[sitetest]

Dear Mrs. Don-o,

Although I understand the author's intention, this isn't a very good explication of the points he's trying to make.

As an example, he doesn't really seem to understand the “change” in the Church's view of usury.

Usury is still a sin. And at one time, charging interest on loans was generally usurious.

The issues of interest/usury revolve around the social and economic development of society, changing the nature of money, and the development of capitalism. In a pre-capitalist society, charging interest is almost intrinsically usurious. In a capitalist society, it isn't. Those who lived before the development of capitalism might not have even been able to imagine non-usurious charging of interest on money.

sitetest

[Mrs. Don-o]

I unerstand what you're saying, and I, too, was surprised (unpleasaty) by Zmirak's neglect of that point. In pre-capitalist days, practically the only reason to borrow money was because you had some calamity --- your barn burned down - your horse had a broken leg--- you had a crop failure --- and in those cases the good people of the community were supposed to loan you the money interst-free, or even give you the money, until you were back on your feet.

A neighbr who responded to your barn-brning by lendng you money at interes, would be seen --- in custom and in law --- as an exploiter, not a member of "the community" at all.

In contrast to this, societies where calamities are most covered by insurance, and borrowing is the usual means of capital-accumulation for a profitable business venture, lending at interest is not usury.

But usury still exists. I wish we had better guidance on what is, and what isn't, usury, and why.