critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve

[ymu]

My old uni is considered better than oxford at a lot of subjects, as are some of the former polytechnics like Loughborough etc. On the whole though it is a massive privilege to go there.

There's no doubt that it is a massive privilege, nor that it helps with getting good jobs. I just dispute the quality of the education. As you say, you have to look at individual universities for the course to say which is best. Oxford Brookes (poly back then) was clearly superior for computing - I used to go there because they only allowed engineering students access to computers at Oxford whereas Oxford Poly had a whole lab that anyone could use. Hatfield Poly was streets ahead for anything business-related at the time too.

 

[J Ed]

If you mention zionism it's a magic get out of racism free card.

Not just a get out of racism free card, I think it's also a get out of doing anything for the people you purport to represent free card too. An increasing number of so-called left-wingers are more than happy to wrap themselves in the Palestinian flag to ensure their left-wing credentials while voting through neoliberal legislation.

 

[phildwyer]

So was Calvin. He was well into usury infact.

No, he was not "well into usury," you idiot.

 

[TruXta]

No, he was not "well into usury," you idiot.

Calvin was certainly fine with interest. As we do nowadays, he distinguished between socially acceptable interest and usury, defined as unacceptably high interest.

Thus, he developed the seven criteria (“exceptions” in French; “restrictions” in English – a kind of qualifying exception) as a guideline to charging interest (Calvin, Johannes: Corpus Reformatorum C.R. vol. 38/l, p. 248f.):

“The first restriction is that you are not allowed to charge interest from the poor and that nobody may be forced to pay interest when being in a plight or visited with misfortune.

The second restriction is that anybody who lends money should neither be so anxious about profit that he neglects his duties, nor should he – by safely investing his money – disrespect his poor brothers.

The third restriction is that in case of an interest-bearing loan one should not allow anything to interfere that would not correspond to natural understanding (what is naturally just and proper). And if the matter is checked according the rules of Christ, i.e. what you want others to do for you etc., then it should be considered as generally valid.

The fourth restriction is that whoever borrows should profit as much or even more from the borrowed money (than the creditor).

Fifth, we should neither judge according the usual and traditional customs (concerning the charging of interests) what we are allowed to do, nor measure injustices against what is right and proper; much rather should we draw our behavior from the word of God.

Sixth, we should not only consider the personal benefit of those with whom we have to deal with, but also should we take into account what may be in the public interest and serve the community as a whole. Because it is manifest that the interest paid by the merchant equals a public attainment. Therefore, great care has to be taken to make the agreement serve the public good more than it may damage it.

Seventh, one should not overstep the limits set by the local or regional laws, although this is not always enough, as they often allow what cannot be amended or restricted by law. Hence, one needs to give preference to what is just and proper under the circumstances and restrict whatever may go beyond.”

http://www.christophstueckelberger.ch/dokumente_e/calvinzins.htm

 

[phildwyer]

Oxford Brookes (poly back then) was clearly superior for computing

A better class of servant too as I recall eh what?

 

[frogwoman]

Not just a get out of racism free card, I think it's also a get out of doing anything for the people you purport to represent free card too. An increasing number of so-called left-wingers are more than happy to wrap themselves in the Palestinian flag to ensure their left-wing credentials while voting through neoliberal legislation.

Exactly.

 

[phildwyer]

Calvin was certainly fine with interest.

No, he was not "fine with interest."

He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.

 

[frogwoman]

i think you're talking bollocks again because usury existed well before the capitalist era.

 

[Delroy Booth]

No, he was not "well into usury," you idiot.

You can call me names all you like, fact of the matter is you're demonstrably wrong, and I'm right. This statement here

But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has everywhere, and at all times, universally been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion

Is as wrong as saying 2 + 2 = 5. I just picked Calvinism because it's the most obvious one, had I the time or effort to go into more detail I reckon you could find dozens of historical examples to prove how wrong you are.

Just like you were wrong about how capitalism "gone passed" industrial wage-slavery, you're wrong about this. And your response is to call me an idiot?

I think witless abuse is the last refuge of the bullshit-artist.

 

[TruXta]

No, he was not "fine with interest."

He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.

So you deny that he distinguishes between acceptable interest and unacceptable usury? Keep on diggin that hole, fuckface.

 

[Delroy Booth]

No, he was not "fine with interest."

He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.

So, in other words, he was in favour of usury? Which is odd coz you said that usury had been "condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when in actual fact Calvinist protestantism didn't share this view whatsoever.

 

[TruXta]

So, in other words, he was in favour of usury? Which is odd coz you said that usury had been "condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when in actual fact Calvinist protestantism didn't share this view whatsoever.

It's a bit more complex than that, as Calvin wasn't exactly positive about money-lending as a whole. He did see the value of using interest-bearing loans as a means of furthering business, but was strongly opposed to lending to the poor at interest.

 

[Delroy Booth]

It's a bit more complex than that, as Calvin wasn't exactly positive about money-lending as a whole. He did see the value of using interest-bearing loans as a means of furthering business, but was strongly opposed to lending to the poor at interest.

Yeah I don't doubt for a second, what I'm disputing is this sentence - "and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when infact, no, that isn't the case, some major religious groups were quite happy to reconcile themselves to interest/usury as long as there were safeguards against the poor being exploited. Such as Calvinism.

We'll just wait for Jazzz, sorry Phil, to accept he was wrong and retract that, then we'll have a more nuanced discussion about theology and calvinism, where these things can be discussed properly.

 

[TruXta]

Yeah I don't doubt for a second, what I'm disputing is this sentence - "and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when infact, no, that isn't the case, some major religious groups were quite happy to reconcile themselves to interest/usury as long as there were safeguards against the poor being exploited. Such as Calvinism.

We'll just wait for Jazzz, sorry Phil, to accept he was wrong and retract that, then we'll have a more nuanced discussion about theology and calvinism, where these things can be discussed properly.

Prepare for a long wait.

 

[frogwoman]

Now that he's banned from the thread we shouldn't have long.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Prepare for a long wait.

It's ok I can just keep myself busy looking at the many other factual mistakes Phils' made during this thread and doing the same with them. Well until my mate comes and picks me up that is.

 

[Delroy Booth]

No it doesn't, it says you're wrong. (I take it you accidently erased a 1 there).

So Mr. Webster says it's 'archaic' does he? Now, why would he say that I wonder? I bet he's dashed glad it's 'archaic' too.

It's not archaic, I'm using it now. And number 2 says you're wrong too.

This is good one for some semantic quibbling I'll just bump this and leave it on the page to mull over later....

 

[phildwyer]

Thirteen minutes.

That's right. Just thirteen, sweaty-fingered, Google-packed, Wiki-racking minutes is all it took to get Truxta from here:

Calvin was certainly fine with interest.

To here:

It's a bit more complex than that, as Calvin wasn't exactly positive about money-lending as a whole.

Surely that must be some kind of record?

 

[TruXta]

Thirteen minutes.

That's right. Just thirteen, sweaty-fingered, Google-packed, Wiki-racking minutes is all it took to get Truxta from here:



To here:



Surely that must be some kind of record?

You forget to take some kind of medicine or something? You're banned from this thread. Fuckwit.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Compare and contrast these two historical sources:

A

But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has everywhere, and at all times, universally been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion (Judaism very much included), and condemned on rational grounds by every major philosopher up to and of course including K. Marx. There are excellent reasons for that, as we are now learning.

B

He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.

Now according to exhibit A, every major religion (everywhere, at all times, universally etc) has condemed usury on ethical grounds. And yet in exhibit B Phil claims Calvinist christianity from about the mid 17th Century onwards "reluctantly rationalised limited usury as regrettably inevitable" that is to say, they thought usury was fine in specific circumstances.

Now which is it to be Phil? A or B? They can't both be right. You can say "every world religion ever condemns usury no exceptions" and then say "Ok but the Calvinists accepted usury, but that doesn't count, coz they were secretly against it deep down in their hearts" because you're contradicting yourself.

By the way feel free to call me some more names if you're too much of a coward to reply. I could do with a laugh

 

[phildwyer]

Compare and contrast these two historical sources:

A


B


Now according to exhibit A, every major religion (everywhere, at all times, universally etc) has condemed usury on ethical grounds. And yet in exhibit B Phil claims Calvinist christianity from about the mid 17th Century onwards "reluctantly rationalised limited usury as regrettably inevitable" that is to say, they thought usury was fine in specific circumstances.

Now which is it to be Phil? A or B? They can't both be right. You can say "every world religion ever condemns usury no exceptions" and then say "Ok but the Calvinists accepted usury, but that doesn't count, coz they were secretly against it deep down in their hearts" because you're contradicting yourself.

By the way feel free to call me some more names if you're too much of a coward to reply. I could do with a laugh

Alright alright, I'll respond seriously.

Usury/capitalism has been universally condemned everywhere and at all times except in the modern West. What I'm drawing attention to is precisely the modern West's anomalous position in this regard. For some reason, doubtless connected to usury's unprecedented power, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of our ancestors on this subject.

Calvin reluctantly began the long process of rationalizing usury at the beginning of the modern, capitalist era. He was followed, very gradually at first, by others--Salmasius, Franklin, Mill--who went tiny steps further. And today of course usury is not only rationalized but glorified, and certainly not subject to ethical criticism.

But that really, truly is a situation unique to the modern world.

 

[TruXta]

Conveniently forgetting about China and the Confucians, phil?

 

[frogwoman]

Alright alright, I'll respond seriously.

Usury/capitalism has been universally condemned everywhere and at all times

no it hasn't.

why did people take part in usury phil?

And usury is not capitalism for the last time.

except in the modern West.

What I'm drawing attention to is precisely the modern West's anomalous position in this regard. For some reason, doubtless connected to usury's unprecedented power, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of our ancestors on this subject.

Calvin reluctantly began the long process of rationalizing usury at the beginning of the modern, capitalist era. He was followed, very gradually at first, by others--Salmasius, Franklin, Mill--who went tiny steps further. And today of course usury is not only rationalized but glorified, and certainly not subject to ethical criticism.

But that really, truly is a situation unique to the modern world.

it is subject to ethical criticism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/19/banking-royal-bank-scotlandgroup

 

[phildwyer]

Conveniently forgetting about China and the Confucians, phil?

I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA.

Do you have "payday loans" over there yet? Do you know what interest rates they (quite legally) charge?

If you'd told anyone from the ancient, medieval or early modern worlds that shit was ever going to be legal, let alone ethically sanctioned, they would have literally burned you at the stake.

Do you understand why usury should be illegal? It's because, to the extent that it is legal, all power rapidly accrues to usurers.

I know, I know... you think that's a ridiculous notion, it could never happen etc. Or maybe you even think it wouldn't matter if it did happen? I wonder how much longer you, or anyone else, is going to think that...

 

[TruXta]

I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA.

Do you have "payday loans" over there yet? Do you know what interest rates they (quite legally) charge?

If you'd told anyone from the ancient, medieval or early modern worlds that shit was ever going to be legal, let alone ethically sanctioned, they would have literally burned you at the stake.

Funny how loaning out money at interest has been ongoing for so long then. All over the world.

 

[frogwoman]

So I was right all along. When I think about usury, apart from the other obvious connotations , payday loans and that are what I think about in a modern context.

And it was tolerated in many periods of history. Otherwise (for example) there wouldn't have been any money changers for Jesus to throw out for example

 

[Idris2002]

I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA.

Do you have "payday loans" over there yet? Do you know what interest rates they (quite legally) charge?

If you'd told anyone from the ancient, medieval or early modern worlds that shit was ever going to be legal, let alone ethically sanctioned, they would have literally burned you at the stake.

In socieities based on (ancient) slavery, feudalism, or the lineage mode of production, exploitation occurred directly at the point of production, when surpluses were extracted at the point of a sword. Hence there was no need to resort to exotic accounting procedures to ensure the exploitative appropriation of surplus, and it was no problem at all for those societies to ignore or condemn usury.

 

[Random]

In socieities based on (ancient) slavery, feudalism, or the lineage mode of production, exploitation occurred directly at the point of production, when surpluses were extracted at the point of a sword. Hence there was no need to resort to exotic accounting procedures to ensure the exploitative appropriation of surplus, and it was no problem at all for those societies to ignore or condemn usury.

Cash and a money economy were a tiny small part of the real economy

 

[phildwyer]

In socieities based on (ancient) slavery, feudalism, or the lineage mode of production, exploitation occurred directly at the point of production, when surpluses were extracted at the point of a sword. Hence there was no need to resort to exotic accounting procedures to ensure the exploitative appropriation of surplus, and it was no problem at all for those societies to ignore or condemn usury.

That's right.

It's a massive problem for us though.

 

[phildwyer]

Cash and a money economy were a tiny small part of the real economy

Usury precedes both cash and a money economy.