugman. He's a Nobel prize winner). If the thinking is skewed from the outset, it makes it hard to see clearly where the discipline has gone wrong.

I think that as we move into the 21st century it will become more and more clear that we have gone wrong, and then we will have to really think about a better way to run the marketplace.

[chesley]

Now let us suppose that man comes to you and says: "I know the case of a man in middle age who has been suddenly stricken with a terrible ailment. Medical aid costing £1,000 will save his life, but he will never be able to do any more work. He has an annuity of £100 a year to keep him alive after the operation and subsequent treatment. Will you lend the £I,000? It will be paid back to you on his death, for his life has been insured in a lump payment for the amount of £I,000." You answer: "I will lend £1,000 to save his life, but I shall require of him half his annuity, that is £50 a year, for every year he may live henceforward; and he must scrape along as best he can on the remaining £50 of his annuity." That answer would make you feel a cad if you have any susceptibilities left, and if you have not-----having already become a cad through the action of what the poet has called "the soul's long dues of hardening and decay"-----it would be a caddish action all the same, though you might not be disturbed by it.

Yet the man could die, way before the loan was repaid, and the lender would lose his money. Interest is the reward for taking a risk. But I agree that in many cases the collecting on such outlandish loans would be immoral or impossible. That's why it's a risk

[rigelkentaurus]

Belloc is wrong, completely. In the premise, he makes the claim that Interest is evil.

So Christ using a parable in Matthew 25 is using evil to make his point? Really? Is that what this “catholic” believes?

Quoting from the Bible “you wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scatter no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents....”

Interest is moral and necessary for an economy to function. Storing money is the same as storing labor. Loaning out money entails risk. Risk from inflation, risk from default. And this moron thinks the compensation for this risk should be zero? This guy is a fool.

[Amberdawn]

Apparently, our gubermint and Federal Reserve feel the same way....

[golux]

A highly detailed examination of a perfectly subjective idea: that the lender is not only culpable if his dollars are ill-employed by the borrower, he is also guilty if payments on the loan - what is it? - "wears down or drains" the borrower?

The lender is guilty if there is a default by the borrower.

The lender is guilty if the borrower is stressed.

The lender is guilty if the borrower agrees to terms the borrower later deems unfair.

And what is the faith, invariably, of this guilty, guilty lender of whom we speak? Hmm?

[Mercat]

One of Shakespeare’s best plays is The Merchant of Venice. Today it is seen as a horrible anti-semitic work. I never thought too much about it until I read Through Shakespeare’s Eyes by Joseph Pearce. It is his thesis that it was not anti-semitic but instead was anti-usury. Shylock was an evil man. His being Jewish was only important because in the time and place, only Jews were able to loan money at interest. The loan he made for those who forget the terms, was that unless it was paid back in full at the specific time, he could claim a pound of flesh from the debtor. Wonderful play. I recommend it. It is difficult to ignore the slanders at Jews. The other part is the insistence on conversion. The state insisting on the terms of conversion is, IMHO, very evil. I’m sure that there’s a level in hell assigned to that sort of evil (I’m reading the Divine Comedy so I’ll have to think about that). I’m babbling. Anyway, read it and enjoy The Merchant of Venice. It’s very Catholic. Oh, and btw, Shylock is not the Merchant, Antonio is.

[aimhigh]

Interesting article. I found it interesting that the author appealed to Islamic scriptures, but never mentioned the Bible. Here are a few passages:

If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. Lev 25:35-37

Then I said, “What you are doing is not good. Should you not walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the nations, our enemies? I also, with my brethren and my servants, am lending them money and grain. Please, let us stop this usury! Restore now to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their olive groves, and their houses, also a hundredth of the money and the grain, the new wine and the oil, that you have charged them.” Nehemiah 5:5-11

Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill?
He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, . . .
He who does not put out his money at usury, . . Psalm 15:1-5

In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me,” says the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 22:12

[Arthur McGowan]

I have a ten-dollar bill.

You may have the ten-dollar bill right now.

Or, you may have it one year from now.

Do you choose to take the $10 now, or in one year?

Is there some additional sum I can offer to give you that will induce you to take the $10 a year from now? E.g., an additional dollar?

This is the one and only reason there is interest.

All the stuff about “productive loans” and “non-productive loans” is irrelevant. So is anything to do with the Reformation, or Catholicism, or the Bible, or gold, or silver, or feudalism, or capitalism, or class struggle, or Jews.

[Arthur McGowan]

All that the story of the goldsmith and the five-percent-per annum loan proves is that the goldsmith was stupid to agree to pay that much interest.