Posted on 12/02/2012 11:35:39 AM PST by annalex
The examples of “unproductive loans” are of people who are actually in need of charity. If you ask me for a loan to pay for a cure for a disease, without any expectation of any repayment before your death, fundamentally you are asking for a gift. I might predecease you.If you want to make this case against interest, you can start from the premise that being rich is morally suspect - and go from there to the fact that - in comparison with the people of 2000 years ago, the typical American is rich. An American secretary today could be ill-served to accept the circumstances of Queen Victoria (1820-1901)! When you consider the superior medical treatment available to today’s secretary and her family, and the vastly superior ability to travel, etc, that is a believable assertion. So there is a case to be made that we are all of us rich.Another factor in the equation is the modern bankruptcy law; it’s not as if people were being thrown into debtor’s prison “til thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”
But I have to say, having recently read
- Freedom's Forge:
- How American Business Produced Victory in World War II
Arthur Hermanthat to whatever extent the US was liberal with British debt from WWI, it was an advantage to us going into WWII. Because in fact, the British spent “the uttermost farthing” in the US during the period after the start of WWII in Europe (9/39) and before US entry at the bombing of Pearl Harbor (12/7/41). The expenditure of that money then was used to make materiel for Britain but also, signally, to build infrastructure for true mass production of weaponry after Pearl Harbor. It was because of that that America, while having little in the way of inventory of military aircraft upon entry into the war, was able to build about 50,000 military aircraft in 1942. And to produce so much war materiel after that, that the decision to scale back war production could be taken well before V-E day.
Yes, the Christians are in good company on that: the Jews and the Muslims all agree on this: usury is immoral. After the mortgage default swaps and other recent perversities we can also say that it is destructive to the economy.
Quoting myself from the post 37 to which you are responding:
If the lender takes risks, -- which is not the example on hand, but surely a possibility, -- perhaps he should not lend the money at all, or lend it and suffer the risk. But he may not ask interest of a man who will not be able to work and increase the wealth. That would be usury.
what are his obligations to the man, period
The lender, like all of us is called to voluntary charity but beyond that he has no obligation whatsoever to the sick man in the example.
most of the world is either not Christian or only nominally so
Indeed, but this does not make usury right, or any other vice: adultery, drunkenness, etc. A good public policy would discourage all of these.
Yes, the Jews dominated usury trade as their religion did not apply the prohibition on usury to usury against non-Jews, and they often suffered both for that and for sundry unjust reasons. However, to lend money for a church or some other public building is by definition not usury as the loan is productive, so your example does not apply.
Well, that is probably true but it is neither here or there for this topic, since no one is arguing about any particular rate of legitimate lending, high or low.
It normally is, but not if borrowing is of necessity. See quote and a link at post 52. If you follow the link, you'll find an example of a burglary victim cooperating with the burglar, -- that burglary is a sin does not make the victim culpable.
In the solemn warnings G-d gives Israel He tells them that one of the rewards of obedience is that they will lend and not borrow, but one of the punishments for disobedience is that they will borrow and not lend.
See post #67 above.
Yes, I knew that. The lessons of Nehemiah 5:5-11, Psalms 15:1-5, Ezekiel 22:12, kindly provided by Aimhigh, could not be read otherwise. Wouldn’t it point to the fact that usurious lending is problematic also without regard to the religion of the borrower, and generally not in the borrower’s interest?
As stated above, the permission to lend to non-Jews at interest is stated explicitly. To efface this would be to subtract from the Torah.
As also stated, Jews lending to the nations at interest is a sign of G-d's favor (that they have been obedient). When Jews have to borrow from the nations is a sign of G-d's displeasure. Why would interest be implicitly condemned for non-Jews when Jews lending to them is explicitly stated to be a blessing from G-d?
It isn’t here nor there? It’s an article about the supposed “sinfulness” of usury (read interest) charged on lending.
It is, perhaps, a blessing to Jews, yes, however you would strengthen your case if you point to the Torah permitting is as such, and not to commentaries.
The point Belloc is making is that it is not a blessing to the
national economy and should be avoided as such.
Don't read interest, read the article.
Don’t make assumptions, read my response.
It [interest rates are held artificially LOW] isn’t here nor there? It’s an article about the supposed “sinfulness” of usury (read interest) charged on lending.
, made an incorrect factual statement about the article. In the article we read:
What are the conditions distinguishing a demand for payment of interest which is legitimate in morals from a demand which is illegitimate?The distinction lies between a demand for part of the product of a productive loan, which is moral, and the immoral demand for either (1) interest on an unproductive loan, or (2) interest greater than the annual increment in real wealth which a productive loan creates.
In short, charging an interest isn't always sinful; it is sinful when it is usurious, that is, charged on a n unproductive loan or in excess of the productive upside. A low interest rate may still be usurious. A high interest rate may be moral and proper. When a rate is held artificially low, it is a crime against the free market to be sure, but it is irrelevant in discussions about usury. The rate amount is neither here or there when discussing this article.
Shorter still, read the article, then comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.